Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Masonic buildings. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Israel

An editor added an entry for the Israeli Supreme Court building in this edit, which i reverted for now. It included a link to a Wikipedia article on the supreme court building that does not support a Masonic association at all, and no outside reliable source. Even if there is some association which can be established, the building should not be included in this list unless it is quite a significant association. The building was built to be the supreme court building, apparently. --do ncr am 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

please fix NRIS references in related articles

A while back, Blueboar, you embarked on an editing campaign to change the NRIS references in articles linked from this list articles, and changed 20 or so before agreeing to stop. That was covered in Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 6#NRIS references in Masonic buildings articles. Would you please now go and fix those? --do ncr am 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The ones needing fixing now include at least the following ones, from Blueboars contribution history at that time:

# 14:23, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Mount Moriah Masonic Lodge No. 18 ‎ (cite same source, but without link to long dead website)
# 14:23, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Knob School-Masonic Lodge ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:22, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Hampton Masonic Lodge Building ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:21, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Fort Smith Masonic Temple ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:20, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Russellville Masonic Temple ‎ (same source, but without the dead link)
# 14:19, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Pine Bluff, Arkansas) ‎ (changed citation - same source but without the dead link)
# 14:18, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (El Dorado, Arkansas) ‎ (Changed citation - cite database as if in hard copy, since linked website is dead)
# 14:17, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Lee's Chapel Church and Masonic Hall ‎ (Changed citation - cited as if database is hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:16, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Chester Masonic Lodge and Community Building ‎ (Changed citation - cite database as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:15, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Yell Masonic Lodge Hall ‎ (Changed citation - cited database as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:13, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Bradford City Hall-Byers Masonic Lodge ‎ (Changed citation - cited as if database were in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:12, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Farmers and Merchants Bank-Masonic Lodge ‎ (Change to citation... cited as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:11, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Yuma, Arizona) ‎ (Changed citation - linked website is dead, but database itself is still valid)
# 14:09, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Hall (Wickenburg, Arizona) ‎ (Changed citation... cited as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:07, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Polly Rosenbaum Building ‎ (Change citation... cited as if hard copy database since link is dead)
# 14:06, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Joseph T. Smitherman Historic Building ‎ (Change citation... cited as if hard copy since link is dead)
# 14:04, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Scottish Rite Temple (Mobile, Alabama) ‎ (Change citation as if hard copy... since linked website is dead)
# 14:03, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Crane Hill Masonic Lodge ‎ (cite in hard copy since link is dead)
# 14:02, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) West End Masonic Temple ‎ (cite in hard copy since link is down)
# 14:01, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Fairbanks, Alaska) ‎ (Link in hard copy, since website is down)

Would you please fix all of these to the standard NRIS reference which has since been rolled out? --do ncr am 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the new standard NRIS reference? (I have lost track) Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the one that appears in all other NRHP-listed places linked in this, including Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple where you have been editing recently. The bot changed the reference in all pre-existing articles except the ones you had changed to non-standard form. New articles with infobox from the Elkman system come in with the reference. Thanks. --do ncr am 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

To spell it out more clearly for Blueboar, the new standard NRIS reference is what resulted from discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 48#Please change the standard citation to omit the link. To fix the items you changed, you should go to the article, figure out which version of NRIS was in fact the source that had been used (i.e. look at the NRIS reference date in the version before you changed the article), and replace what you put in by:

<ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2009a}}</ref> if date=2009-03-13 appeared in what u replaced, or
<ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2008a}}</ref> if date=2008-04-15 appeared in what u replaced, or
<ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2008b}}</ref> if date=2008-04-24 appeared in what u replaced, or
<ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2007b}}</ref> if date=2008-06-30 appeared in what u replaced, or
check for other version numbers at template:NRISref

This would restore a valid reference describing the source that was actually used in developing the article. For the older dates, an alternative would be for you to update the NRHP information using the March 2009 NRIS data, and show that.

The bot run did all such replacements for all 25,000 or so other NRIS references in wikipedia already. --do ncr am 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK... I will give it a shot. I'm busy on other things right at the moment, so please be patient. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, could you please give an update about this? This is a ping to keep this item from being deleted. --do ncr am 20:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry it took me so long to get to this... it was not a priority. In any case, done. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes a building "Masonic"?

We talked about this before, but never reached a clear consensus. What makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious choice would be to define it as any building used or constructed by any group which self-identifies as "Masonic". Otherwise, we'd be likely to get into controversies, and I assume there are many, about who is a "real Mason," and probably have to end up siding with one sub-group or another. Specifically, as I understand it there is an African-American group that identifies itself as Masonic. How could we possibly rule them out and say their buildings are "not Masonic"? Smallbones (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the "real mason" thing... but that has nothing to do with my question. I am focused on the building, not the brand of Masonry associated with it.

