Talk:Masonic Temple (disambiguation)

Nrhp Review

This page should be an Nrhp disambiguation page, please confirm that it is. It should contain the following links:

The above note, which i just collapsed, is from a long time ago when an NRHP bot was running, that no longer exists. It probably does not apply in any way now, except as a record of the places named exactly "Masonic Temple" that were listed on the NRHP back then. --doncram (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing redlinks

Per the MOS on Dab pages... A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. We are also not supposed to include red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written.

I was in the process of following this MOS and cleaning out the red links links from this page, but I was reverted. Do we need to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have put this back the way it was before I started cleaning, so we can see it at its worst. Here is my problem... we have a) this article... b) List of Masonic buildings and c) Category:Masonic buildings. Essentially all three cover the exact same topic and (if you remove the red links) are the same list of buildings. This is overly duplicative, and I think at least one should be cut... but I am not sure which version of the list should should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here, and for pausing. The edits earlier seem confusing; i didn't realize you and i both were continuing to edit different parts of this dab page.

Yes, you're right about the MOS policy, but all the NRHP-listed places are in fact articles that are likely to be written (NRHP article generation continues at a good pace, and if anyone chooses to run an automated process, they could all be created at any time. My guess: all of these to be created within a year or two.). And you're correct that the supporting bluelinks were not perfectly adequate; many most/linked to state-wide NRHP list-articles that did not include exactly the same red-link. But rather than delete them, please allow me to refine those supporting bluelinks to point to the more specific county- or city-list-article that does include the exact red-link. In some cases that involves me making a change elsewhere. As, for example, the Fairbanks Alaska NRHP list included a redlink to "Masonic Temple, Fairbanks, Alaska" when to match here and to follow good article naming practices, it should have been "Masonic Temple (Fairbanks, Alaska)" there. I have tagged / will re-tag this dab page for "NRHP dab needing cleanup" and will finish out the cleanup process over the next couple days.

There is indeed overlap between a) and b) as you describe. I don't think that is very much of a problem. I don't myself want to develop the list-article (b), which is a different kind of animal than a disambiguation page. I expect the list-article can contain more places that are not appropriate for the disambiguation page, such as places that are not notable topics for separate Wikipedia articles, and hence do not require disambiguation. But maybe let's discuss that later after i do the cleanup on this dab page?

About the c) category of Masonic buildings, that is not at all a problem; categories often essentially duplicate list articles and it is just not a problem; categories provide for a different way of navigating among articles and serve other purposes. --doncram (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand where you are coming from. However, I have some concerns. As written, this isn't really a disambiguation page for the term "Masonic temple" (which is what a dab page should be) ... As written is yet another list article (one that focuses on a sub-set of the Masonic Buildings list - those that are on the NRHP).

If this is to be purely about the buildings described as "Masonic Temples" on the NRHP, then we need to indicate that in the title. Perhaps by renaming the article as: List of buildings designated as "Masonic Temple" on the National Register of Historic Places. (I put the term "Masonic Temple" in quotes, because many of these buildings are not currently used as such, even though they are designated by that name by the NRHP.)

Just so you understand where I am coming from... the duplication between the various articles and the category is causing confusion at the Freemasonry Project. From the POV of the members of that project, the article title: "Masonic temple" should be an article under that project that tells our readers what a Masonic Temple is (a building in which Freemasons meet... usually, but not always purpose built). From the POV of the Freemasonry project, if we were to have a dab page that listed notable Masonic temples around the world, we would have to go beyond the stated scope of this page (because Masonic temples in other countries would not be on the NRHP).

The confusion continues with the category "Masonic buildings"... that category has no clear scope. What makes a building "Masonic"? Do we include any building in which Freemasons meet? What if they once met there, but no longer meet there? Do we limit it to buildings that were purpose built by the Freemasons as a meeting hall, or do we include old folks homes or an orphanages that were built by the Freemasons? See what I mean? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I do mean for this to be strictly a disambiguation page, for places named "Masonic Temple" or close variations, and for places that have wikipedia articles or are likely to have one soon, not just NRHP-listed ones and not just U.S. ones. The stated purpose here should NOT be to cover just NRHP-listed ones, IMO. This is separate and complementary to any list-article about such notable places. This is for disambiguation only, not to provide any information beyond bare minimum to help readers find their way. I so far wanted for this to be a "combo dab page" to cover all wikipedia article topics of name "Masonic Temple", "Masonic Temple Building" and very close variations, but not stray to farther variations. This is a gray area, about how to define which items go onto a disambiguation page. You added some text at the top which begins to go beyond what is allowed in disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages should be just streamlined and simple, and not provide anything beyond what is necessary and helpful for reader navigation. That's my general understanding of wp:MOSDAB, whether i meet it fully all the time or not.

I wouldn't at all mind moving this disambiguation page to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" if you have an article about what a Masonic Temple is, that is more suitable for wp:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term. I think i noticed there is an article at Masonic Lodge now, about what a Masonic Lodge is, separate from Masonic Lodge (disambiguation). If a Masonic Temple is pretty similar to a Masonic Lodge, you could have one combined article about both, with both showing as bolded names near the top of the article. And then I would agree that "Masonic Temple" can redirect to that.

Otherwise, to move forward, do you wish to develop the List of Masonic buildings article? You can do that freely without any worry about the disambiguation page(s) that relate. If and when the list-article is improved, it is conceivable that the separate disambiguation pages will not be needed. I am not myself entirely about when the overlap/duplication is bad and should be removed. There is some info about Set Index Articles at wp:SIA. However it may be appropriate for the duplication to stay: there are well-considered cases in Wikipedia where there is both a Set index article and a continuing disambiguation page. We could request disambiguation-focussed editors' attention on what is best to do, generally, at some point.

Note, by the way, there is an open discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP disambiguation pages which you might or might not find very relevant to here. --doncram (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we have had a separate Masonic Lodge article since 2002.

And it would help if you moved this to Masonic temple (disambiguation). The Freemasonry project does need a stub primary article on the term... (it will never grow beyond a simple stub, but one is needed to define and explain the term.) As for your suggestion that we combine Masonic temple and Masonic lodge... does not work. They are very different things. Masonic Lodge is analogous to Congregation. It refers to the people who gather. Masonic temple and Masonic hall are analogous to Church (building) in that it refers to the building in which Masons gather. The problem is that many non-Masons do not understand the difference, so they sometimes (erroneously) use the term "lodge" in referring to the building. (actually, Masons sometimes make this mistake as well... and it can get confusing... my Grand Lodge in New York has a "Masonic Hall", a building which contains about 20 "lodge rooms" for the use of the 100 or so "lodges" that meet in the building).

As for the List of Masonic buildings article... no, I don't want to develop it. I want to get rid of it... as being overly duplicative of the category (and of this page and of the other "Masonic X" pages you are working on for the NRHP project). As an alternative I could agree to deleting the cat, and listifing... but having both just makes things confusing. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i just tried moving "Masonic Temple" to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" but cannot do so; there have been previous moves so it requires administrative assistance. Could you please draft your replacement article in a sandbox, say at Talk:Masonic Temple/Temp and when that is ready we can request a double move of the two articles, using the wp:RM process.

