Historic sites

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freemasonry High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list-article is obviously long now and I expect to split it soon. Probably to just split off List of Masonic buildings in the United States. The huge amount of edit history in developing the United States entries would be left behind in the current list-article, but i see no remedy for that. I'm not expecting there's any other alternative, but would consider any others' comments. --doncram 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a split, but I do have a concern... if we split off the US Buildings, does it leaves us with an overly short list where it comes to the non-US buildings. Just to think out loud... Perhaps a split to Masonic buildings listed on the NRHP... which would leave the few non-NRHP American buildings with the international ones? Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, if the majority of the edit history is US buildings, you could just rename this to US and split off the other content to a new List of Masonic buildings article, giving the current diff from this article for attribution purposes in the edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point that the U.S. list is now a large majority of the article, and splitting by U.S. vs. non-U.S. will leave the U.S. chunk still very large. But at least it is developed out, and won't grow too much more, too fast. The non-U.S. portion could grow by expanding out into tables with pics and descriptions and so on, as Blueboar was developing in draft form. So splitting U.S. vs. non-U.S. does make some progress at least.

Thanks, that's a good suggestion about how to do the split, with attribution in the edit summary. Another consideration, come to think of it, is that there are dozens of wp:ANI and wp:3RRnb and other discussions that link to here or to archives of this Talk page, and avoiding breaking all of those links is desirable. I don't mind leaving all that behind, in my going on to continue to develop a newly splitoff article of the U.S. list. --doncram 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Thanks. Leaving it here would be better, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the suggestion is now to split off the non-US buildings? What would we call that article? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suggestion, but I withdrew it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... OK... then what is the suggestion?

I do have to at least make an alternative suggestion for people to think about ... We could bring the list back to a more manageable size if we narrowed our definition of what constitutes a "Masonic building"... limiting it to those buildings that were/are purpose built to house Masonic bodies, as opposed to those that are/were built as something else and are now merely occupied by the Masons. (I am not trying to re-open old debates here... just making the suggestion). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this for a definition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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