Category talk:Masonic Lodges

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. So we don't actually want a combined article. We want an article on the building and not the lodge. However, there are some cases where the local lodge is notable... and their building is not. in those cases we need a category for just the lodge alone.. one that is distinct from articles about the buildings. When both are notable, then it would be appropriate to combine them and add both cats. But this will be rare.

Second... in many cases the title of the building 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, or even F&AAM if it is Prince Hall derived). The word "Masonic" does not appear in the name of the lodge... Yes, the building name is derived from the lodge's name, but they are distinct and different. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) About the South Side one, i already just tried revising the article to reflect your assertion in an edit summary that the lodge chapter is named "South Side Lodge No. 1114 F&AM", and I intended to move the article to that name. I included clarification in the article that the building's official name in the National Register is what it is, and that name should be kept in the NRHP infobox. But, there should be just one combined article about the chapter and its historic building. It should be moved to whatever is the correct name for the lodge, which now you suggest I should have some doubt about. Could you please add to the article, with supporting reference on the correct name of the lodge chapter? I'm going ahead and moving it now. If you have further correction on the lodge name, it would be necessary to move it again I guess. Okay?

I think it is obviously better to have just one combined article, here and in other cases of article name "X Lodge". If either the chapter or the building of that name is wikipedia-notable, or if both are, we can have a combo article. We don't need to remove mention of the chapter or of a historic building, from an article that is primarily about one; the article should instead be revised to clarify it is about both. --doncram 18:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You made things worse... I just checked and Texas uses AF&AM (Ancient Free & Accepted Masons) ... I know this is easy to fix, but please don't rush around changing titles without knowing what you are doing. Second, it is actually inappropriate to have a combined article... as the Grand Lodge locator shows that South Side Lodge does not actually meet in the historic building anymore. Third, I have to question whether the lodge South Side Lodge No. 1114, AF&AM is notable enough for an article. I can not find any sources that discuss the lodge in any real depth. The old building might be notable... but not the lodge. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A Category talk page, being "generally not watched by many users", hardly seems like the right venue to reopen a longstanding contention over the scope of a large number of articles. And regarding the description on this category, I much prefer the one that was here since 2008 over the new version. A wise person recently wrote "shorter is better"; that may not be true for articles, but the mantra certainly applies to statements of a category's scope. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not decide whether to apply the cat to certain articles without discussing the scope of the category... and the articles in it. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Sounds like a case of BRD to me. Blueboar is correct in that buildings and Lodges are separate entities; a Lodge can and does exist outside of its meeting place, and historically, many of them moved around. "Masonic buildings" are a relatively new invention, and many times the Lodges that meet there did not initially build the building. Buildings and Lodges also fall under two different sets of WP notability criteria. In short, they're different enough to need their own individual categories. MSJapan (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And I would say that in the few cases where both lodge and building are notable, they should have separate articles. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with blurring the two categories is that in most cases, several lodges use the same building, meeting on different nights. Equating a single lodge to a single building is simply misleading - most lodges can't afford their own temple, they have to share. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)