About the category, you can't/shouldn't do anything about that, or worry about that. The wikipedia category system is highly duplicative to the numerous list-articles in wikipedia. It's just not a problem; some readers and editors use those to navigate; some do not.

About the List article vs. the several separate disambiguation pages; it's your choice to develop a good list-article or not. You could add pics of the buildings, and other descriptive info, laid out like an NRHP county list-article, perhaps. You cannot add extra descriptive stuff about items within disambiguation pages. Maybe it would be better to work on individual articles about the individual places first tho. See also my comment at Talk:Masonic Lodge (disambiguation). Let me know if you want help. --doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of these buildings, despite being NRHP, don't have a lot to distinguish them from one another, really. This overlap issue needs to be solved, and I can tell you right off the bat that the list is awful and prone to people adding in all sorts of junk that's never going to turn into anything. As a note, "Masonic Temples" aren't all called "Temples" anymore either. So, as much as I dislike end-all be-all statements, a Lodge is who meets in the building, the Temple is the building (sometimes), and we don't need a list of every building - WP may be duplicative, but it also prohibits lists of links and impossible-to-manage lists. Therefore, any list would have to qualify the building as being NRHP, but again, I tend to have a "so what?" attitude about it - I don't see that as notable in the general sense. The other actually notable Masonic buildings have articles already. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have written a stub article for the main "Masonic temple" (currently at Talk:Masonic Temple/Temp ... when we get an admin to make the move, please note the capitalization on "temple" conforms to MOS and create accordingly.

I still think that this page is really a "List of buildings designated as "Masonic Temple" on the NRHP" and not a proper dab page... the whole structure is more appropriate for a "list of" article rather than a dab page. However, that can be fixed. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

format

I think part of the problem is that this is not formatted the way most dab pages are... by breaking the buildings up into states it comes across as a "List of". I have tried reformatting to match other dab pages. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you're changing the appearance considerably, probably that is fine. I will take a break from editing here, to avoid edit conflicts, will return later. --doncram (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... but I am done with the appearance/format change. Feel free to edit again. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. This is second time a bunch of stuff that i was putting in got lost, i think, though. So pls. do hold off and let me finish the NRHP cleanup, okay? I'll remove the "Under Construction" and "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tags when i'm done, again within a day or two. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I am not planning on making any more edits... so have fun. (see if you can encourage others at the NRHP project to write some articles on these buildings and thus remove the red links!) Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I finished the nrhp dab cleanup edits. I accepted removal of state-specific sections, which i agree are not necessary, but added/revised sections for the countries involved. I just returned and undid this edit which removed the country sections. For clarity to readers, a page organized by country and in the United States by state then city, the organization needs to be conveyed by country section headers and some explanation at the top of the U.S. section. This is standard for places-oriented dab pages. While there could possibly be some helpful refinement in formatting, the formatting of this and the basic ordering has been much reviewed by disambiguation-focussed editors. Just deleting the section headers calls into question the ordering. Should it then be rearranged to be alphabetical by name, or by city, and let states and countries get jumbled up? The formatting and ordering as now, clearly by country then state then city, is good, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Temple vs. Masonic temple

As it turns out... the title with a small "t" was a redirect to the main Freemasonry article. So I have moved the material at the Temp page to that title (where it belongs). So we now have a main article at Masonic temple. I also note that Masonic temple (disambiguation) is available... suggest we move the material at this page to that title. Then we can redirect the current title of this dab page to the renamed disambiguation page. I think that would make everything much clearer and more understood. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think i am now done with the cleanup of the NRHP and non-NRHP items on the disambiguation page. All the redlink NRHP ones have proper supporting bluelinks now, for example, i believe. Okay about your putting the article you created at the name Masonic temple. I am not looking at it right now, but i did think the first draft was sort of okay, although very empty of sourcing. It looked as if it could have been tagged as showing wp:OR original research. It would be good if you found / cited some actual sources, but i am not going to watch it.

About the name for the disambiguation page, it is about proper noun places named "Masonic Temple", so "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" is okay but not "Masonic temple (disambiguation)". I'll open a requested move about it and if you disagree you can say so within that, okay? --doncram (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Masonic Temple → Masonic Temple (disambiguation) — Request move of this disambiguation page to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)", per discussion with editor User:Blueboar above and elsewhere, to allow "Masonic temple" to be the primary usage article and to allow "Masonic Temple" to redirect to that. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I would suggest "Masonic Temple" (with a capital "T") redirect to the disambig page... the chances are, anyone searching with the capital letter is looking for an article about a specific building named "Masonic Temple". In the event that someone is looking for the general article that explains what a Masonic temple is, they can get there through the disambig page. For the same reason... I don't really care whether the disambig page has a capital "T" or a lower case "t"... whichever is used (follow MOS on that), the other should be a redirect to the one chosen. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i am fine with that change to how redirects are to be set up. The move, what we need an administrator's help with, stays as proposed. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks like List of Masonic temples, which should have a hatnote from Masonic temple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote added. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal per WP:PRECISION. Ideally, all of the entities that are currently Masonic temples should be moved to List of Masonic temples. — AjaxSmack 01:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the list-article should indeed get copies of these items (not sure if list should cover old and current both tho), as well as showing other buildings having different names that don't/shouldn't appear in this disambiguation page. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant moved not copied. Many disambiguation pages have sub-pages and this is a prime candidate for one. First, all of the redlinks should be moved to List of. It's 2010 and, if there isn't an article on them yet, they're probably not notable enough to be on the main dab page. Second, most of all of the functioning Masonic temples should be moved as well. Of course a prominent line or hatnote should direct the reader, "for a list of Masonic temples, see List of Masonic temples". Then depending on consensus, this dab page chould be reserved for only the most temples and other buildings named "Masonic Temple" that are not temples. No need to force readers to fumble through a redlink farm for the most notable entities. — AjaxSmack 15:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, the NRHP ones will all get articles soon enough. This will happen as NRHP editors create articles for all the NRHP places in each county and state, gradually, or all at once if anyone chooses to run a bot to create them all. My guess is within a year or two. The whole system of NRHP articles, all 86,000 or so indexed from List of RHPs, has not been in place very long, and there is a steady pace of article creation. There are occasional arriving readers looking for ones that turn out to be a redlink, and it is necessary and good to show these redlinks (conveying to readers that (a) yes, here is where the item is mentioned, and they need not keep searching under possible alternatives like Masonic Lodge or whatever, and (b) the given place is wikipedia-notable and they could create an article and upload a picture, etc. All of the NRHP ones are listed other places on the internet, such as at the U.S. National register and at private websites like www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and www.archiplanet.com. So, the disambiguation page of places named Masonic Temple (and close variations) will always be needed, IMO, no matter whether the list-article gets properly developed or not. No one around, by the way, seems interested in developing that list-article. I myself am just trying to get the related disambiguation pages in shape. --doncram (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
        • "The NRHP ones will all get articles soon enough." Maybe but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so they could be added to the page as articles are created. Even then, it's a pretty cumbersome dab page that doesn't do much to separate the goats from the sheep. — AjaxSmack 17:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
          • This is off-topic relative to the page move request, of course. But to continue to share information to you, the NRHP entries comply with wikipedia policy/guidelines, specifically the MOS:DABRL part of disambiguation policy on redlinks. The case of NRHP items is relatively exceptional for items on disambiguation pages, because there has been no comparable program of creating redlink items for any other big collection AFAIK. But the NRHP items have repeatedly been found by consensus to be wikipedia-notable, and since there will be articles eventually/soon, it is most helpful to set up the proper names and disambiguation for them already, now. These practices have been reviewed and refined repeatedly, in sometimes long discussion of the NRHP items in disambiguation pages, including some technical and other discussion ongoing now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages. If you are further interested in NRHP disambiguation, please do feel free to speak up in that discussion. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move completed. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Format (again)

Doncram - Please see how other dab pages are formatted. The standard is to set the page up with separate "Usages" sub-sections... so first should come section header that discusses the use "In Freemasonry" (as the primary usage) with a very brief explanation. Then would come sub-sections for other usages with appropriate sub-section headers (such as "In historic Places" or something like that)... which would include the NRPH usage. Please remember that this is NOT just a NRPH project dab page.

