Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

article size issues

This article was just split by me, out from List of Masonic buildings world-wide, but at 124,180 bytes in size, is still on the large side (there's a standard suggestion that articles longer than 100,000 bytes should possibly be shortened/split). I wonder about splitting by east of Mississippi vs. west of Mississippi, or if there is any other good split possible. Or, possibly could split out some of the larger states. This is not urgent. --doncram 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to split it out any further than this at this point -- it's big, but manageable. A couple of things that could trim it down a bit would be to change "NRHP-listed" to just "listed", with a note at the top that any listings are presumed to be the NRHP. Also, we could trim the names out of the coord templates -- seems a bit duplicative to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

An advantage of keeping all together here is that the linked Google/Bing maps show all of those with coordinates mapped around the U.S. (Actually the Bing map will cut off and show just the 1st 200, if there are more than 200.) The labels in the coord templates are needed to make the display in those maps make sense. You want to be able to navigate around the map and identify names of the buildings of interest to yourself. I agree it is manageable enough though. --doncram 18:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Sarek's idea of just saying "listed"... there are Masonic buildings that are listed by State preservation agencies that are not listed by the NRHP after all... if the reader is interested in finding out who it is listed by, all they would have to do is look at the citation.

As a suggested way to further split if it continues to grow ... "purpose built" for Masonic use vs. "converted" to Masonic use might be an interesting and informative way to do it. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting, other

Have y'all looked at the linked Google/Bing maps, by the way? I think they're pretty neat actually. The Bing one only shows sites in states alphabetically up to Washington now, since there are now more than 200 sets of coordinates in the article. Need to place the bing/google link better in the lede, not below the long Table of Contents where it is now. --doncram 22:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying not to be needlessly negative here... personally, I think it "map cruft". Yet, I do understand how someone else might find it "neat". In any case, it isn't objectionable, so no worries. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Maryland, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vermont

Why are these states exempted? Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vermont might be because there are no lodges there that have an article yet. The other 3 can be found in their respective subcats of Category:Masonic buildings in the United States. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:54, 1 Sivan 5771 / 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK... I have added to one for Maryland to the list. So the intent was to say that these states are not represented on the list... YET? That is a bit different... I took it as some sort of ban on adding buildings in those states.

In any case, I don't see a reason for the lede to state that we don't (yet) have any entries for these states ... That should be obvious just by looking at the list itself. If we are worried about readers asking "why are there no buildings listed for these states?", I think that is better resolved by searching for at least one building in each state that would qualify for this list. It does not have to be listed by the NRHP... any notable masonic building in the state will do. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Image(s) Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bogus request, don't worry about it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

washington d.c.

washington d.c. is not in toc and map? also Julius Lansburgh Furniture Co., Inc., "Old Masonic Temple" is not on list. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the template talk page Template talk:ListByUSStateTOC to see if the original template writer could include this. There was a DC section (after Washington), and I included the Old Masonic Building furniture store. Smallbones (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones for adding in the furniture store, and about improving the map template. I never liked the use of the map template here, think it takes too much space up top preventing readers from quickly seeing what the list is going to be like. This is not an article about the U.S. map. I just boldly moved the map TOC down to the very bottom, and restored use of template:TOC right. It's not perfect in my browser, but I think it is better, yes? --doncram 20:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be a better solution than the map, but TOCRight is definitely not it -- it leaves a huge white space in the article to be scrolled past. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the white space is better than the map. There is the long TOC running down, it correctly suggests that a reader can get to real content. --doncram 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD instead of edit warring as usual, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see that Sarek reverted my change in the article before posting here. I reverted his reversion. Please don't edit war on this SarekOfVulcan. I observe your pattern of following my edits everywhere seemingly to find anything you can disagree with and revert. The pattern generally is suspect, not really proper for discussion here, but your revert here is suspect to me because it is part of such a pattern IMO. Please don't bring new controversy here, too. I won't restore the change again if someone else removes it, but I think it is better to have the change in, i.e. to use TOC right for now, as best for others to consider. --doncram 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. NOT BOLD, REVERT, REVERT, REVERT.... If you were a competent editor, I wouldn't have to follow you around cleaning up after you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is called for, either for you to follow me seeking confrontations, or to assert incompetence. Here, your subsequent edit putting in a different alternative TOC seems to indicate agreement on some level with my judgment that the map TOC was not serving well. Does that demonstrate incompetence in your assertion of incompetence? Anyhow, it's too bad how you chose to seek confrontation here, rather than simply discuss. --doncram 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've posted at Template talk:GeoGroupTemplate to request that the coordinates template be revised, so we could properly indicate that Bing displays just the first 200 coordinates in the article. Slowking4 is correct to note that the Washington D.C. is not included (along with South Dakota, Washington, Virginia, etc.), if he meant to say that about the linked Bing map. The linked Google map does show all the places nation-wide. --doncram 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My two cents... I prefer the simple version Sarek has come up with (as seen here)... no map, running horizontally across the page (after the lead), and with DC added alphabetically following Delaware. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the horizontal TOC is preferred by me too. --doncram 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrine (again)

