Talk:F.&A.M.

This redirect 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

◆ 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

Merge?

I do not think that this page is going to be able to grow any further than the dicionary definition stub that it is... While it may be useful to explain what these initials stand for, I think it this could be achieved in a one line explanation at the main Freemasonry article. I therefor propose a merge and redirect to Freemasonry. Blueboar 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge for reasons by Blueboar. Bridgeplayer 16:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freemasonry is already huge, how about Masonic Lodge instead? Bryan Derksen 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - Masonic Lodge would be an appropriate target. Feeeshboy 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't object to merging with Masonic Lodge... I think merging with the main Freemasony article would be more appropriate. The initials are used by Freemasonry in general and not just individual lodges. As for length... please... an addition of one sentence is all you need to explain what the initials stand for. It won't significantly add length to the main article. Blueboar 12:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "two sentences, one for each article", but nah, you're right, it's the same sentence really. So yeah, merge to Freemasonry, & if it evolves from there split it then. Grye 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with eachother

It appears to be consensus, at least for the pro-mergers, that they be merged together. The merge tags say to merge into Freemasonry, so basically that's a second merger.

Grye 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging F.&A.M. & A.F.&A.M.

There's discussion on this subject in 3 different places: Talk:F.&A.M., Talk:A.F.&A.M., & Talk:Freemasonry#F.&A.M. and A.F.&A.M. articles. Isn't one of the points of a project page to have a singular place for discussion spanning multiple articles in the same project?

So, can we move this there: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Merging F.&A.M. & A.F.&A.M.?

yaknow...

This article is one sentence long. the talk page is eight. Can we just move it? Grye 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do.Blueboar 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker & all, I blobbed something here:Freemasonry#History. If that's OK, & we can think about adding & growing something in, say, Regular Masonic jurisdictions#History &/or in Masonic Lodge#Organization, can we speedydelete tag these two articles now? Grye 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the blob in Freemasonry#History is all we need... but I have no objections to also having similar stuff at the other articles. Redirect rather than speedydelete? Blueboar 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]