I have to question your definition as being overly broad. Let me give you a fairly typical example to explain why ... Suppose that in 1853, a Masonic lodge wants a new place to meet (their original building is too small)... as it happens there is a former church for sale that would be ideal, so the lodge buys it and converts it into a meeting hall. The lodge meets in this building from 1850 to 1910 and then sells it (ie they move out). Over the subsequent years the building goes through several more owners and uses... at one point it is used as an art gallery, then a restaurant, and it is currently used as a bed and breakfast. Should we list this building? Is it really a "Masonic" building? It was not built for them... and while the Masons did use it for a significant chunk of time (almost 60 years), the Masons have not met in the building in over a hundred years (far longer than the period of time when they did meet there). So... is it really appropriate to say that this is a "Masonic" building? Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me give another typical scenario... in 1925 the Masons want a new meeting hall... it happens that one of the brothers wants to open a hardware store... so they agree to split the cost of construction and share the building... the ground floor will be used by the hardware store and the floor above it will be used by the lodge. Is this building a "Masonic" building or a "Commercial" building (a store)? I suppose one could say it is both... but what if the lodge subsequently moves out? Is it still a "Masonic" building? Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

[EC with Blueboar's refactoring of his comment] As a survivor of discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings and Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5#Preference for Neo-Classical? and Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5#Misrepresentation of sources and Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5#Inclusion andTalk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5#Claimed as "Masonic" and Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5#Sources for connection to Freemasonry, to name just a few of the past discussions, I think that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community not to reopen this issue. That means it is best to treat the scope of this list broadly -- as a list of buildings that are verifiably associated in some way with freemasonry, whether or not that association is deemed significant by active Freemasons. This means that it should include both current or historical associations and associations with all groups that are identified as "masonic" (not just with those who are deemed to be "True" Freemasons). However, it should not include buildings that are called "masonic" based solely on someone's perception that they are masonic in their architectural style. --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree - any fine distinctions are likely to result in more hassle than they are worth. Verifiability, of course, is not a fine distinction but a basic principle of the project. Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am asking difficult questions, but I really think we need to reach a consensus on this. I have a serious problem with such a broad definition. It seems too close to Original Research... essentially everyone is saying "I know a Masonic Building when I see one"... and that just isn't good enough.

After the previous discussions that Orlady points us to, I let the issue rest for a while ... but I have been thinking about it ever since then, and I still feel strongly that the current criteria of "associated in some way with Freemasonry" is simply too broad. I am not at all sure what the criteria should be (which is why I am asking)... but whatever it is, it does need to be something that is a bit more concrete than "A lodge met in the building for a period of time". And it should be sourced based (that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work after all). Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK... in an attempt to make a positive suggestion, rather than just engage in debate... I agree that sources are the key to inclusion... I think that we need sources that do more than just verify that there is some sort of "association" between the building and Masonry. What I would like to see are sources that indicate that the association has some significance, and ideally sources that tell us what that significance actually is. Does this make sense? Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To better explain why this continues bother me, let me make an analogy that has nothing to do with Freemasonry... Suppose I created an article entitled List of Episcopal Church buildings, and included St. Thomas More's Church (New York City) on the list. (Some History... that building was originally built in 1870 as an Episcopal Church. In 1929, the the building was sold to the Dutch Reform Church... and in 1950 it was sold to the Catholic Church who use it today) Now... two questions... a) Do you think the building should be included in List of Episcopal Church buildings? b) Can you at least understand why people might at least question its inclusion? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, recent experiences at CFD revealed a widespread view within Wikipedia that the church's building is the only aspect of a church that can ever possibly be notable. I don't happen to subscribe to that view, but I mention it because I suspect there would be a lot of support for listing that building in a "List of Episcopal church buildings". More likely, though, it would be included in a List of former Episcopal church buildings in New York, based on Category:Former Episcopal churches in New York. I am not personally interested in such a list, but I wouldn't object to its creation. I would not feel very good, however, about including that building in "List of Episcopal churches", because a "church" is not the same thing as a church building -- just as a Masonic lodge (or other Masonic organization) is not the same thing as a Masonic building. Try to remember that this is a list of buildings, and it is clear that it is not a list of Masonic organizations. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct in saying that there would be support for listing St. Thomas More as a former Episcopal Church building. If we could make that distinction with Masonic buildings I would be a lot happier... at least some of my concerns would be resolved.