Well... the relationship between the Shrine and Freemasonry is now officially confused... The Grand Master of GL Arkansas has declared the Shrine to be "clandestine" (see here for more information)... What this means the Shrine is officially no longer recognized as being part of the Masonic family in Arkansas. All Arkansas Masons who are members of the Shrine must choose: either give up their membership in the Shrine, or give up their membership in Arkansas Freemasonry. If they choose to remain members of the Shrine, they will be expelled from their Arkansas lodge. Note that this only affects the status of the Shrine in Arkansas... the Shrine remains recognized in other States (for the moment).

All this raises a question for this page... How do we account for this change in official recognition? Should we continue to list Shrine Buildings as being "Masonic"? If we do, I think we need to account for the fact that the Shrine is officially and explicitly NOT Masonic in Arkansas. At a minimum, I think we would need to include an Astrix or a footnote after each Shrine building (with a caveat "Not considered a Masonic building in Arkansas" or something like that). Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Pages for masonic lodges which are really about the buildings they meet in

Apparently there has been consensus that masonic buildings is an appropriate topic for an enWiki list; I was aware that there was a a lot of discussion about this some time ago but I never followed it as I did not have a strong preference one way or the other. First and foremost, thanks to User:Doncram for cluing me in about the fact that an entry in NRHP is sufficient evidence of notability. I disagree with that consensus as it allows my barber shop to have an enWiki page, but of course that's not relevant. So I won't be tagging any more articles about buildings which cite NRHP entries as support notability.

Anyway, I recently made a bunch of article renames for the reason that each of the articles was titled "such-and-such masonic lodge" (or words to that effect) rather than "such-and-such masonic lodge hall|temple|building|whatever." Doncram has inquired as to why.

In brief, a masonic lodge is not a building. As MSJapan noted in a discussion about a different lodge, " . . . the building is notable. The Lodge, however, is not. The building is not "the Lodge"; "the Lodge" is the members (as is clearly explained in the Freemasonry article). This means that the Lodge can meet wherever it wants, and just happens to have a building to meet in, but they are separate entities."

Article titles need to match the content, and in these cases did not, particularly with a title such as "Collinsville Masonic Temple Lodge No. 712 A.F. & A.M." There are masonic lodges (a term referring to the members of a local group of masons from at least 1500 AD, lodge halls (a term used in the past and to this day to refer to the meeting place), masonic temples (a newer term used (I guess in the last 75-100 years or so) to refer to the meeting place).

In my experience, "temple" is used only in the U.S. The term "masonic temple lodge" is nonsensical.

