The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, but feel free to continue the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox organization)). |jurisdiction= corresponds to |region=. Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redundancy insufficiently explained. No attempt made to inform interested editors of deletion discussion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demonstration of redundancy. I've notified the creator, and a notice is shown on every page that transcludes the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notice is in the template, so it doesn't come up on a watchlist unless you are actually watching the template. On reflection, it's a bit of a dud, but it needs expanding rather than deleting. I don't believe anything has changed since this last came up for discussion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would it be expanded with? Alakzi (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I think it would be nice to have more unique things in the Grand Lodge Infobox, I don't believe that region is the same as jurisdiction. Region implies an area, like New England, but jurisdiction has a stronger implication, and binding to authority. Ahwiv (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also |region_served=, which displays "Region served". A consensus could also emerge to add |jurisdiction= to ((Infobox organization)), if you were to even begin to consider a replacement. Alakzi (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • region_served sounds like the exclusive area for a franchise, like McDonalds - not jurisdiction. Grand Lodges are not a franchise. Ahwiv (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grand Lodges do not have "jurisdiction", either; this use of the term is specific to freemasonry. "Region served" is very apt, I find, and will be understood by those of us not versed in freemasonry. Alakzi (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regional information is good, and information on alignment (for want of a better word) - whether the GL is male, female, or mixed membership, and if the practice is traditional Anglo-American, traditional Continental, Liberal, or Memphis-Misraim. This would help correct a slight systemic bias towards the male Anglo lodges who like to pretend that they own Freemasonry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not redundant to organization; it is in fact a more specialized version of it. Grand Lodges have jurisdictions that may or may not be constrained by geography, as many GLs have Lodges in other countries, UGLE and GOdF being examples in each stream. If we need updates, we should have multiple region tags, and the alignment idea is really good too. Conversely, I've reverted an edit to the template to add Grand Masters by name. The majority of them fall under WP:NN/WP:BLP1E, and it's not easily trackable information. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should change the doc. The update was solely to make the Template match the documentation. Ahwiv (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alakzi already did that, and did a very good job of overall cleanup. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly troubled by a red-linked example, but the other example, UGLE, currently has |jurisdiction=England, wth no mention of other countries. It's not clear from your comment, why |region=England is not an acceptable alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the late reply, I didn't have this page wl'ed. All Grand Lodges claim jurisdiction over their own subordinate Lodges, even if they are in other countries. UGLE is actually a good example of why we need expansion lines in that template item, and why region doesn't do it - there are UGLE Lodges all over the world, and they aren't under the jurisdiction of those countries' Grand Lodges. South Africa is a good example of that, and many of the Commonwealth Countries also have multiple Grand Lodges present (generally England, Ireland, and Scotland, plus the home GL). In those three cases, I'd probably just link the external link to their page for it, but in other cases it's also important informationally - GLNY has a Lodge in Irag, GL Texas apparently (and entirely legitimately sourcably) claimed the Moon, and GL Connecticut had a Lodge in Japan (and GL Massachusetts still does, as does the GL of the Phillipines), so it better reflects the actual character of reality to not limit to a "region". MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suppose the English grand lodge is your run-of-the-mill organisation: it's headquartered someplace in England (|headquarters=) and has branches in several other places (|region=). Why can the jurisdiction not be simply absorbed into |region=? It could even be reworded so that it makes sense to laypeople, e.g. |region=Presides over England; also has lodges in X, Y and Z. We should do something about this whole country/location/jurisdiction conundrum regardless of whether the infobox is deleted. Alakzi (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: The "X,Y,Z" could get very long in some cases, and sometimes it's hard to get an exhaustive list, but that's a small item. I'm just not convinced "region" is going to be a clear enough term. I'd much prefer "jurisdiction", because it's more accurate - a Lodge under a certain jurisdiction can be in another country, but that Grand Lodge doesn't claim every Lodge in the country. A definition of jurisdiction is "the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments", and that's exactly what we're dealing with here. It's not 100% governance over any and all Lodges in a given area (which is what I think of with "region", only those that are chartered under that Grand Lodge's Constitution. So I suppose it's a matter of precision here.MSJapan (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm concerned that just using region will cause just that sort of confusion.

• @MSJapan: This infobox isn't used for lodges. What does |jurisdiction=England actually mean, if anything? Alakzi (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alakzi:The field list countries where Lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge are located. It is not the same as claiming jurisdiction over all Lodges in England. MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we're going around in circles. Whatever subtlety there is to "jurisdiction" is lost on me. Alakzi (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as redundant. Only a few (if any) parameters needed to be merged into ((Infobox organization)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now, I could see merging this with ((infobox organization)), but this is not a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Samuel L. Jackson sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous consensus on these type of sidebars. This is redundant to the main article with only three links that are all contained on main page and thus this template should be deleted. Cowlibob (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the rest of these sidebars for actors were deleted, this one just fell through the cracks LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Lady Lotus. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and per precedent Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 April 27. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pan Celtic Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A hodge-podge of song contests, Celtic nations, Irish counties, Irish towns, 44 contest years, none of which has an article or ever will, 44 winners of whom only nine have articles, the Eurovision portal and more. Even the parent article is a potential candidate for AfD. Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is clearly a case of I don't like it especially after the nominator demonstrated it in this edit summary. I had also checked with an admin about whether a navbox would be needed for Pan Celtic Festival in which they said "seems like a good idea to me". And to say the main article itself is a candidate for AfD. Sounds a bit petty and threatening. The parent article is currently a GA nominee. The festival falls under Project EUrovision scope. The Welsh show Can I Gymru is the selection for the Welsh participant for PCF. And there are plenty of sources to produce annual articles for each of the events, so that this navbox will be transcluded across more articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, obviously I wouldn't nominate it if I did like it, but I have given solid reasons for my nomination, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. The festival, as a festival, has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so the parent article fails WP:GNG. Simply nominating it for GA doesn't make it a good article. My remark was neither threatening nor petty. This is petty. Scolaire (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it the parent article clearly fulfils WP:GEOSCOPE which states "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". The event has been taking place every year since 1971, for the Celtic nations - which is a regional aspect, as well as a societal group. Thus the parent article is presumed to be notable. There are loads of reliable independent sources that have covered the event, including BBC News and Eurovoix.com, plus Irish and other Celtic nation's press websites that have also covered the event. The template, even if it does only contain a only few links, is what's up for debate here and now. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete. This is a collection of links many degrees removed from the parent article; it falls short of all of WP:NAVBOX's recommendations, bar one. Specifically: the articles within the template do not relate to a single coherent subject; the subject is mentioned in none of the articles; the articles do not refer to each other, at all; and we'd want to list probably none of them in each one's "See also" section. Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Alakzi. Far too unwieldy to be of use. It should also be noted that navboxes are not meant to be list articles - some of the sections in this one have few or no links to other articles. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above, too broad to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The overwhelming majority of the content of this navbox is unlinked text -- that's not the purpose of a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As template creator, I am changing my vote! from keep to speedy delete. The template perhaps is a case of too much, too soon. There are only a few other articles linking from it, and they can easily be accessible from the main article. However, some of the other articles don't seem to mention their links with the festival, and perhaps now that there are sources to verify on the PCF article, then maybe it would be idealogical to make reference on the other articles about their connections with the Pan Celtic Festival. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by MelanieN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Volunteer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused gibberish template. I can't see any sense or purpose in it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.