I am not sure why you keep thinking I am discussing Masonic organizations ... I am talking about the buildings... as buildings... I am asking for a clearer definition of what makes a building a "Masonic building" as opposed to (say) a hotel, an apartment complex, an art gallery or a Church building? Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking the question in a different way

Actually, we have gotten away from what I intended when I first asked "What makes a building Masonic?"... what I probably should have asked is: "What are the common attributes of a 'Masonic' building?" Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to answer in a different way. My answer is "who cares?" (i.e., it doesn't matter). The earlier discussions established for me that "masonic buildings" have no particular significance in Freemasonry, although there are a few such buildings that are important to Masons, Additionally, however, the discussions established that "masonic buildings" are widely recognized within society at large. Accordingly, there is some value in having a list of buildings that are considered to be "masonic buildings," just as there is some value in various other lists in Category:Lists of buildings and structures (grain elevators, revolving restaurants, YMCA buildings, etc.). Having established that (1) there is no deep significance to the concept of a "masonic building") and (2) the general topic of "masonic buildings" is deemed by many people (including published sources) to be notable, it seems clear to me that the topic needs an article but it's OK for the definition of the topic to be ill-defined. My bottom line: It doesn't matter. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the topic should have an article... I am now focused on improving the article by better defining the terms we use in that article. You say that "Masonic buildings" are widely recognized within society at large... OK... HOW are they recognized by society at large?

All grain elevators share certain common attributes. These attributes are what allow society at large to identify the structure as being a grain elevator. All revolving restaurants share certain common attributes. These attributes are what allow society at large to identify the building as being a revolving restaurant... so ... what are the attributes common to all Masonic buildings that allow society at large to identify a particular building as being a Masonic building? Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure about those other lists being all that different from this one. For example, Reading Company Grain Elevator now contains offices and penthouse apartments; it hasn't been a grain elevator in more than 50 years. Prairie Elevator Museum is a grain elevator that is now a tea house. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would say that as far as the public is concerned, Masonic buildings are recognized as such by being called such. Otherwise, architecture style varies based on period, and any "identifying marks" aren't necessarily present. However, such buildings are purpose-built, so we also need to decide if a building is still a "Masonic building" on this list if it is no longer used as such. It also cannot simply be a meeting place - especially in the earliest jurisdictions (England, Ireland, Scotland, and the 13 colonies in particular), the lodges met in taverns, which would not belong on this list. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Even the Goose and Gridiron, MSJ? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not call the Goose and Gridiron a "Masonic building"... I would call it a "Tavern". The fact that Masons met there was secondary to its primary purpose. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this for a definition:

A building that was either purpose built or structurally altered for the specific (but not necessarily exclusive) purpose of holding Masonic meetings"?

If we went with this definition, we would probably end up removing very few of the buildings we currently include.