I am not married to a name which uses the name of the city, but I do think enWiki article names must identify the subject correctly. Comments? RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 13:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From my experience many lodge buildings share the same name as the lodge itself as a matter of public record. The title to the building where "Oriental Lodge No. 3" meets may very well read "Oriental Lodge No. 3." Some of them also may be listed as "masonic temple lodge" or other ridiculous amalgamations that the man at the title or NRHP office thought made sense at the time. While it may be confusing we have a dedication as editors to be accurate, and even if each article requires a short explanation we're better off naming it what it's actually named over attempts to design our own system of identification. I would argue that we need to return all names to whatever the NRHP has unless another source says otherwise. PeRshGo (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... we have to remember that most non-Masons (and even many Masons) do not understand the distinction between the lodge (a group of people) and the building (a place where the lodge meets). It is fairly common in the US to refer to the building as a "lodge" (using the lodge's name to distinguish it from other "lodges").

This can cause confusion between articles on buildings and articles on lodges... the solution is editing with DUE WEIGHT in mind. If the building is what is notable, the article should talk about the building... the lodge should only be mentioned in passing, in the context of being the owners/former owners of the building. If the lodge is notable, the reverse is true (the building should be mentioned only in passing). If they are both notable, give them equal weight.

One final thought... One problem with using the NRHP name is that the NRHP doesn't update their listings if the name of the building changes... we had this issue with our article on the Polly Rosenbaum Building in Phoenix, AZ. It is still listed by the NRHP as the "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" (the old name of the buidling). However, the building has not actually been called that by anyone outside of the NRHP since 1988... 25 years ago. More importantly, there is a different building in Phoenix that is currently called "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" (it's not listed on the NRHP yet... but give it a few more years and it probably will be... the Shriners are well aware of the tax benefits of having your building listed as a landmark). This issue does not come up a lot... but when it does it causes all sorts of argument. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The article title should reflect the content. However the best title is nine times out of ten is the official title in the NRHP entries (or other listing). There are some exceptions, but they are rare. It may be a confusion (as listed above), a more common name (which needs to be documented) or that the lodge itself may be notable. However I think User:Doncram's reasoning is sound, simply changing the name to a name that there is no evidence that it has ever been used rather than a title that is by definition documented. JASpencer (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Where there is potential for confusion we should disambiguate... Articles on notable lodges (the group of people) should be entitled without disambiguation (as Cumquat Lodge No. 4321)... while articles on notable buildings should be entitled with disambiguation (as Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 (building)). Unfortunately, this idea has been resisted by our colleagues at the NRHP project. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable if there are two seperate articles. However if there is only one article (and in the vast majority of case this will be the case) then the NRHP title should be used unless there is documentation to show it being used in some other way. JASpencer (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RiverStyx23 for being a sport about this, for bringing this here to get others' views. Seems the upshot is that NRHP names are supported by consensus in cases where there is no sourcing supporting any other name, which seems reasonable. For the record this was raised by me at this user talk section before Riverstyx23 brought it here, where i did make a point to emphasize that the NRHP name is not required, if a different common name is documented as being used. And thanks others for your sharing. Maybe the previous hundreds of pages worth of brouhaha was not all for naught, if we actually now have a pretty well informed set of editors to advise a newly arriving editor now on a question like this. --doncram 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Further to Blueboar's concern I think it would be a good idea to add a sort of disambig. statement top of the article, something like: "This article is about the building. For articles about organization of the same or similar name, see or create Article Name." Or some such. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 20:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That would help. A related issue is when well intended editors try to expand on stub articles about the building with information on the non-notable orgainzation that meets in it... It can get to the point where the article spends more time discussing the organization than the building ... essentially shifting the topic of the article (ie what started as an article about a notable building grows into an article about a non-notable organization). That is an issue we will have to jointly address at WikiProject Freemasonry and WikiProject NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's a great solution. And I think would be a fantastic blanket policy for all masonic buildings that list the organization as their official name. Otherwise we will inevitably end up running into the same issues. PeRshGo (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Masonic buildings in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Masonic buildings in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Times":

• From Highland Park Masonic Temple: Betsy Bates (1990-05-10). "Old Lodge Echoes With New Voices Highland Park: A Masonic hall rich in architectural details is resurrected for use as a community center that is a popular spot for festivities". Los Angeles Times.
• From Hollywood Masonic Temple: Al Ridenour (2002-05-02). "A Chamber of Secrets; Hollywood's Masonic temple, witness to the passage of time, is restored and reborn as an entertainment venue". Los Angeles Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have resolved the issue Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Masonic building - 321 South Main Street, Tifton GA

I moved this to the List of former Masonic buildings in the United States, but Doncram has returned it... asking for a source to prove that the building no longer houses a Masonic Lodge.

