Talk:Flowers Building

Requested move 01 September 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons → Flowers Building – Title should be changed per WP:COMMONNAME. While the current title is the name of the building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that name is obsolete. Today, the subject building is far more commonly called the "Flowers Building" (see google search). Furthermore, the title could be confused with the local Masonic Lodge that gave the building its old name, Colombian Lodge No. 7 F&AM. This Lodge still exists, but today meets in another impressive building entirely (as can be seen on their website). Colombian Lodge has not been associated with the subject building since 1940... over 60 years. I am not sure if the lodge is notable enough for its own article (per WP:BRANCH or not (I have not researched to see if there are any reliable sources that discuss it), but since a COMMONNAME alternative exists for this article, there is no harm in freeing up the lodge name as a potential title, just in case.. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support renaming for reasons given by Blueboar. The online sources I found about this building (aside from sources related to the National Register listing) refer to it as the Flowers Building and confirm that the Masonic lodge sold it in 1940. Moreover, I find that the lodge's current building is marked by a historical marker commemorating the lodge as the oldest in western Georgia.[1] The NRHP nomination forms for Georgia aren't available online, so that sources is not readily available. --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by Blueboar. Ahwiv (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Reasoning seems valid.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support If the lodge meets somewhere else, this should be a no-brainer. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

comment on move

That was crummy discussion and reasoning on the move back in 2013, with one minor mitigating factor being the ignorance involved, in that the NRHP document was not obtained. The place's significance is as "Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons", the name of the building when built and the name used in NRHP listing. I added NRHP document reference, which covers how the significance is architectural in that name. Funny, what some would cover about it in Wikipedia, e.g. in this version of "former masonic buildings" list, is that the "Flowers Building" is a building that "In 1940 converted into office/retail space.[9] Recently converted to an apartment complex." Nothing about significance at all, i.e. not worth covering in Wikipedia. I moved the article back to sensible name and will restore coverage about its significance in the article and in List of Masonic buildings in the United States. --Doncram (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I accept that you don't agree with the close of the 2013 RM... never the less... since it was moved via the RM process, you should not have moved it back to the old title on your own whim. I request that you self-revert, and file a new RM. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As a side question (more out of curiosity than any thing else)... If I were to write an article about the building shown here what would you suggest we should use for the title of that article? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If it is a new building of the Columbian Lodge No. 7 club, and if there are sources available about it, it could be covered in this article. As done about past and current church buildings, combined with coverage of church as a congregation. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Consensus can change, and an RM that's almost 5 years old can certainly be revisited. But it shouldn't be unilaterally reversed (especially when it was unanimous!). Create a new RM if desired, but "Flowers Building" is the stable title to be judged against. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)