The question of "is it still a Masonic building" could be dealt with by distinguishing "current" from "former" in some way (for example... a) we could have separate lists... b) In the existing lists each country/state section could be sub-divided into two sub-sections, one for "current" another for "former" Masonic buildings... c) (and this is probably the easiest) put in a new column where we would note "current" or "former". Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest specifying that Masons must have either purpose-built the building, owned it outright without a mortgage, or used it for a period of at least 3 years, 364 days, and 23 hours, but I'm not going to do that because it occurs to me that you might take me seriously. I was going to suggest that to point out the absurdly bureaucratic nature of this proposal to deal with something that truly doesn't matter. This is a list of buildings, not an article about a topic that is significant to Freemasonry. In view of the irrelevance of buildings within Freemasonry (and to make it easier not to worry about this list), I suggest that the Freemasonry WikiProject downgrade the "importance" of this list from "high" to "low." --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Orlady, you should be well aware by this point in time that a lot of the issues are the result of pushing by Doncram, and we are at the point now where we've either got to clean this up or get rid if it. The latter is not likely, so we are left with the former. For that reason, we need to decide what belongs here and what doesn't. Let's put it this way: I could think of criteria to get 4000+ entries on this list by being as broad as possible, and not one of those buildings would necessarily be of any value to this list. So I simply want to a see a useful list, and to do that, we need some parameters. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying something "doesn't matter" to people who obvious think it does matter is not the best way to reach an amicable resolution to a dispute. Blueboar (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My point in saying that "it doesn't matter" is that this is a list of buildings, and buildings are not (as I understand it) of any particular relevance in the scope of Freemasonry. If you can remind yourself that buildings "don't matter" to Freemasonry and that this list-article is about buildings and not about a topic in Freemasonry, then you should be able to decide that the list "doesn't matter" and you will be able to cease being annoyed by it. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The question for me isn't whether a given building is significant to Freemasonry... the question is whether Freemasonry is significant to a given building... and (if so) how is Freemasonry significant to the building? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I could add quite a few purpose built buildings still in use as masonic centres to this list, but I struggle around the "notable" idea.. is the list one of masonic buildings, or notable masonic buildings ? I note Blueboars comment The question for me isn't whether a given building is significant to Freemasonry... the question is whether Freemasonry is significant to a given building... which makes inclusion more clear - but is that the consensus here ? Further keeping in mind I am not going to run off and create articles for entries.... I am genuinely looking for some guidance here.. Thanks :) Melbournemason (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a list of notable masonic buildings. The question we have been dealing with is "notable for what exactly?" In many cases, what makes the building notable has nothing to do with any association with Freemasonry... the building may be notable because it was built by a famous architect, or notable because some historic person lived there prior to the Masons owning it. In some cases, the building was sold by the lodge that built it and became notable for something that occurred after they sold it. So we are trying to iron out all the details. (Note: the debate is happening here, but it really should be taking place at the sub-article List of Masonic buildings in the United States... that is where the bulk of the questionable material is.) Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, these are notable buildings. In some cases, the notability is related to Freemasonry, but in other cases it is not. Inclusion in a Wikipedia list article does not necessarily mean that the entity is notable for the attribute that causes it to be on the list. I'll illustrate this with a couple of extreme examples: None of the people listed on List of bow tie wearers and List of people who adopted matronymic surnames are notable because they wear bow ties or because they have matronymic surnames; all are notable for some other reason. Another example more similar to this one is List of breast cancer patients by survival status -- everyone on that list is notable, some are notable because they had breast cancer, but most are notable for some other reason, and the list exists because the intersection of notability and having breast cancer is of some encyclopedic interest. Similarly, every building on this list is notable for some reason or another; only some are notable in connection Freemasonry, but the intersection of "notable building" and "freemasonry" is of some encyclopedic interest. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady. Following that logic - this is not a list of "Notable masonic buidings" but a list "Notable Buildings used or strongly associated with Freemasonry". Blueboar says In some cases, the building was sold by the lodge that built it and became notable for something that occurred after they sold it. In such a case the buildings notabilty might not be related to Freemasonry - hence should they be on the list (watches more worms come out of the can...) I dont know a lot about wikipedias policies, but the opening of the artilce says it is a List of Masonic buildings identifies notable buildings around the world that were constructed by Masonic bodies, were converted to Masonic purposes by the fraternity, or that have some other strong association with Freemasonry., would changing that to List of Masonic buildings identifies ~~notable~~ buildings around the world that were constructed by Masonic bodies, were converted to Masonic purposes by the fraternity, or that have some other strong association with Freemasonry. - after all, if they are tuely notable - they would all have their own article ? I would assume this is not a index of wikipedia articles - just a list where the standard of inclusion is lower than when creating stand alone articles, but also bearing in mind verifiable sources need to be noted? Another way would be to define the purpose of the list- doing so might give newer users like me more clarity on adding to it.... Melbournemason (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, Lets look at two examples (in all cases we can imply the word "notable")- Start with List of buildings with mansard roofs. In this example, we have a clear definition (we know what a "mansard roof" actually is). More to the point, we can agree that mansard roofs are a significant characteristic as far as buildings go. This would be a very valid list article. Now for the other example... List of green painted buildings. Again, we have a clear definition (we know what "green painted buildings" are)... but, I think we would all agree that paint color is a trivial characteristic as far as buildings go. This would not make a valid list article.

Now compare those potential lists with this one... I think we fall between these two extremes... but are we closer to the first or the second?. I would say that at the moment we closer to the latter... We have an unclear definition of what a "Masonic building" actually is... and more to the point, an association with the Freemasons is often (but not always) a trivial characteristic as far as buildings go.

However... we can fix this. If we can agree on a definition of what "Masonic" actually means, and establish the circumstances under which being "Masonic" is significant as far as buildings go, then the situation changes and we would be closer to the "mansard roof" example. That's what I am trying to accomplish. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is tricky, but I love a good allegory :) I suggested List of Masonic buildings identifies ~~notable~~ buildings around the world that were constructed by Masonic bodies, were converted to Masonic purposes by the fraternity, or that have some other strong association with Freemasonry. - that does not work for you ? If it does, and the group accepts it, then it is open season to add to the list, if not, the notable becomes critical and wouldnt we just fall back on Wikipedias established "notability" guidelines and hence the problem is solved (and the list will stay shorter that it otherwise could be ?