This source about the Masonic Building (AKA "Old Masonic Lodge") on South Main St. states that the building has a historical connection to Tifton Lodge No. 47... However, the website of Tifton Lodge contains a picture of its current building, and it isn't the historic building located at 321 South Main Street.

Looking further: according to the Grand Lodge of Georgia's lodge locator page, there are currently two lodges that meet in the town of Tifton: a) Tifton Lodge No. 47 and b) Tiftarea Lodge No. 745. Click on the links and you find that both of these lodges meet at 1480 Kennedy Rd. (note that a google street view of 1480 Kennedy Rd. shows the same building that is shown on Tifton Lodge's webpage).

Thus it should be clear that at some point in it's history, Tifton Lodge No. 47 moved out of 321 South Main Street, and into a new building at 1480 Kennedy Rd. I have yet to find a source stating when this occurred... but looking at the architecture of the Kennedy Rd building, I suspect it was in the 1970s.

Note that the NRHP documents requesting that the 321 South Main Street building be added to the historic district do not mention the lodge when discussing why the building is significant. It seems that the building was included for its architecture, not for any cultural ties to the Masons. This leads me to think that the lodge had already moved out by the time the building was added to the Historic District. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum... most of the Grand Lodges in the US have "lodge locator" sections on their websites... these are a good thing to check when determining whether a historic building is currently used by the fraternity or not (and thus whether the building should be listed here on this page, or at the "Former Masonic buildings" page). Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Haddam, Connecticut one

Three current websites seem to suggest two or three different buildings are the current location of Granite Lodge 119, if i am not mistaken:

• Granitelodge119.org shows Brainerd Academy building. NRHP document for Haddam Center Historic District lists that at 22 Field Park Drive (see page 7 of that, and photo 18 of accompanying photos.
• a 2015 photo posted within this Facebook page is a different building (maybe a former one made of granite?)
• www.masonpost.com's Google map link goes to 32 Field Park Drive

I don't think where the lodge currently meets is important; what is important for readers is to list the notable Masonic buildings in Connecticut together. --doncram 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

take dispute elsewhere please

To editor Blueboar, please don't dispute in mainspace about your views about references to the NRIS database. The template NRISref is what it is currently, partly because of your previous involvement with it. If you want to dispute it again, use the Talk page of the template or some other more appropriate forum, rather than edits in mainspace one of many thousands of content articles that use the reference. --doncram 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Doncram... the NRIS website does not contain an entry for the property in question. If it is in the database, but not on the website... fine... I have no objection to citing the database. However, we should not link to the website... since the website does not in fact mention the property. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Masonic buildings in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113160838/http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/publications/unity/images/ARSocGroupBrochure-web.pdf to http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/publications/unity/images/ARSocGroupBrochure-web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009033103/http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/MSLandmarks.pdf to http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/MSLandmarks.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Masonic buildings in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/historic-properties/_search_nomination_popup.aspx?id=166
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324231236/http://www.hornitos98.org/about%20us.html to http://www.hornitos98.org/about%20us.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kingcounty.gov/sites/exec/bred/~/media/exec/bred/HPdocuments/King_County_Landmarks.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Milton Masonic Lodge

I added Milton Masonic Lodge; another editor removed it; I restored it. It is a Masonic lodge. It still exists. It is not a "former" building, and no one has agreed that "former" buildings should be removed, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