I had changed the format to conform with this standard... but you reverted saying you prefer a non-standard format. Would you explain why? Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted two sets of edits that were deleting out sensible country headers, essential for explaining the ordering to readers and other editors, and am not much focussed on some other aspects of top stuff wording. I think the current version which you labelled as a "compromise" just now is basically okay. It would be better to explain explicitly that the big U.S. section is ordered by state and then city, which is not obvious, though. I know from experience that without explicit statmeent of order, that other editors tend to add new items in odd places, and it must also not be clear to some readers. The dab page contains non-U.S. entries and probably some U.S. non-NRHP items, so of course it is not just NRHPs. --doncram (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to explain the ordering... remember the purpose of a dab page is for readers to find articles (or potential articles). Nothing more. We could do this using many different ordering systems (most dab pages are alphabetical for example). I agree that ordering the information by state makes sense... but we don't need to explain why we chose that system. In a dab page, over-organizing can result in the page looking like a "list of" article, and I want to avoid that. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason to explain the ordering is to help readers find the place they are looking for. If they understand immediately that the U.S. section is ordered by state then city, they can perform a simple lookup by that. The section is not ordered alphabetically by name (and shouldn't be). The section is not ordered by state then county, which would be a different possibility (the county names appear there for most because it is part of the supporting bluelinks, which are usually county list-articles, and then i also gave the county for other items for compatibility). It seems best, overall, to provide a lookup list by state and then city, with county appearing as an additional sometimes helpful field. Tell them how it is ordered, on their way into the dab list, then they can do their lookup more easily. This has been discussed before about other dab pages involving many NRHP items. I am going to restore that yet again now. If you really want to dispute this, please raise at a larger forum, because this applies to many many pages. There is an open discussion item about NRHP disambiguation issues at Talk page of WikiProject Disambiguation. Please don't remove again here, this is getting tedious about a small point. I get that you prefer less to more. It already has seriously less overhead than it did before (meaning removal of state headers and big TOC, which i do support or am indifferent about). Enough on this, unless u want to discuss it in a proper forum. --doncram (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your latest is fine as far as I am concerned. But I would think this is the proper forum to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that the page has been moved, I've attempted to format according to MOS:DAB as best as possible, specifically linking back to the primary topic on the first line, removing extraneous material not needed to quickly navigate to Masonic Temple articles, removing section headers for only one or two entries, and avoiding redirects. Ideally, all the redlinks should be moved to the list page, or at least to a separate section, but I'm leaving that to be certain there is consensus for that. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

about red-links and ordering

I go back and forth on the red-links. I understand the argument that these are potential articles on notable buildings (as demonstrated by being on the NRHP)... but the purpose of a dab page is primarily to help readers and editors quickly and easily find existing articles, and only secondarily to find those still needing to be written. When more than half of a dab page is red-linked, that sort of defeats the purpose.

Assuming we do keep the red-links, I would support the idea of moving them to a separate section (or at least to the end of the current section - so that we list the articles that currently exist first, and then the articles that don't exist). Yes, this will require periodic updating and maintenance (as articles are written they would need to be moved up into the blue-link section and placed in the right order) but that is true for all large dab pages. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree on both counts. (Note: I reverted two recent edits: The first because there should be only one bluelink per entry; anyone interested in Masonic Lodge can link to that article thru Masonic temple. The second because these two Pennsylvania buildings, although not normally called Masonic Temple are apparently listed that way on the NRHP (see the infoboxes on each article) and I'm absolutely certain doncram would object to their removal for that reason.) Station1 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no way in hell that the red-link entries, where properly compliant supporting bluelinks, are going to be deleted or reordered to appear at the end. This has been well-discussed several times over at WikiProject Disambiguation and at MOSDAB and elsewhere. Blueboar is presumably not aware of and is not yet sick of debating that. But there is hard-won consensus on this point, notwithstanding Station1's not liking the consensus. JHunterJ alluded to that consensus elsewhere on this Talk page or on another one of the too many open discussions about the pretty silly and small issues of disambiguation of places named Masonic Temple. This is way too much debate on too many miniscule points for my taste, and reopening of well-settled issues. Could everyone please stop and go back to developing mainspace, non-disambiguation, material in Wikipedia? --doncram (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts?

I linked the term Masonic Lodge in the primary disambiguation... why was the link removed?

I also removed the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and the Scranton Cultural Center, Pennsylvania... looking at this in more detail I could see the Grand Lodge building being included (it is known by the term "Masonic Temple"), but we need to establish that it is notable enough for an article. The Scranton Cultural Center should probably be in the see also list, like the other buildings that are now more commonly known by other names. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see last paragraph in section directly above. Yes, they could both be moved to See Also section. Station1 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I see the problem with the Masonic Temple in Philadelphia... it is discussed in the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article, but that article should focus on GLPA as an organization (it's history and developement etc.) ... and we should split off a separate article for the notable NRHP building itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now reverted to a previous version for several reasons. One is that Blueboar, i think, has been deleting places that are valid dab entries. The places listed on the NRHP are valid wikipedia topics. All of the NRHP places listed here are, i think, named "Masonic Temple" or start with "Masonic Temple" in their name, including i think the Scranton one. There is no need for any further proof that these are notable. It has been generally accepted, widely, that NRHP-listed places are wikipedia notable. If there is any entry here that does not comply with the relevant guideline, at MOS:DABRL, please note here and i will be willing to fix it.

Another reason is that one or two editors now have been deleting the headers and/or clarifying statements about what is the order on this page. For readers, it is appropriate to make it clear what is the order, which I think should be by country and, in the U.S. by state then city order. The current page at this moment makes that clear. Others have been deleting the country mentions and have been partially reordering the U.S. ones, making it unclear how a reader should find the item they want. It is my belief that most readers who arrive here will be looking for one or another local place named "Masonic Temple" (and mostly in the U.S.) and they will then want to look it by state then city. They will usually know the state and the city in which the place is located. They will usually not know alternative names like "Scranton Cultural Center". They want to find it under Pennsylvania, then Scranton. So changing order is hurting readers. Please leave this be.

