Talk:Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple

Freemasonry Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

United States: Iowa Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability?

Unfortunately, being a big and impressive looking building is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia. We need a) a statement as to what makes the building notable... and b) sources that support that statement. The building's website says it is on the register, which would be enough... but we need confirmation. Note... I am not saying that I think this building isn't notable... I am saying that we have not properly established that it is notable, or given readers an indication of what makes it notable. Assuming it is notable, surely there are reliable sources that discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

Huh... according to the building's website here the "official name" of the building is the "Scottish Rite Masonic Center". This is probably a recent re-naming since it still says "Scottish Rite Temple" in big letters on the front of the building. Not sure if we want to re-title the article or not. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH... according to the Gazette article (I found a copy on line) the name "Scottish Rite Temple" is out of date... it has been "officially" renamed to Masonic Center (although the Gazette does not use that name).

I have also added the fact that the building is listed in the NRHP under yet another name: Consistory Building No. 2 (the "Consistory" is what the Scottish Rite calls the last grouping of its degrees... I think it includes the 30th - 32nd degrees, but don't quote me on that)... which makes my previous question on notability moot. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... to generate discussion, and see if we can reach a consensus, I will start a formal move request. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple → Scottish Rite Masonic Center (Cedar Rapids) — Building has been re-named. According to an article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette {on-line copy here), the name "Scottish Rite Temple" is obsolete. The local Scottish Rite chapter's website confirms new name. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care particularly. But, a long-used name can be used for a wikipedia article title and can be the best, most common name. A recent name-change announced by an organization doesn't necessarily change the name in most common usage. It can take some time to see if the common usage actually changes. Offhand, I would mildly prefer leaving the article at the current name, unless and until there is more evidence of name change or someone local advocating for it to be changed.

And, if a name is changed to one requiring a disambiguating parenthetical phrase, it should be (City, State) format rather than (City), for U.S. places, to conform with general usage in Wikipedia. For example, see all the "Masonic Temple (City, State)" entries in List of Masonic buildings. --do ncr am 18:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No reason to move, in fact it's completely contrary to our normal policy and practice. See Wikipedia:official names for some explanation and interpretation of the well-established rules. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... WP:Official names is an essay, and not policy (the policy is at WP:Article titles)... But it does raise a good point: We need to look at sources other than the building's website, to see if any one else uses the new name. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... what did you expect? I said for some explanation and interpretation of the well-established rules. For the rules themselves, simply follow the links which the page gives. The advantage of the essay is it focusses on this particular issue. Having a separate policy page for it would be instruction creep (to cite another essay) and probably not all that helpful. Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at Google News to see what news sources call the building... There isn't a lot to go with. Obviously, any news articles from before the building changed it's "offical name" used the name "Scottish Rite Temple". The question is whether the news papers picked up on the "official" change once it occurred (I am not sure of the exact date, but it seems to have been within the last year or so).

For the period after the name change took place, I have found a grand total of one article that even mentions the building (in the The Cedar Rapids Gazette) it used "Masonic Center". However, I would agree that one article is not enough to indicate a change in common usage (or a lack of change for that matter). Thus, I think this is a case where we will have to wait for more data... I suspect that the new name is likely to become common usage, but it isn't common usage YET.

Therefore... I have to re-evaluate my move request. Once we have more sources that use the new name, then we can revisit the the idea of moving the article. Until then, a move request is premature, and we should leave the article at the old name.

Address ?

I raised the question on some other talk page (I forgot which one) about the various names and differences between this article and the NRHP. Those issues were addressed. However there still seems to be an issue with the address, The lede says one thing, the infobox (which I changed when adding the picture) states what was in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Iowa and the List of Masonic Buildings. I do know some buildings can have more than one address so maybe someone with more knowledge can sort this out.
--RifeIdeas Talk 22:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Rite's website uses the 616 A Avenue address... which (I think) matches the NRHP's address. I think we should go with that (and have edited accordingly). Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]