First, this most certainly was discussed (see the archives at Talk:List of Masonic Buildings). Second... The "former" masonic buildings are not being "removed", they are being moved to a more appropriate article (List of former Masonic buildings and List of former Masonic buildings in the United States. The structures listed in these two articles may not be former buildings, but they are former Masonic buildings... in that they no longer serve any masonic purpose. No lodges meet there. Having separate lists for buildings that are actively used for a specific purpose, and those that no longer serve that purpose is standard practice on WP... for example, we have lists for former religious structures (such as: List of former Christian Science churches, societies and buildings and List of closed churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York)... and there are many other lists with variations on "former"... for buildings that once served a specific purpose, but no longer do so. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such standard practice; your examples are faulty. --Doncram (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire, Catholic church buildings are organized by geography, not by current status. See List of Catholic churches in the United States, which includes current churches and some which are now museums. The fact that List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York was split and List of closed churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York was created is an oddity; it is an example of things in one geographical area divided into two by current status; it is NOT an example of things of some current status divided by geography. No one wants for there to be a world-wide or U.S.-wide "List of former Roman Catholic churches" divided by geography. --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

About Christian Science churches, there is, oddly, a list of "former" ones but not a list of current ones, so that is not an example of what you want, either. The way forward there would be to add the "current" ones to the list, and to change the editorial focus to covering the once-great Christian Science movement rather than editorializing (falsely?) that it was all in the past. The corresponding category structure is in fact organized first by geography. For example, there is Category:Christian Science churches in California which includes 3 current buildings and also subcategory Category:Former Christian Science churches, societies and buildings in California which includes 5. The prime organization is by geography.