Blueboar, you can/will do what you want, but I would like to ask you: Would you please stop editing here, and leave this as a stable disambiguation page covering places named "Masonic Temple". You have other ideas about this disambiguation page serving as a substitute for List of Masonic buildings, which are probably not acceptable for a disambiguation page. I think you could add value for Wikipedia by improving the List of Masonic buildings page, but I personally think you are detracting value from Wikipedia, and causing unnecessary work by others, in whatever you are trying to do here. You may be trying to perfect this disambiguation page in some way. Frankly, I think you should stop editing here for a while, say 3 months, and get more experience on disambiguation pages and other topics, elsewhere, and then return here to discuss again if you wish. I am not in charge in any sense, here or anywhere, and you can choose not to take this advice, of course. But it is cumulatively irritating to return here and find stuff that was set up properly, trashed again and again. It is not helping. --doncram (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ask another editor to stop editing, imo. Blueboar's edits are generally fine and have improved the page overall. He quickly reverted himself when it was pointed out you would object to the removal of the 2 Pa. bldgs. Station1 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual, probably, but I don't know that it is inappropriate, especially given the context here. Blueboar has received a lot of attention here and in related articles and their Talk pages already. I fixed up this disambiguation page considerably. I acceded to Blueboar's wish to have an article about the generic topic of Masonic temple created and treated as the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that is listed first in this disambiguation page. My request is moot, already, i guess, as Blueboar has asked for others' comments at the Disambiguation Wikiproject, and now presumably that will happen here. --doncram (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

First... I removed two entries, and have subsequently reverted myself. These were instances where there was not even a red-link, and so I felt they did not belong. I acted in good faith. And... after discussing the situation with Station1, I reverted my removal.

Second... your issue with the formatting and style is with Station1 and not with me. I don't really care whether we break this into national sub-sections or not (at least not enough to edit war over). You correctly say that you are not in charge... but your actions indicate that you do have at least some WP:OWNership issues to deal with... and you are definitely over reacting to every small change and edit. Nothing was "trashed" in Station1's edit... the links to the articles remained. All that changed was the formatting and style. I realize that you prefer "your" formatting... Others obviously prefer different formats. Which is why I have asked for more dab project members to get involved and help us reach a consensus we can all agree to.

Third... Yes, I still have issues concerning the duplication at the List of Masonic Buildings article... but I will deal with those issues there. Essentially, I (now) agree that this is a proper dab page and it can stand as such.

Finally... no, I will not stop editing here. I will promise to take your views on how this page should be set up seriously, and to discuss things politely when and if I disagree. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Format and Style (yet again)

Please stop edit warring over this. I have asked for some experienced editors from the Disambiguation Project to swing by and help us resolve the format and style issues (such as whether we should break the buildings up by nationality or not, and whether we should include all these red-links, and if so how). Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) with my comment in "Reverting?" section just above. Great. If you have changed the article to some other version again, I will revert it once again to a sensible dab page, and I will indeed welcome other disambiguation

editors comments. --doncram (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To provide focus for discussion, I think that this version is good. Blueboar and/or others, could you please state what you want to change about that. One thing that has been changed repeatedly is that another editor or two has deleted the country headers. That seems frankly stupid and unhelpful to me, as then each item would have to include mention of the country, and it would still be harder for readers and editors to navigate. Please explain your intentions, if it is to make the page unhelpful for readers or what. Sorry not to be more polite, but this is ridiculous and has been running too long already. --doncram (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

This section is central discussion for several move / rename / merger proposals, given as comprehensive proposals further below. Several merger proposals outstanding give pointer to discussion being located here. Please do not close this discussion section without consensus.

Masonic temple (disambiguation) → Masonic Temple (disambiguation) — The disambiguation page is for proper noun places named "Masonic Temple". doncram (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• DONE Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Done" without consensus, not resolving open issues in this discussion. So, NOT DONE, really. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... how can you say it did not have consensus, when it was your request to begin with? Are you trying to be disruptive? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Because...read the discussion below. I eventually agreed with JHunterJ's proposal this be moved to "Masonic Temple" instead. And there are other views; i think you yourself opposed, right? And there are comprehensive proposals below to address the several interlocked questions of list-article titles vs. dab page titles etc. Which you are participating in, further below in this discussion section. Please participate in the discussion, below. --doncram (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note there was a Requested move previously, which i believe was decided to move per request to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)", but the move implemented, or a later move, moved it to "Masonic temple (disambiguation)" instead. --doncram (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: The consensus in the previous requested move, by nominator (me) and AjaxSmack and with no opposition, was to move the page as proposed to Masonic Temple (disambiguation). However, Blueboar instead moved it to "Masonic temple (disambiguation)". This despite explicit invitation, just preceding, to Blueboar to discuss the exact naming, in the requested move that i would open. --doncram (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that this page is for proper noun places named "Masonic Temple"... It is to disambiguate any and all uses of the term "Masonic temple"... which includes the many places named as such (which is why felt it was more appropriate to use the lower case when I moved this from the old page). I will also note that Masonic Temple (disambiguation) (with a capital T) is a redirect to this title. So someone looking for this dab page will find it no matter what they type.

That said... while I prefer the lower case, I don't really care whether this dab page uses a capital T instead... I will be content as long as 1) the primary article remains Masonic temple and 2) which ever capitalization is not used redirects to the one that is used. If this is moved to Masonic Temple (disambiguation) (with a capital T) then please make sure that the current title of [[Masonic temple {disambiguation)]] (with a lower case t) gets redirected to the new title. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no places, zero, none, nil, nada, having the proper noun name "Masonic temple". As an actual name of a place, the term is capitalized, when part of a proper noun. There are many places named Masonic Temple. These are listed here. Thank you for agreeing with the move, anyhow. There is no disagreement, I guess, though your starting off with "strongly disagree" seems to suggest there would be. I cannot understand what you mean to strongly disagree with; there is nothing to "strongly disagree" about. --doncram (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that there are no places that use a lower case t ... but there is an article topic that does... in fact, it is the primary topic article for the dab. The usage of the term Masonic temple by Freemasonry is why there are all those places named "Masonic Temple" in the first place.