Requiring the items listed to be Notable is fairly standard for list articles on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria. If we allowed every building that was ever constructed or converted by the Freemasons to be listed, the list would be HUGE... there are hundreds of thousands of lodge buildings in the United States alone. We can't list them all. From a policy stand-point doing so would boarder on a WP:NOT#Directory violation. Add in the "associated with Freemasonry" and it really becomes unwieldy... you could include any building that the Masons dedicated with a cornerstone laying (the US Capital, the Statue of Liberty, every lock on the Erie Canal, etc. etc.), you could include the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (based on the alleged Templar association), Trinity Church in New York (based on the Movie "National Treasure")... I could go on. No, we definitely want to limit this list to notable buildings. But... the question is... is this enough? I really think we need to limit this to buildings that are notable because of a connection to Freemasonry. Buildings where the connection to Freemasonry is more than just a trivial happenstance. If a building is notable because it is a prime example of the Neo-Federalist architectural style, or if it is notable because it was the home of the town's founder ... then the fact that the local lodge converted it a meeting hall,met there from 1920-1975, and then sold it to a clothing store is essentially irrelevant trivia. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Would a Page move be solution?

The sticking point may be the use of the adjectival term "Masonic", which implies a direct connection between the building and the Masons... it is this direct connection that needs to be defined... but what if we avoided that term? If we really want this to be a list of any building that has some sort of broad association to Freemasonry, Perhaps we should rename the article to: List of notable buildings associated with Freemasonry? Then we are no longer implying any direct connection between the building and the Masons, and there is no need to define what we mean by "Masonic", and there would be much more flexibility in what we can add or not add. The criteria for inclusion would be simple: a) establish that the building is notable ... b) establish that there is an association with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It might work, but it'll be messy. Avoiding the problem means being intentionally vague, but being intentionally vague will end up including at least eight notable taverns (and that's just in London and Boston), every Grand Lodge building (and technically every iteration thereof), several churches, the US Capitol Building (and any other building that ever had a cornerstone ceremony), the George Washington National Monument, the Masonic Medical Research Lab, both Royal Masonic Institutes, several GL museums and libraries, various Masonic homes, every Shriners Hospital, and very likely a slew of things I can't name off the top of my head.

In short, I'm not sure how we solve the problem and maintain a useful article as opposed to a crufty list. This has been our fundamental (and unanswered) question for almost two years (see this same question in Archive 1 from 2010). Now it isn't that the topic is not notable, and the information we have is verifiable, but the issue we have is the connection between the material. My thought is that if the connection is faulty or vague, what we really have is not a list, but something that falls into NOTDIRECTORY, because many of these buildings are already only tenuously related in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the various Historic Building Register projects (especially the NRHP project) do not see such a list as being crufty. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia

I see everything except Brisbane is gone. I came in here to look one up in Melbourne, deleted. Collingwood Masonic center - certainly notable, certainly notable enough for Open Houses Melbourne to include it, local heritage register, own web site, backlinked from several notable masonic blogs etc... It is purpose built and in 2 years, will be the last surviving masonic building in or close to the CBD Melbourne as Dallas Brooks Hall (that article has also been deleted, but at least the article on the man (a Victorian Governor ) is still there). then Ivalda is deleted - the only Scottish Rite Cathedral in Melbourne. Dallas Brooks hall is one of only 2 significant surviving brutalist strip architecture examples left in Australia - the other being in the National Library in Canberra. The oldest building in Victoria, also gone. There will always be a discussion on what is "significant" but I'm sure the entire continent of Australia has more than 1 significant Masonic Building . I see the American list is huge, but there is no "National Heritage Register" like that is the States. We only have a handful of entries http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage/heritage-places/national-heritage-list

If I come back and add buildings, will they be deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.230.82 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I too am puzzled about the multiple deletions, when I arrived to add a Queensland one or two. ~~I think that a photo of a striking Brisbane one is kept, while its entry in the list is deleted.~~ I just began to restore and add, but see another editor is edit conflicting right away.

Please allow me to edit the Australia section without interruption briefly, and then discuss. I will mark the section "Under construction". --do ncr am 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have re-removed Freemasons Hotel (Toodyay)... I can not find any sources that say a Masonic lodge ever met in the building. If there is such... add it back. In the mean time, please don't assume a building belongs on the list just because it has the word "Freemasons" in its name.

I have changed the link for United Grand Lodge of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory to Sydney Masonic Center... the actual name of the building according to the library website. There were several problem here... one was that the GL NSW article (which was linked) is about the Grand Lodge as an organization and does not even mention the building. It may be that the building is noteworthy and should be mentioned (or even have its own article)... but currently it isn't, and there is no article that discusses the building. To show good faith, I have provided a red-link to the correct name.

