National Register of Historic Places

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freemasonry

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli Articles to be re-written Freemasonry in Cuba - Entirely AI generated.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I removed to Archive 6 the drafted tables and some discussion from November, all older than the 30 day or whatever Mizrabot archiving set for this page. Perhaps Mizrabot can't archive a section that big.

There was some good development in those drafted tables which is worth capturing in articles. I notice many footnotes developed with sources about particular places that are not included in their individual articles.

Also, there were multiple other assertions in those drafted tables, like that places were "purpose-built" (not an English language term with which i am familiar) that are not supported by their articles.

Overall, i don't think the drafted tables were or are ready to be considered as a proposal to be brought into this list-article, because of those mis-matches between articles and what is said in the tables. The table descriptions should not contain anything not supported in the individual articles. That is one of several criteria previously discussed for developing tables to be included in the list-article. That specific problem could be addressed by a lot of editing in the individual articles (and by removal of assertions about "purpose-built"ed ness). I would support the articles being improved. --Doncram (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me that I need to continue the project of conversion to the tabular format. Got busy working on other things. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits i converted the Virginia section into table-ized format. If this is okay, i may proceed slowly to table-ize other U.S. sections into one big U.S. table. Please note:

• The table format follows format used in List of Elks buildings and a number of other list-articles.
• The format is basically what i suggest now for application in the entire U.S. section. The first column shows # signs for now, is meant to show a numbering of rows as in the Elks building list-article eventually. When there are more states included in the table, the "city, state" column entries will be modified to use template:sort so that the column can be sorted by state then city.
• The edits basically did not add any new assertions, but rather moved text already in this list-article, which had sources and has been verified by many editors' cumulative scrutiny, into the table format. All assertions are sourced by inline references.
• The edits did add coordinates from the corresponding articles. I think the coordinates do not need separate inline references, as being factual and non-controversial.
• The edits added, in a dates column, year built and (where relevant) year NRHP-listed. These are factual and are taken from the corresponding articles; i don't think separate inline references are needed.
• I started with this section because it was relatively well-developed already and was not already drafted by Blueboar's drafting of sections.
• In going forward to other state sections, I would plan to edit to only include information already in this list-article plus information supported by inline references that can be taken from individual articles indexed. Where there is already a section drafted by Blueboar, I would first try to capture any new information in Blueboar's drafts to put that into the individual articles, then proceed in the same way. If there is no sourced information in good form to use, i will leave a description blank.

Comments welcome. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a first glance it looks good. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. I further tackled Alaska and Alabama which are easier in some ways and harder in others, adapting from Blueboar's drafts for those, and in the process editing the corresponding articles to capture information in those drafts. Applied some other copyediting. I hope/think these are okay and reflect only supported info now in articles. Unless there is other feedback, i will plan to work along slowly this way. --Doncram (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of impressive masonic buildings in St. Louis, Mo, e.g. this one in midtown on Lindell blvd. Why have they beeen forgotten? I do not want to interfere here, but I have written a short article in German WP on the subject of this "double decker acropolis" and I would be happy to have better and newer pictures not only regarding this building but also regarding the other masonic landmarks on Lindell. Robert Schediwy --91.129.8.20 (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]