I see now that you still think of this dab page as being a list of places with a certain name... but that is not the case. A dab page is not just about names and places... it is about a term. Yes, that term is used in the name of many buildings... it is also used as the name for a type of building (or rather the term is also a description of the function of the building). The term has a conceptual meaning that you seem to want to ignore. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Move this page to Masonic Temple. Moving it to Masonic Temple (disambiguation) would result in a malplaced dab, since the base name would redirect to the (disambiguation) name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... we just moved this page FROM Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I think that was a mistake. And now that you've requested input from the disambiguation project, you've got it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To give people a better idea of what I am talking about... take a look at Palace (disambiguation)... where we start with links to various articles relating to the general noun "palace" (as in a palace), and then there are links to articles on places that are named "Palace" (as in the Palace). The same is true for Masonic temple... we start with linking to a Masonic temple, then we move to linking the Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As on the disambiguation talk page, Place is different from Masonic Temple in that Wikipedia can't distinguish Palace and palace but can distinguish Masonic Temple and masonic temple. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or is formatted this way) doesn't mean that it's the correct way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so you understand, I am not pointing to the palace dab (or any other) as a justification... I point to them merely to better explain my thought process. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the setup of Octagon house and Octagon House (disambiguation), with redirect from Octagon House, is an example that was reasoned out as here. I was puzzled and involved back 2 years ago in figuring that out. There was mention elsewhere of Galactic empire and Galactic Empire (disambiguation) also being similar. Honestly i don't think that there is specific MOSDAB policy specifying exactly how to handle these. The proposed treatment here, with Masonic Temple (disambiguation) mostly listing places named "Masonic Temple" and with Masonic temple being a generic article first mentioned, and Masonic Temple redirecting to the dab, seems reasonable in terms of how readers would find stuff. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the dab page you wanted to link to is at Galactic empire (disambiguation)... small "e". I think this issue comes down to whether we should consider Masonic temple to be the primary article for the dab page or not. I think it should... From his/her comments at the project discussion page, I gather JHunterJ thinks it should not. I am always willing to defer to consensus, but I do think we need more opinions to establish just what the consensus is. Is there some other venue where we should ask (say at the village pump?) Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, then i think we have 3 examples of same setup (one main usage with lowercase, and multiple usages with upper case), but with 3 different current treatments. The WikiProject Disambiguation talk page is a very good venue for this. JHunterJ is a meticulous editor there who speaks early in discussions, but there are also others watching, who will speak up if they have something to add. I think we should talk it out more there, now with 3 examples that shed more light. I will post something more there later. The Village Pump, on the other hand, would not be helpful; this is very technical and not of general Wikipedia-wide interest. Anyone interested in disambiguation technicalities is watching the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page probably. This seems to be open here and at the WikiProject Disambiguation page, that is plenty and good. --doncram (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see why you would want to build a separate dab page for "masonic temples" with just capitalization being the difference. As default name is uncapitalized, which serves as dab pages for different capitalizations, keep this where it is, so that you don't need a different dab page for every single different capitalization. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  We would still only have one disambiguation page. It would just have the correct capitalization. Note that Masonic Temple already redirects to this disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• One more Support vote should be counted here, by AjaxSmack's !vote in the previous Requested Move proposal which was about the exact same proposal, to move this disambiguation page to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)". Blueboar, however, subverted the consensus of the previous Requested Move discussion, to move this instead to a different name. It was very clear in the discussion what the proposal was, and there were no objections. AjaxSmack's agreement with my proposal then should apply as much here, too. --doncram (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• To summarize, there are two !votes here, mine and, if you accept it, AjaxSmack's, for making the move as proposed to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)". There is one !vote by JHunterJ for moving it to Masonic Temple. Blueboar, would you please make a !vote here too. If Blueboar will not vote publicly for the "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" option, then I wish to have my vote reconsidered as being in support of JHunterJ's proposal. It is most important to me that a move to a fully capitalized phrase "Masonic Temple", with or without additional "(disambiguation)" occurs. I do not want some closing administrator to misunderstand that. Please, implement one or the other move; please do not leave this at the current name. There is NO AMBIGUITY about the lowercase "Masonic temple" name, there is only one sorry article at that name, and no other possible contenders, while there are many proper noun places named Masonic Temple. --doncram (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• As I have said, of the two, I would prefer this to be at "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" rather than "Masonic Temple" ... because I would like to reserve "Masonic Temple" for a regular non-list, non-dab article. With this in mind... I would request (but not insist) that we approve the move now, but wait a few weeks (two or three at the longest) to enact it... so that we can first work together to build that Masonic Temple article. I am very flexible about the language and details ... but I envision that it would focus on discussing (as opposed to listing) the use of the term as a name, while also includinging some explanation of where the name comes from (IE the more generalized Masonic usage as a term for any building in which a Masonic lodge meets, and the allegorical tie to King Solomon's Temple). That said... if you feel strongly that this page must be moved right this instant ... I will not oppose. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To summarize: it's time for this to be closed and move implemented. There are multiple places named "Masonic Temple" and not a single place named "Masonic temple". I support moving to either "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" or to "Masonic Temple"; Blueboar is ok with move to at least one of those; JHunterJ is ok with move to at least one of those. Someone please make an executive decision and move to either one. It is embarassing, cumulatively, how much time/edits are spent on getting out a simple move to fix a basic mistake of a misnamed dab page (that was misnamed in a move that contradicted consensus of previous Requested Move discussion). Please move this now! --doncram (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please move this to "Masonic Temple", agreed well enough by all. --doncram (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Further developments: one or two editors have moved material to the Masonic Temple location, which was a redirect to here, seeming to usurp that as the intended target of move of the current disambiguation page here (now "Masonic temple (disambiguation)"). That seems to be outside of this discussion. For clarity, i reverted that, restoring "Masonic Temple" to be a redirect pending resolution of this requested move. I also restored Masonic temple as an article, which had likewise been changed to a redirect. Could we please discuss the structure of articles here, in this Requested Move discussion (which i thot was nearly resolved). Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also without discussion the related article List of Masonic buildings and its Talk page, and some other pages, were moved/redirected. I have tried to revert all those Bold edits. Please discuss the intended overall structure here. Blueboar and i both gave some notices at WikiProject Freemasonry, with mine directing attention to here. --doncram (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed structure, restated:

• "Masonic temple" as a generic type article about what a Masonic temple is
• "Masonic Temple" as disambiguation page covering multiple places named "Masonic Temple"
• "Masonic Building" as disambiguation page covering multiple places named "Masonic Building"
• "Masonic Lodge" as a generic type article about what a Masonic lodge is
• "Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)" as disambiguation page covering multiple places named "Masonic Lodge"
• "List of Masonic buildings", a list-article which can contain photos and descriptions of buildings, whose final, exact definition of member buildings to be covered is properly under discussion at its Talk page
• "Category:Masonic building" (I think that is the category name), a category which overlaps and probably includes all items listed in List of Masonic buildings, and perhaps more

Although this may seem like a lot, there is reason to have each element of this structure of articles and category. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE: Propose Alternate structure:

• Masonic temple - redirect to Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple - keep as main topic article... Expand (but without a list).
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation) - Keep as what it is, a dab page
• List of Masonic buildings - delete as being duplicative of both the dab page and Category:Masonic buildings
• Leave Masonic Building, Masonic Lodge and Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) as they are.

This cuts the unnecessary over-duplication of the list down to just the dab page and the category. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: your proposal doesn't mention "Masonic Lodge", "Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)" and "Masonic Building"; do you mean for those to be kept or deleted or what?

About duplication, it is indeed some duplication of navigation approaches, but the disambiguation pages and the category provide for navigation of readers to the main articles (and don't serve as substitutes). The main articles proposed/existing are "Masonic temple", at that name because i believe you argued convincingly for that name previously, and "Masonic Lodge", and "List of Masonic buildings" (which covers buildings of multiple names and allows for pictures and descriptions). I could do without the Masonic temple" and "Masonic Lodge" articles which might be covered as a few sentences or perhaps a paragraph in a more general article about Freemasonry(?) or Masons(?), but otherwise i think the elements are all needed. A dab page is not a substitute for anything, it is not a real article, it just provides navigation to articles. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are clearly proposing outright deletion of the article List of Masonic buildings and no coverage of them with pictures and descriptions as a collection, anywhere in wikipedia? There would continue to be articles about individual buildings on their own, and the NRHP-listed ones would continue to be mentioned in NRHP county list-articles, but your proposal is do delete any collection of description about them, right? --doncram (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I now include my views on Masonic Lodge, Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) and Masonic Building (they can stay as they are). And Yes... I now propose we simply delete theList of Masonic buildings completely. It is overly-duplicative. Coverage of the individual buildings with pictures and descriptions "and arrows on the back of each one" (credit: Arlo Guthry) can go at the articles on each individual building. There is no need for that list. It can go. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we all know what I want because of course I went out and did it in spite of the on going edit war. But I will lay it out again.