I have moved Urwin's Store to the "Former Masonic Buildings" section, since the lodge that once met there moved out in 1924

It would help if people did a little research before adding things to the list. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, thank you for offering at my Talk page to allow me to complete my editing. However your further edits since then are interrupting again. I see from your comment and your edits that you wish to distinguish buildings currently in use vs. not in use. Yes, I see that. One problem is that the current status of each building is not known. Another problem is that readers may be better served, and Australian and other editors may prefer, to have the info organized geographically. I certainly find it easier to review the Australia material organized by state, in one place. Note my use, intended to be temporary, of template "reflist-talk" to keep the Australia-relevant references together with the material. Please allow me to complete some editing of the Australian material this way.
Already you have intervened again. Contrary to your edit summary, use of the reflist-talk does not cause duplication of references. Putting the references together with the material will facilitate discussion, okay?
Also, from your edits you appear to have strong opinions about facts about many of these Australia items. You have noted some issues or questions above. Those can each be discussed of course. (I must say I find it implausible that there is no Masonic association with a notable building named "Freemason's Hotel", however!) I hope to get input of Australian editors about any issues, and perhaps we could best proceed by one state at a time. There is one editor who is expert on historic sites in Queensland who I could invite here. Please let us plan to discuss content with reference to sources, and please allow the discussion to take place on the material organized together, so that each state's information is not split, to facilitate reasonable discussion. Perhaps using some dispute resolution methods like getting a third opinion will help, if the content issues, or the way to discuss content issues, cannot be simply addressed here.
I may be being interrupted, may have to get back to this later, may not respond further now. I would like to try to address questions you have raised and further develop the Australian material in other ways. I suppose you can revert all (but why?) and then I will restore it again later and proceed further. Please don't reorganize and then make small edits, as the small edits' contributions would be lost when I must revert back to the organization that I believe will work best for discussion. --do ncr am 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Doncram... It's easy enough to find out if a building is currently used by a Masonic lodge or not. It's not like the Freemasons keep their locations secret. Most Grand Lodges maintain published lists of currently active lodges and their locations. You can also try a search on google to see if the local lodge has a website that gives its address.

Question... What is so special about the buildings in Australia that they need their own special section?... why can't they be listed the same way as all the ones in other countries? Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, you did not respond to my request at 13:11, 16 July. Could you please respond as to whether you agree that the Australia material may be edited and have content reviewed in one by-state-organized section. Numerous edit conflicts caused me to lose changes that I had composed, by your edits interrupting and deleting material, so I do receive the message that my contributions are not welcomed by you.

Also I specifically asked that you not make small content changes in the midst of my editing, because the changes would be lost each time I have to go back to the last version edited by me (because you reverted/reorganized again and again).

I have stopped editing and removed the Under Construction template.

About Australia, the sources about historic buildings are by State historic registers and vary considerably by state. It seems grouping geographically makes sense. It is not salient whether a Masonic Lodge is meeting at a given building. As a practical matter for editors, it is not feasible to edit at two very faraway sections when adding material from state-organized sources. And it is not practical for readers interested in one area to read, either. The overall organization of this list-system, splitting first on a characteristic that is minor and sometimes not determinable and is changing, does not make sense to me. You are clearly adamant. So, let's agree that there is an issue there. I expect that an RFC and big discussion will be needed to settle it. Can we defer that, though.. Before launching an RFC about how to organize all this, before trying to involve numerous others, I would appreciate if you and I could try to settle lesser issues on the Australia content. I don't want to be embarrassed by having uninvolved editors arrive into a confusing, changing situation. Can we isolate and address all other issues, so there is a stable situation where a single question can be put to the larger community. --do ncr am 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you are done (for now). I have reviewed the additions and most look good. A few have been moved to the "former masonic buildings" section... I still have questions about the Freemasons Hotel (see below).

As to formatting... Why should Australia be given its own level two header and separated from the other nations listed? I agree that it helps to organize the Australian buildings by their state ... but we can do that by using lower level sub-sections.

As for dividing the list into two, and separating current Masonic buildings from former Masonic buildings... yes, I suppose I am fairly adamant about that. We have had this conversation before in regards to the Masonic buildings in the US. My concerns are the same hear as they were there. Usage for Masonic purposes is what defines a "Masonic building", and distinguishes it from a commercial building, or a church, or a factory. If a building is no longer used for Masonic purposes, especially if it is no longer even owned by the Masons, it ceases to be a "Masonic building". In many ways this is similar to a church that is sold by its denomination and turned into something else (like a night club). It is no longer a church... it becomes a "former church".

