Category talk:Masonic Lodges: Difference between revisions
→Category coverage of buildings: revise |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I think this is better, reflecting the reality that we want a single combined article for any lodge having a historic building. Am happy to discuss. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
I think this is better, reflecting the reality that we want a single combined article for any lodge having a historic building. Am happy to discuss. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Several issues... first, in most cases the building is notable, but the lodge isn't. It isn't appropriate to have an article on the lodge itself. However, in those few cases where a local lodge is notable on its own,we need a category for it.. one that is distinct from articles about the buildings. When an article discusses (in reasonable depth) both the chapter and the building, then it ''would'' be appropriate to add both cats. But this will be rare. |
|||
:Second... in many cases the title of the article is inappropriate for an article on the lodge... the building does not have the exact same name as the lodge... For example... Take: [[South Side Masonic Lodge No. 1114]]... that ''is'' the name of a building (at least according to the NRHP), but it ''isn't'' the actual name of a lodge. The lodge is actually named "South Side Lodge No. 1114 F&AM" (or something like that... it could be AF&AM). The word "Masonic" does not appear in the name of the lodge... Yes, the building name is ''derived'' from the lodge name, but they are distinct and different. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:11, 19 July 2013
| Freemasonry | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Category coverage of buildings
Longstanding, since 2008, in the category description was statement that "Note: This category is for articles on notable local chapters of the organization known as Freemasonry. In Freemasonry the word "Lodge" refers to a group of Freemasons as an organizational entity, and not to the building in which they assemble. Please do not include articles on Masonic buildings in this category; for buildings related to Masonry, see Category:Masonic buildings."
I just removed/revised that to state, instead: "Note: This category is for articles on notable local chapters of the organization known as Freemasonry. In Freemasonry the word "Lodge" officially refers to a group of Freemasons as an organizational entity, and not to the building in which they assemble. But, in practice, "Lodge" is also commonly used to refer to a Masonic building. If an article written first about a building has title of format "X Lodge", please help revise the article to clarify that the article is to be about the chapter as well. In Wikipedia, we seldom will want to split out separate articles for a chapter vs. its building, similar to usual treatment for churches which are about both the church organization/congregation and any significant church buildings. For many articles, both this category and also Category:Masonic buildings will be appropriate."
I think this is better, reflecting the reality that we want a single combined article for any lodge having a historic building. Am happy to discuss. --doncram 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Several issues... first, in most cases the building is notable, but the lodge isn't. It isn't appropriate to have an article on the lodge itself. However, in those few cases where a local lodge is notable on its own,we need a category for it.. one that is distinct from articles about the buildings. When an article discusses (in reasonable depth) both the chapter and the building, then it would be appropriate to add both cats. But this will be rare.
- Second... in many cases the title of the article is inappropriate for an article on the lodge... the building does not have the exact same name as the lodge... For example... Take: South Side Masonic Lodge No. 1114... that is the name of a building (at least according to the NRHP), but it isn't the actual name of a lodge. The lodge is actually named "South Side Lodge No. 1114 F&AM" (or something like that... it could be AF&AM). The word "Masonic" does not appear in the name of the lodge... Yes, the building name is derived from the lodge name, but they are distinct and different. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)