• Masonic Temple - Main topic article with a list of NOTABLE Masonic Temples.
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation) - A listing of anything currently named or previously named Masonic Temple.
• List of Masonic buildings - It's content is merged into Masonic Temple and it becomes a redirect.
• Masonic Lodge is irrelevant to this discussion, as is Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) and Masonic Building.

The only thing that seems missing to me now that would include all left out information would be an article on Masonic architecture but that's a war for another day. PeRshGo (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can live with PeRshGo's proposal... but I think mine is better because it eliminates one more iteration of the duplicated list... I see no reason for the list of notable Masonic Temples when we have a dab page and a category that serves the same purpose. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can live with PeRshGo's proposal... but I think mine is better because it eliminates one more iteration of the duplicated list... I see no reason for the list of notable Masonic Temples when we have a dab page and a category that serves the same purpose. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks PeRshGo for chiming in here and spelling out your plan. I wasn't aware that there was any edit war previously; I was just aware that there has been some discussion with differing views within this Requested Move proposal here, and also about the proper content for the List of Masonic buildings article at its Talk page. And there was scattered other discussion, but no edit warring. Well, I guess i did revert the deletion of all the red-link (most or all NRHP-listed) places in the List of Masonic buildings article though.

PeRshGo and Blueboar, maybe our intentions are actually not that far different. Pershgo wants just one list-article of the buildings, with any general content about "Masonic temple" merged with that; I thought the general Masonic Temple stuff could be reduced down and covered in the Freemasonry article but i agree it can also or instead just appear in the list-article about the buildings. So let me assert that we agree on that, there should just be one article about the buildings and define the term "Masonic temple" in that. Note, i use lowercase for "temple" in that because i was previously convinced that that is the correct term. What should be the name of this list-article though, and which page history should it have. I feel strongly that the list-article should have the page-history of the List of Masonic buildings article, which has existed for several years. It should not be created at some new article as if there has not been previous article history. I don't mind, myself, when i create a new article and it turns out that it should be merged into an older article, i am happy to let any very recent new history of edits get lost, and only exist in the history of what becomes a redirect. I hope you two likewise would not object to losing the recent edit history in these new articles created in May and June 2010 after the first Requested Move was opened. So whatever name this list-article is to take, it should be the actual article that is at List of Masonic buildings, moved to some new name if necessary. Is that okay?

And then, what is the proper name for the list-article to have. I happen to think that "List of Masonic buildings" is a good descriptive name, describing that it is a list-article. And that name is kind of broad, more easily allowing for inclusion of places that are actually named "Masonic Building" or "Masonic Lodge" or "Temple on the Hill" or "DeWint House" and so on. Maybe "Masonic Temple" is okay as a name, but I also seem to sense that you both might want it to be very limited, and your choice of name is meant to be more exclusive. I am not sure, but is that what you want, to choose that name in order to support somehow excluding places like DeWint House which is a Masonic-associated building, one of few official "National Masonic Historic Sites" but not a place that was a Masons' meeting building? And we don't know about them yet, but I expect there will be other buildings that are highly associated with Masons but not fitting into a very narrow definition. Then, I would think you'd get two Masonic building list-articles, one at "Masonic Temple" say and ALSO have a "List of (other) Masonic buildings" article. So I think the broader name is better to have just one list-article of Masonic buildings. But, maybe we don't have to decide this fully now, we could go off and develop the existing list-article and the associated separate building articles, and consider a move/rename some time later, after more had been developed. Would that be okay?

What about Masonic Lodge though, could that be merged into the Freemasonry article? I don't think the wikipedia benefits from having separate articles about assorted different terms of Freemasonry; both "Masonic temple" and "Masonic lodge" or "Masonic Lodge" should just be defined in the Freemasonry article (and also defined as needed at top of the building list-article). Like there isn't a separate article about Boy Scout Troops, separate from the article about Scouting.

It does seem Pershgo and I at least, and maybe Blueboar too, are all agreed that the three disambiguation pages for places actually named "Masonic Temple" and "Masonic Lodge" and "Mason Building", now or previously, are needed. The only question remaining for these is whether any one of those names is taken, in which case "(disambiguation)" gets added.

It has been repeatedly claimed that the existence of Category:Masonic buildings is somehow a factor in any of this; i don't think it is a factor at all. Categories provide a means of navigating that is different, that is all. To say that there is no reason for a list-article when some dab pages and a category exist, misses the point. A list-article is an article which can explain how a building is Masonic-associated and can array pictures and other info; a dab page cannot and a category cannot. --doncram (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that the discussion on the List of Masonic buildings came down to the question, is a "Masonic building" even a definable term? And the fact is that the only time the term “Masonic Building” is used is in order to refer to Masonic Temples that have chosen to adopt more generic names to avoid confusion with places of worship, a concept explained on the Masonic Temple page. Now of course there are places like the George Washington Masonic National Memorial that will be left out on an article that just deals with Masonic Temples but given there is already a Masonic Building category for all buildings with significant Masonic influence there is no reason to have such buildings on an all encompassing page. PeRshGo (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for a List of Masonic buildings at all ... since we have a category called Category:Masonic buildings that covers the same ground. There is no need to list "Notable Masonic Temples" in the either the Masonic temple or the Masonic Temple article, since we have a dab page (currently called Masonic Temple (disambiguation)) that covers the same ground.