Looking to the future... What I would envision is that, as this list grows, we can hive the "former" section off to its own list article (as we did with List of Masonic buildings in the United States and List of former Masonic buildings in the United States)... but for now the section in this list is not long enough to warrant that. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Please do continue to add to the list... If you can determine the current/former status, place it in the appropriate section. If you can't determine the current/former status... I don't mind if you add it to the relevant "current" sub-section... I can follow along and shift things around as necessary. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't/won't determine the "current/former status" for all items. I believe doing so for all items world-wide is infeasible, and that attempting to classify them all ensures that one or both lists are inaccurate. All items are Masonic buildings; the requirement to be in this list article is whether a building is Masonic or not. In fact the split of the U.S. Masonic buildings into a "List of Masonic buildings" and a "List of former Masonic buildings" doesn't make sense. All items in both of those lists are Masonic buildings, so the list(s) are miss-named. (They could perhaps be named "A list of selected Masonic buildings" and "A second list of selected Masonic buildings"?) I doubt that all the Masonic buildings in the first list have Mason meetings going on right now, vs. all the Masonic buildings in the second not having Mason meetings going on. What about the Masonic buildings that are not meetingplaces: the hospitals, retirement homes, an occasional chapel or two, etc. The first U.S. list's introduction states that all the buildings in its list are "current" meetinghalls, while all the buildings in the second list are "former" meetinghalls. Do you mean for there to be three separate lists? I don't think your decision some time ago to split the U.S. list was according to any wide consensus. There is no other type of building whose lists are split that way, out of all the lists of Elks lodges, IOOF halls, churches, etc. in the United States. I don't dispute your right to have some discussion about whether the Masonic buildings, out of all buildings, are special in some way that they are best divided differently than all others. But I don't agree with the non-geographic approach and don't see it worked out in any consistent way. I am not going to make three lists when that is not done anywhere else, and I am not willing to make two lists where the definitions/naming don't make sense in addition to the practical difficulties.

So anyhow, for now, I will continue to add to the Australia list, but want it together in one place for practical reasons as well as the above principle/theory reasons. How about we indicate with symbols which might tentatively be classified as "former" vs. "current" vs. "neither", for now, for practical reasons until we're ready for some bigger discussion. That would keep the info you seem to want to keep indicating, and also allow for practical development. Okay, can we consider that as a working compromise? --do ncr am 12:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I would treat the hospitals and chapels and schools the same way I would treat the meeting halls... if they were built by the Masons as part of their charitable efforts (ie for Masonic purposes), then they qualify as a "Masonic building". However... whether they are current or former Masonic Buildings depends on whether they are a) still owned and operated by the Masons... or b) are still being used for their original purpose.

Let's compare to another scenario... suppose a building was originally built by the Acme Train Company to manufacture locomotives, it subsequently gets sold to the Smith Motor Company and is converted into a corporate headquarters (in other words Smith re-purposes it as an office building without changing the facade) ... Now let us assume that the building is subsequently sold again... and the new owners re-purpose the building completely and turn into an apartment building. It's not a factory or an "office building" any more, much less a locomotive factory or an automobile company headquarters. Now... suppose we had a List of locomotive factories or a List of Automobile company buildings... is it appropriate to add this building to those lists? Perhaps... but only if you prominently note that the connection is of a historical nature. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of having someone point me to WP:Other stuff exists ... I note we have a List of former hotels in Manhattan. Buildings can change their function... and a change in function can and does affect how (or whether) we include them in various list articles. Just as a building can shift from being a hotel to being a former hotel... then a building can shift from being Masonic building to being a former Masonic building. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Australia items where Masonicness is questioned

Freemason's Hotel

This one definitely needs a source to establish that it qualifies as a Masonic building and belongs on the list. Having read the article on the building, it was originally called the Newcastle Hotel, and had an attached pub called the "Freemason's Tavern" (perhaps in an attempt to gain the business of freemasons). Apparently there was confusion with another hotel named "Newcastle Hotel" ... so the owner adopted the name of the pub and the building became "Freemason's Hotel". It's possible that there is a more direct tie... but it does not look like there is. So I have to challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, how about we use a different symbol about that one, to indicate that its Masonicness is questioned, for now, until this is ready to involve persons who would know better and/or until the information can be better determined. Again I doubt there is no association with Masons for this one. Or we could keep a running list here. --do ncr am 12:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And again, I would be surprised if there is any association. I am willing to keep a running list of "possible" Masonic buildings here on the talk page (pending confirmation of an actual masonic connection)... but per WP:NOR and WP:V, we should not put something in an article based on the speculation that it might have a masonic connection. We need verification. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks I guess, and I will agree, on terms that you seem to agree to, that you will not simply delete items where there is some question, but rather move them to the Talk page, at least, for further discussion. There have been too many items simply deleted, turning off contributors such as the person who sees the deletions as essentially random and who opened this discussion section about Australia. I understand that speculation about items being invalid has proven wrong for all but one of numerous (4 or 5 or more?) Australia items simply deleted by previous edits over the last year or two. --do ncr am 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is one the Australia item which I agree to remove for discussion, for which dispute on validity has not yet been proven wrong. I have now removed from the Western Australia subsection:

Freemasons Hotel (Toodyay), Toodyay, Western Australia

pending further information. --do ncr am 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Format?