For Masonic buildings, what makes sense is to organize in the United States by state, like all other lists of buildings, e.g. List of county courthouses in the United States. If one state is really huge, we split out, say, List of county courthouses in Texas, which includes nearby former courthouses together with current ones. --Doncram (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Split vs. merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose that List of former Masonic buildings in the United States be merged back into List of Masonic buildings in the United States, from which it was split. Actually, the list of "former" buildings has been mislabeled; it is a list of mostly current buildings, i.e. still existing, proudly displaying "Masonic Lodge" or the like across the tops of their facades. The overall group of Masonic buildings is to be most sensibly again divided by geography; it is a violation of wp:NOTDIRECTORY to try to keep a current directory of sites and meeting hours where Masons occasionally meet vs. another directory where they do not currently meet (with split maintained by reliance on, literally, directories). What is permanent and notable is the historic, solid architecture of the buildings, evidence of the once-powerful presence of Masons in U.S. cities and towns. Most of these buildings that we list are included on the National Register of Historic Places. This is not a directory of current organizations (that is, instead, List of Masonic Grand Lodges); it should not even be mentioned in the list-article whether a given building has a local club meeting scheduled this month or not. All other list-articles of notable clubhouses in Wikipedia, and I believe all other types of buildings covered in Wikipedia, are organized by geography, not by inconsequential trivia of mostly now non-notable groups currently or once associated with the buildings. (See Lists of clubhouse buildings.) --Doncram (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. As per nom, we are not here to provide a directory of masonic lodges. However, many of the buildings (whether in current use for masonic purposes or not) have quite distinctive architectures and (in my home state of Queensland), a number are protected with state heritage listings and thus are notable. I see no problem in having lists (divided by geography) of current/former Masonic buildings which meet notability criteria. Kerry (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I support the merging of these pages, however I believe we should adopt what some other building-oriented lists utilize, which would be a cell color and legend designating whether or not a building is currently operating as a Masonic hall (leave color normal), demolished/destroyed (perhaps lavender), and former Masonic hall (perhaps yellow). This would leave the organizing principle of the list coherent and simple, while still easily designating a Masonic building as operational, former, or demolished. For an example, see List of Frank Lloyd Wright works. --Callamachus 16:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I agree that using color coding to indicate demolished buildings, as done in the Frank Lloyd Wright list, would be good. I am not inclined to try, as been haphazardly done so far, to keep track of which ones currently have a meeting or not, because that is taking on a directory function and it isn't relevant to the notability of the buildings. There isn't any way to tell for many of these; in fact the current split is probably inaccurate, based on one editor's imperfect collection of directory-type info from scattered websites, when some don't use or update their websites at all. The Frank Lloyd Wright list is not taking on a similar updating burden. On the other hand, maybe coloring "operational" or not can be handled with some appropriate definitions like "known to be operational at least once after 2016" vs. "not known" that way, which might not be too hard to maintain. This can be discussed later/separately. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed - when an office building is converted into an apartment building, it ceases to be an office building. It is accurate to describe it as a “former” office building, or as an apartment building... but it is inaccurate to continue to call it an “office” building when it no longer serves that function. The same is true when the function is to be a fraternal meeting hall. It can be accurately described as a “former” Masonic building, or as something else (whatever its current usage is)... but it is inaccurate to continue to call a building “Masonic” when it no longer serves any Masonic purpose. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - We have former Carnegie Libraries which no longer operate as such, and are still parts of "Lists of Carnegie Libraries in... (wherever). A notable example is the former Patchogue Carnegie Library, which hasn't operated since the Patchogue-Medford Public Library moved to the former W.T. Grant shopping center, and has remained ever since. So, right now I'm leaning towards Support for the merge, but I also think we should consider the possibility of splitting of state-specific lists. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support The notability and interest of these buildings, the reason for their being covered on Wikipedia, derives from their status as Masonic buildings, whether current or former. I see this list as comparable to the lists of Carnegie library buildings. I think it makes sense to keep them together, with indications of which ones are still Masonic buildings, and which not. Ntsimp (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support My reasoning is exactly in line with Ntsimp's; many Carnegie libraries have been converted to other uses (art centers, for example) but their notability derives from their shared origin illustrating an international phenomenon, and all examples merit discussion as a collection regardless of current use. Masonic buildings illustrate the international phenomenon of Freemasonry and should be listed and discussed without chronocentrism. -McGhiever (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I also think Ntsimp is spot on here. These are historic buildings and their notability is based on the original use, not the current one. For a lot of not-so-high-profile historic buildings, the current use isn't even notable enough to be covered in reliable sources. All of the buildings under discussion were built by and for Masonic organizations, which puts them in a common class. To me, the fact that some of them were later converted into something else doesn't change this. Not opposed to having some kind of designation in the list for the ones that are still in use, but I don't think there should be two separate lists. Camerafiend (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To highlight one thought, yes, the current use isn't even notable enough to be covered in reliable sources for many of these. This AFD should not come out with a declaration about what must be done in a merged list about the many ambiguous cases. Masonic buildings were usuallly always multi-use buildings, different than Carnegie libraries which were all dedicated, single-purpose buildings, and it is not clear what is the continuing connection or not even if you are right there looking at one. Please see, participate in #Treatment of demolished, other statuses section below, if you want to comment about that. --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Question - Just to show how complicated this all gets... what would people do about the Marvin Kent house... this one was originally a private home, but was subsequently purchased by the masons. It is really far more notable for its historic ties to the prominent local family that built it (the founders of the town)... but we included it on the list because the Masons currently meet there. Should we remove it per NOTDIRECTORY? Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your statement that the Masons "currently meet there" gave me pause, but I see from checking the article that that's been going on since 1923 and it's listed as "Masonic Temple" on the National Register. So what I said before still applies; the building's Masonic connection is a major part of its notability here. Ntsimp (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support merger. There are hundreds, probably more like thousands of temples and former temples in the United States and trying to keep track of what is being used as a temple and what is not and then moving them when they get discontinued is too much monitoring. One list is plenty enough. Carptrash (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment A week has gone by, and I have asked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Split vs. merger proposal for an uninvolved editor to close this. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2018 (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.