If we agree that we don't need the list, then there is no need to worry about defining terms to determine what should or should not be included in the list (as the list will not exist)... and then the only remaining question is whether the main topic article should be at Masonic '''T'''emple or Masonic '''t'''emple (which will resolve the secondary question of whether the dab article stays at [[Masonic Temple {disambiguation)]] or moves to Masonic Temple.) Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the dab page should only list notable buildings named Masonic Temple where as the the Masonic Temple page would describe the concept, notable features and list notable buildings that serve or have served as masonic temples despite their name. This would include buildings named, Masonic Hall, Masonic Building, Masonic Lodge, or otherwise. Of course there will be overlap but at least we are dealing in specifics then. PeRshGo (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes to what Pershgo says. It remains open what is the correct name for the list-article. As Pershgo has noticed, there is a new proposal, which I suggest should be discussed here, attached to the Talk page of the current content fork sitting at Masonic Temple, to rename it to "Masonic temple". From User:Anthony Appleyard's proposal: There are many Masonic temples, so "Masonic temple" by itself is a generic and not a proper-name. But the only Masonic temple in Qwertytown may be the Qwertytown Masonic Temple. Here we seem to be running into "respectful capitalization" of classes of things and classes of people and classes of ideas which are important to particular people. --Anthony Appleyard. I suggest that "Masonic Temple" is not the correct name for an article about "Masonic temple" generically (and that no article on that topic is needed, the term can be defined in the Freemasonry article). I suggest that Masonic Temple is not the correct name for a list-article on Masonic buildings, which more naturally should be "List of Masonic buildings". I suggest that "Masonic Temple" is the correct name for the dab page about specific places named "Masonic Temple". Pershgo, it seems unnecessarily confusing to want to use a less descriptive name for the list-article that omits the word "List" and that uses "Masonic Temple" to include other buildings named Masonic Building and Masonic Lodge and others. Pershgo, would you please agree to allow the list-article to be titled straightforwardly as "List of Masonic buildings"? --doncram (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this whole issue started for me when coming across the List of Masonic Buildings page. And I think in that discussion it was adequately presented that the term “Masonic building” is overly broad. Including everything that could be interpreted as a Masonic building would create an article that’s far too large and restricting the definition would only make it inaccurate, and leave out many buildings that would commonly be considered Masonic. I would press anyone to cite a source that classifies what a Masonic building is or isn’t. Well using even the broadest definition we can easily say that the prevalent Masonic building is a Masonic Temple. Though more politically correct terms are sometimes used now such as Masonic Hall the original, and most prevalent term is Masonic Temple. Note that I write Masonic Temple rather than Masonic temple. Why? Because a Masonic Temple isn’t a temple. The fact is the way the fraternity operates could be compared easily to a franchise. You have thousands of buildings just called Masonic Temple, as that is the name of the building there a Masonic Lodge meets. So if one were to search wishing to learn about Masonic Temples the current state of Masonic Temple gives you the best information. You learn about what a Masonic Temple is, you are giving a list of some notable ones, and you have the link to the dap page giving you an extensive list of buildings named Masonic Temple. Though I’ll once again try to sell the idea of a Masonic architecture page which would describe the attributes and commonalities found in Masonic architecture which I think would be much more beneficial than a list article but that would require some serious homework and I don’t know if people here have the time or resources for it. PeRshGo (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been silent for a few days... my Internet had the flu or something... any way... "Though more politically correct terms are sometimes used now such as Masonic Hall the original, and most prevalent term is Masonic Temple." ... Actually no... the original term was "Hall" (which is what is used in the UK)... but "Temple" became popular in the US... yes "Temple" is more prevalent (due to the shear size of US Freemasonry, which makes US practice "most common"), but it was not the original. But that is besides the point. PeRshGo hits the nail on the head in saying that the concept of a "Masonic Building" is overly broad, to the point where either we limit it by creating a workable (but Original Research) definition or just about anything even remotely associated with the Fraternity can be included as a "Masonic Building" (including the Statue of Liberty, just because it had a Masonic dedication!). I keep coming back to the realization that the best solution is to not have a list article. Why is it that I am the only one to ever mention Category:Masonic buildings? To my mind, the fact that we have this category eliminates the need for List of Masonic buildings. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Partly because the Category:Masonic buildings is unpleasant and effectively unreadable. A list-article, such as almost any county list-article of NRHP-listed places, can be pleasant, can hold and accumulate picture contributions, can grow nice descriptions. It's a different animal. And, as i have said before, you should browse in some of the wp:FL featured lists and/or participate in wp:FLC processes and otherwise familiarize yourself with other list-articles, and then you would chill. Am I correct that your domain is pretty much the 200 or so articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry? That is incredibly tiny, and, if i am not mistaken, it includes very few list-articles. Anyhow, there's going to be a list-article. You could test that eventually by an AFD nomination (please don't now though) but I assure you such an AFD would fail. It is easy to document with reliable references that each of many items have significant Masonic association. So the AFD would fail, even if not every item is fully supported. As I said before I do oppose trying right now to "finalize" some definition of what is significant, because you/i/we do not know enough to define that yet; many good candidate items are currently undeveloped redlinks. That does not mean that the list-article can't be limited to notable ones with a significant association; it just means that is a little hard to define perfectly in advance. You have said you don't want to develop that article, so please do leave it to others. This is getting tedious. Can you cease with that argument, which has been more than adequately refuted, while we decide upon a structure of articles that does indeed include a list-article of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to develop it as it is (I want to scrap it) ... but if we keep it I will continue to insist that its scope be more clearly defined... and if its scope can be more clearly defined I might possibly want to work on it. I just don't think all that is possible. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• FYI - in case you missed it... the requested move has been DONE. --Blueboar

Also, Masonic temple was moved (a few days ago) to Masonic Temple. --Blueboar

This discussion section is still open as the central discussion for 2 or 3 comprehensive proposals. It is not correct practice for one to make a requested move under discussion without consensus being reached. My view in particular, which evolved in discussion, was that the disambiguation page should be moved to "Masonic Temple". It is not a consensus resolution for just one editor to implement the move to "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" instead. Also there are several other proposals for mergers under discussion within this discussion section. --doncram (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? The move Masonic temple (disambiguation) --> Masonic Temple (disambiguation) was performed by an Admin at my request... in direct response to your move request at the top of this very thread. Now you complain that it did not have consensus? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes i do. That administrator did not close this discussion (and should not have, as this is an ongoing discussion). One move does not settle this; it does not reconcile/address your own proposals under discussion here, or Pershgo's, or mine. It is not helpful to fragment / multiply this discussion yet again, without resolving anything. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About the AFD proposal that Blueboar has opened, I believe that is not helpful, like a ploy to gain a temporary side deal to constrain the comprehensive proposals here. It is a proposal to discuss part of the comprehensive proposals in isolation, and confuses matters. Whether to have a list-article or not, and what the title should be, are properly part of the comprehensive discussion here. They are already addressed in my comprehensive proposal above and in Pershgo's. It doesn't help to split this discussion yet again. It has been hard fighting to centralize various separate discussions to here. Also, about the AFD, i specifically already explained, above, why it would not be valid. Note, Pershgo and my views are both that a list-article is needed. Also I actually think you, Blueboar, agree that a list-article is needed; you just are holding out, falsely, that the list-article should not exist, because you want its definition of entries decided first. It seems like a false proposal. --doncram (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are free to feel that the AfD is unhelpful... I think it is very helpful. Whether to keep or delete the list article lies at the heart of all our disagreements. We are not going to be able to resolve our other issues until that underlying issue is settled. We are at a deadlock... and the only way to break that deadlock is to obtain wider community consensus through an AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing it out here. How about we take the list from Masonic Temple and make List of Masonic Temples scrapping List of Masonic buildings. And further clarifying my position I'll say that I'm not against a list article, as long as it's all blue links and specifies what kind of "Masonic building" we are talking about in order to avoid an article that becomes innately accurate due to its breadth. PeRshGo (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2 part 2

For some information about what is where and why, see User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2010/April-June#Masonic Temple. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• There seem to be these subjects here:
  1. Saying what a Masonic temple/Temple/whatever is.
  2. Lists of Masonic meeting places.
  3. Lists of those Masonic meeting places (and buildings that formerly were Masonic meeting places) which are called "something Masonic Temple" rather than something else.