Now that this list is beginning to grow, I am wondering if makes sense to format it as a chart... the way we did at List of Masonic buildings in the United States. It would require a lot of initial work... but once set up it would let us organize the information about these buildings easily. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on Australia

I restored the article to the last version edited by Kerry Raymond, restoring various additions and links created by that editor, who I believe is, relatively speaking, the local editor most informed about masonic buildings in Australia. The modifications including deletions and de-linking of perfectly valid redlinks were not justified. Please consider any one of them contested, by me. So there was Bold deletions going on, then i Reverted those, then Discuss to some consensus here rather than edit war in the article, please. (Also, in the edit, I restored the one Alberta, Canada entry, which is a museum open to the public, which had been removed with an edit summary suggesting it is not a notable item. Note: in wikipedia editing, it is established that virtually all museums open to the public are wikipedia-notable. It would be absurd to suggest that this one, amongst all in Wikipedia, is not notable.) I think the most important thing here is to encourage and support development of the Australian content, which is already substantially adding to the comprehensiveness and quality of this list-article. Do let's continue to develop the area. --do ncr am 00:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In one or two cases, we removed Australian entries because they either did not have sources to show that the building actually was listed in an Australian heritage register. As has been consensus for a long time, inclusion in this list (as it is in the US specific list) is in part based on some form of heritage/landmark status... show that the building has that status and the building is welcome to be returned.

In one or two cases, there was no article about the building. if it is indeed notable, that should be easy to fix.

Regarding the current vs former use issue. We have been over this issue repeatedly. I know your view (You think that any building ever used by the Masons should be put on the list, regardless of whether they still use it or not). You know my view (that a building that is is no longer used by the Masons should be removed from the list - because it is no longer a Masonic building)... We reached what I had hoped was a compromise position by including them, but breaking the list into two sections. In a list entitled "Masonic buildings", the reader should be informed whether the "Masonic-ness" of the building is current or historical.

That said... we need to break the new Australian entries into "former" and "current". I will work on that in the next few days. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a reasonable presumption that the Australian editor is correct in their edits. Since the first creation of this list, and the AFD you opened, there has been consensus that once-Masonic, always Masonic...notability is not temporary.

"Masonic-ness" is all historical. Anything "current" is simply not described in Wikipedia. There's no need to attempt to divide the Australian ones by your attempt to classify them in some arbitrary way by some ill-defined concept (how do you define current? how on earth do you know when there are occasional meetings of Masons at various places, when Masons are secretive and have no obligation or often no interest in publicizing their meetings?), and there is reason not to: it is deadening. --do ncr am 02:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No... there has NOT been always been consensus about "once-masonic, always-Masonic". Hell... you and I even had to go to dispute resolution over that very issue. You know that there isn't consensus over that.

As for how we know the current vs former status of Masonic buildings... the reason is that Masons aren't secretive about that sort of thing... Lodges usually have public websites, noting when and where they meet (and often describing where they met historically). They also keep recorded minutes of their meetings, which note the location of where the meeting took place, (and what took place during the meeting). Those minutes are sent to Grand Lodge archives... which are available for public research. Also, in the case of Masonic buildings with heritage/landmark status, the heritage/landmark agencies often have histories of the buildings (noting who moved in and out) - although these are sometimes outdated, because once the building gets historical status, they tend to stop updating the history. Then there are the current owners of the buildings... who often have websites about the building that tell us when the Masons moved out. In other words, its relatively easy to discover the current vs historical "Masonic" status of a building. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Questioning inclusion of Urwin's Store

I don't think this one belongs on the list. Yes, a Masonic Lodge did rent the upstairs rooms for 25 years (from 1899 to 1924) ... however, several other fraternal organizations also rented the rooms (and for a much longer period - for example, The Order of the Buffaloes held meetings there until the 1950s). I think there is more justification for labeling it an "Order of the Buffaloes building" than a "Masonic building" (actually, I think that even that would be pushing it... The building has spent most of its history NOT renting rooms to fraternal orders. It is really a commercial/office building. The fact that for part of its history, it rented space to various fraternal organizations is secondary to that primary function.) Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC).