Talk:List of Masonic buildings: Difference between revisions
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of ''consistent, useful, and clear'' criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] ([[User talk:MSJapan|talk]]) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
:Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of ''consistent, useful, and clear'' criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] ([[User talk:MSJapan|talk]]) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does ''anyone'' have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
::Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does ''anyone'' have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
I would say that it is any building that was built for Masonic purposes. This definition would justify a merger between [[Masonic Temple]] and this article keeping the title of Masonic buildings. This would allow the article to also list things like the [[George Washington Masonic National Memorial]] and buildings like Shrine Mosques and Commandery Asylums. I doubt we're going to find a solid reference for the decision simply because it comes down to an opinion on how we wish to organize the data as editors. But if any justification is needed it might be worthwhile to mention on the page that most Masonic Buildings do have a "Masonic Building Association" which meets and handles the administration of their respective masonic building. [[User:PeRshGo|PeRshGo]] ([[User talk:PeRshGo|talk]]) 12:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:39, 14 May 2010
| Disambiguation | ||||
| ||||
| National Register of Historic Places | |||||||
| |||||||
| Freemasonry | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
removed link
Brosi 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)* Olathe #19, Olathe, Kansas. This is an interesting link that should go on lodges not here. This is for architecture and architectural history of the temples only.Brosi 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This needs to go....
This is going to turn into a list of random information. If these buildings are notable in and of themselves, and there are decent articles on them, just make a subcategory for them under Freemasonry (Masonic Buildings, maybe?), add the articles directly, and get rid of this list. MSJapan 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This page could be put at the top of the cat: page, like say Category:Lodges, & nothing would be missed. Grye 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Freemasons meet as a Lodge not in a Lodge, although Masonic premises may be called Lodges, as well as Temples ("of Philosophy and the Arts"). In many countries Masonic Centre or Hall has now replaced these terms to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion. Several different Lodges, or other Masonic organisations, often use the same premises at different times.Jokerst44 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree... list cruft. Blueboar 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Freemasons meet as a Lodge not in a Lodge, although Masonic premises may be called Lodges, as well as Temples ("of Philosophy and the Arts"). In many countries Masonic Centre or Hall has now replaced these terms to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion. Several different Lodges, or other Masonic organisations, often use the same premises at different times.Jokerst44 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two mason temples in North Carolina, one in Swansboro, one in Newbern. I don't know their actual names, and I don't know where they should go on this article, so if someone else (who knows more about the sections/stuff) wants to add those in, go ahead. --WikiSpaceboy
My house used to be own by a master mason. just so happens i found Plenlty of masonic things. espically in the attic when we knocked down the walls, Things including Order of The Amartanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.241.251 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What makes a building a "Masonic" building?
Once again, this list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Is this a List of buildings with the word 'Masonic' included in their names"?... is it a List of buildings built by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings used (at some point in history) by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings associated with the Freemasons? or what?
Is there any difference between this list and Category:Masonic buildings (which also needs a clearer criteria for inclusion by the way). Is there any substantial difference between this list and: Masonic Temple, [[Masonic Lodge {disambiguation]], Masonic building etc. We still have a huge duplication of lists here. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of consistent, useful, and clear criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does anyone have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say that it is any building that was built for Masonic purposes. This definition would justify a merger between Masonic Temple and this article keeping the title of Masonic buildings. This would allow the article to also list things like the George Washington Masonic National Memorial and buildings like Shrine Mosques and Commandery Asylums. I doubt we're going to find a solid reference for the decision simply because it comes down to an opinion on how we wish to organize the data as editors. But if any justification is needed it might be worthwhile to mention on the page that most Masonic Buildings do have a "Masonic Building Association" which meets and handles the administration of their respective masonic building. PeRshGo (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)