  We also may be running into Freemason customs versus Wikipedia customs about what words to capitalize. Often in an organization it is custom to always capitalize generic words that mean particular things important to that organization.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• As for the issue of capitalization, it isn't a simple matter of capitalization due to a desire to imply importance. It's a matter of distinction and accuracy. Let's use Labrador Retriever for an example. Why isn't the article called Labrador retriever]? Because that only implies that you are dealing with a retriever from Labrador which could be a Poodle from Happy Valley – Goose Bay for all intents and purposes. A Labrador Retriever is a distinct breed thus the dual capitalization. A Masonic Temple's distinction is that it is not a Temple. Seems like a contradiction and the fact is, it is. Masons have a history of using religious and historical imagery despite having little to no direct connection with it. It's all symbolism and allegory. PeRshGo (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• But what is the difference between a Masonic Temple, and a temple, and a Masonic lodge/etc? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Well I think we can agree that a temple is a place where religious services take place. That isn't the case with a Masonic Temple. Freemasonry regularly uses religious terminology without actually being religious in nature. I know it's strange, but right now for example you're chatting with a High Priest who never gives a sermon. Why? Because I'm not actually a priest. PeRshGo (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A "temple" in this context is definitely not a place where religious services take place. As I noted at the ongoing AfD for "Masonic Temple", definition 6 in my desktop dictionary's definition of "temple" says "The headquarters of any of several fraternal orders, especially of the Knights Templar." That's clearly the usage of "temple" found in "Masonic temple." Another user has pointed out there that this usage is somehow based on the Temple of Solomon.

Meanwhile, Freemasonry afficionados indicate that a Masonic lodge is an organizational unit within Freemasonry. Some buildings used by "lodges" carry the name "Masonic Lodge," but that seems to be inconsistent with the standard usage. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Masonic Temple, which should become a short article about the meaning/derivation of the name "Maxonic Temple" (from all I can see, it is a name) and a set-index list of buildings named "Masonic Temple" or a close variant thereof (not to include other Masonic buildings with other names). This is consistent with the position I have stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple. Wikipedia should not continue to maintain two separate lists of "Masonic Temples" without any apparent distinction in scope between those two lists. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is both a description and a name... any building in which Masons meet can be described as a Masonic Temple... and some of these are named "Masonic Temple" (while others are named "Masonic Hall" or "Masonic Center" or what have you). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Does House of the Temple belong

I won't move this around any more... but this one does need to be discussed. While the building is a Masonic temple (actually, it's a Scottish Rite temple, which is slightly different, but we don't need to go into those differences here), the building's name isn't "Masonic Temple"... it's "The House of the Temple" ... The name comes from the fact that the full, official name of the Scottish Rite body that has its headquarters there is: "The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America." (bolding mine).

I am going to assume that the building is included on this page because the NRHP lists it by an incorrect name ... ie the NRHP does list it by the name "Masonic Temple"... Is this correct? (could we double check?) If so, then at least we need to indicate this the way we do for other NRHP buildings that are more commonly known by some other name. If not, then it needs to be removed. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe it is not NRHP-listed at all. Note, there is no mention of it being NRHP-listed in its entry in the dab now, and no mention in its article. There is an NRHP-listed "Masonic Temple" in Washington, D.C., however, namely the Masonic Temple at 801 Thirteenth St., NW, also or currently known as the National Museum of Women in the Arts. In a previous version of the dab, the dab entry for the NRHP-listed one was erroneously pipelinked to the House of the Temple, which is a different building on 16th Street. I didn't search the previous history to see who made the apparent mistake, I just corrected it by creating a separate entry for the NRHP one. Also i tried various searches in the NRIS database and did not find any possible entry for the House of the Temple one. I guess it would have been justified for me to drop the House of the Temple entry here, at that time. But I chose to leave it in here, i guess, thinking that would be easier than dealing more extensively with anyone who already thought it should be in. And, having them both in the dab page does clarify that the Thirteenth St. building is different. However, that could be clarified in both articles, by adding at least a "See also" type link to the other one. And then, yes, the House of the Temple one could be deleted from this dab page. There is no error in the NRHP system regarding any of this, to my knowledge. --doncram (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I think we should cut House of the Temple from this page (we should keep National Museum of Women in the Arts with the note that that "Masonic Temple" is an archaic name for the building). Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current item for that one, which is:

• National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C., also known as, and listed on the NRHP as, Masonic Temple in Washington, D.C.

Honestly i am not sure of what is the very best way to format items like this. But, this version does okay in several respects: (1) it shows the current article name (rather than hiding the actual name by a pipelink), (2) it shows where it is, i.e. Washington, D.C., (3) it explains why the item is on this dab page, namely that it is known as "Masonic Temple" in its NRHP listing. Note, the NRHP listing name is what is given in several sources on the internet including the National Park Service's pages, the private mirror site www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, and other private mirror sites. So, in fact it is known as that, currently, by some, and it is listed on the NRHP as that. I don't think that adding a subjective descriptive word of "archaic" will help or be encyclopedic, offhand. But, what other way of presenting it would you suggest? Again, i honestly don't know for sure the best way to present an item like this. --doncram (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... I was focusing on whether to remove House of the Temple... I did not mean to come across as demanding a format for the other entry. If you are looking for a suggestion for the wording ... Perhaps:

• National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C., listed on the NRHP as Masonic Temple, Washington D.C..

That would avoid the issue of archaic vs current name completely... and yet still make it clear why it is included. But that is just a suggestion... again not a demand. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have removed House of the Temple for the reasons stated above (we can always return it if someone can demonstrate that it is, in fact, referred to by the name "Masonic Temple".) We can leave discussion about the wording of other entries, or the over all format/style of the page for another time. It isn't a pressing issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay good then we are done. Just to note, in passing: the place is listed on the NRHP as "Masonic Temple", not as "Masonic Temple, Washington, D.C." Some different wording of the item would be possibly okay, but i am happy with what is there and you accept that, so mainly i just want to be done. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL... wikipedia is never "done". Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

format of NRHP items

In this edit i just restored some mentions of "listed on the NHRP in X County, State" that had just been deleted. The "optimal" formatting of such items is under active discussion between a couple editors including Station1 and me at another Talk page where there is a bigger discussion referenced from WikiProject Disambiguation, too right now. The basic issue here is that it is useful to dissuade addition of just any place named Masonic Temple, of which i am sure there are many non-notable ones. Showing that the notable ones accepted for mention in a Wikipedia dab page are mostly NRHP-listed ones is useful. I'll add mention of this page to the other main discussion about this point of formatting. Please, there's enough going on with this stupid dab page that we don't need to fight this formatting issue here too, please! --doncram (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the long discussion cited except for one sentence directly responding to a question. Consensus on how to optimally format a dab page is documented at MOS:DAB. Station1 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And the problem grows

PeRshGo has now created List of Masonic Temples... so we have yet another iteration of the same god damned list to add to our discussions. NOT helpful. I here by formally propose that we put a moratorium on creating any further versions of this list. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedied as a fork that didn't add anything to the original article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't accept a moratorium on compromise. You don't want a list article. Good for you. I have already said that I'm your side in that the Masonic building concept is overly broad, but I'm not just going to stonewall everyone in hopes that the problem is just going to go away. PeRshGo (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)