Treatment of demolished, other statuses

In the "split vs. merger proposal" above, some support is expressed for using color coding to denote demolished buildings and ones no longer associated with any Masonic group, similar to how Carnegie library lists are handled. However this would not be so simple, including because Masonic buildings are usually multi-use buildings while libraries are not. Specifically:

• it is often/usually not possible for a site visitor/photographer to discern whether a Masonic building has any current association, because commmercial and other uses are often present in first-floor space, while usage/ownership of second/third floor space is not apparent, and "Masonic Lodge" indicators are often permanently inscribed into a building. A sign proclaiming different usage does not preclude occasional usage by a Masonic local club, and does not indicate whether the club continues to own the property or not and/or use it occasionally. This is unlike public libraries, which are the primary purpose of a Carnegie library building, and for which public information is readily available about their opening hours, etc.
• there are often not any reliable sources covering current usage, as noted by User:Camerafiend. Local websites and regional/state-level "Grand Lodge" websites are not valid, IMHO, as we all know that such can carry inaccurate info for years. A local newspaper story about a local club actually selling a site and moving to a different location would be sufficient, but in a lot of cases we are not going to know, and most of us do not care, whether a non-notable club occasionally comes back to its old haunt.

The Carnegie libraries lists (e.g. List of Carnegie libraries in Florida) include a key with the following options:
  Building still operating as a library
  Building standing, but now serving another purpose [NOTE Masonic buildings usually always serve another purpose.]
  Building no longer standing
  Building listed on the National Register of Historic Places
  Building contributes to a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places

This might be adapted as, perhaps:
  Building standing
  Building standing, and known to have no continuing association with current Masonic organizations
  Building no longer standing
  Building listed on the National Register of Historic Places
  Building contributes to a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places

Note this avoids any issue whether a non-reliable webpage says that a given local Masonic club is going to meet this month at a given building, or whether it is going to meet somewhere else, or whether no information can be found about current directory status. I very much want to avoid ongoing debate interpreting silly, unreliable webpages; either you have a definitive, reliable, dated, citable source saying the Masons are completely gone, or not. It doesn't matter whether some small remnant of a once-large-and-influential Masonic club survives on or has finally croaked. And it is okay for an article about an individual Masonic building to include an external link to a local club webpage, but footnotes and external links about meetings and hours should not be included, i.e. will be deleted from the U.S.-wide list-article. By the way, the "former" list-article, to be merged by proposal, is full of unreliable citations which are not to be included in the single continuing list-article, which should focus instead on aspects of permanent significance at a higher level. --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Lodge meeting places are not kept secret. All Grand Lodges in the US publish accurate and up to date lists of where their lodges meet and when (most have “lodge locator” pages on their websites). I don't see any reason to consider them unreliable. It is in the Masons' interest to maintain and publish these lists... a) so fellow masons from other areas can visit, and b) so non-masons who are interested in joining know where to inquire. It is actually quite easy to find out if a building is still used by the Masons. Just look at the grand Lodge website, and see if there is still a lodge meeting at that address. The grand lodge lists are certainly more up to date than 30+ year old NRHP nomination forms. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sellwood Masonic Lodge

There's an "under construction" tag, so I don't want to cause an edit request, but I'm wondering if Sellwood Masonic Lodge should be added to the Oregon section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, do it. Carptrash (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

finding more NRHP ones

I have been finding more NRHP ones by use of NRIS search tool, searching on "Lodge". Have browsed "A" through "D" so far and added several items to this list. Can click on suggested title for Wikipedia article, and can click on "infobox" to see more info about ambiguously named places. I think we got all the ones with "Mason" or "Masonic" in their names, previously, at least in the NRIS database covering through 2011 or so. There could be some others besides "Lodge" ones in this database version, covering through some date in 2014 now. --Doncram (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Just be cautious... remember that lots of other organizations use the term “lodge”, so make sure that the buildings are indeed connected to Freemasonry and not one of these other orgs. Blueboar (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

but Henry Cabot Lodge House and the like are okay, right?  :) ? --doncram

Have added some more, working from end alphabetically back up to Witherspoon Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, No. 111 so far. --Doncram (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Worked back a few more, not finding masonic ones. Hmm, White Cloud Lodge (was a redlink) in Perkins, Oklahoma, is not. Further back to Viall Lodge, which is a gatehouse at a cemetery, per this. --Doncram (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Worked back through beginning of the T's, Tamarack Lodge Bungalow. There were several Masonic ones, already in this list. --Doncram (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Back to Sevierville Masonic Lodge, already in this list. --Doncram (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Forward to Flaming Arrow Lodge (not determined yet), after adding two from the "E"s. --Doncram (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Forward through the "Hope Lodge" in Pennsylvania. Not determined yet about the "Hope Lodge" in Louisiana, perhaps it should be created at Hope Lodge No. 145. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Forward through "Litchfield Elks Lodge No. 654", have added several "Lodge" ones with or without "Masonic" or "F&AM". Try any more "F & A M" and variations? --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

About Look About Lodge (currently a redlink), located at 37374 Miles Rd. in Bentleyville, Ohio, indicated to be a "Meeting Hall" by NRIS. I couldn't immediately tell about this. It is not covered in the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary (see wp:NRHPHELPOH). Oh, hmm, here it is explained to be a log cabin home to the Cleveland Natural Science Club.

Mount Tabor Good Samaritan Lodge No. 59

Forward, adding several more to this list-article on the way, to Mount Tabor Good Samaritan Lodge No. 59 (1899), Crownsville, Maryland. Not Masonic. This is another one of the less-known African-American community ones. Its article links to Independent Order of Good Samaritans and Daughters of Samaria (currently a redlink). --Doncram (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Forward through Palestine Lodge, adding 3 more, including an 1820 one in Ohio that is oldest Masonic lodge west of Allegheny mountains. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Forward through Seashore Farmers' Lodge No. 767, which is another African-American club one. --Doncram (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, because reached Sevierville Masonic Lodge one. This process yielded a bunch of additions to this list of Masonic buildings, plus some additions to Elks, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias building lists. And identified a number of black / African-American ones. Some had "Masonic" in their name already, and should have been included already. I checked all the later ones, but not so much early on, where i may have assumed a "Masonic" one was already included. --Doncram (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Former mason's Lodge in Harvard Illinois Built in 1919

Harvard Illinois is the home of a former Mason's Lodge on Ayre Street And Rt. 14. It was built in 1919 and the present owner is interested in opening the time capsule this year.

number

Quickly counting, as of July 25, 2019, to support some statement of how many, in the lede:

1. Alabama 11
2. Alaska 1
3. Arizona 6
4. Arkansas 14
5. California 24 (subtotal 56)
6. Colorado 10
7. Connecticut 5
8. Delaware 3
9. District of Columbia 5
10. Florida 6
11. Georgia 10
12. Hawaii 1 (subtotal 40, 96)
13. Idaho 4
14. Illinois 12
15. Indiana 11
16. Iowa 12
17. Kansas 8 (subtotal 47, 143)
18. Kentucky 16
19. Louisiana 4
20. Maine 5
21. Maryland 2
22. Massachusetts 10
23. Michigan 11
24. Minnesota 9 (subtotal 57, 200)
25. Mississippi 14
26. Missouri 13
27. Montana 6
28. Nebraska 3
29. Nevada 1
30. New Jersey 3
31. New Mexico 3
32. New York 12 (subtotal 55, 255)
33. North Carolina 12
34. North Dakota 6
35. Ohio 17
36. Oklahoma 9
37. Oregon 6
38. Pennsylvania 8
39. Rhode Island 1
40. South Carolina 2 (subtotal 61, 316)
41. South Dakota 9
42. Tennessee 5
43. Texas 19
44. Utah 1
45. Vermont 3
46. Virginia 6
47. Washington 13 (subtotal 56, 372)
48. West Virginia 4
49. Wisconsin 12
50. Wyoming 4
51. Puerto Rico 2 (subtotal 22, 394)

Seems one can say "more than 390". The total will only grow. --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bradford lodge

I am currently living in an old Masonc lodge known as Bradford lodge number 109 built in 1925 in Nashua Iowa and you guys dont have it listed yet Iowahistoric (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iowahistoric, I can't immediately find coverage about it in order to include it, write about it. Yes it exists, mention comes up in obituaries of past members for example. Do you happen to know if it has interesting history or if the building is interesting architecturally? --Doncram (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)