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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
A fact from Old National Centre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,415 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The building is definitely a contributing property to the district, but it's never been individually listed. I've looked through all of the Indianapolis properties in the National Register database with addresses that include "Michigan", "Massachusetts", or "New Jersey", but none of them are at locations that correspond to this building, and all of them I've either photographed myself or know by some other means to be located at other places in the city. Combine that with the fact that the statement was not properly sourced (a link by itself isn't a sufficient citation, and it's now rotten, so we can't fix it), and I can't see any good reason to keep the statement. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just wonder if the last paragraph in the section on "History", the paragraph about the 2000 wrestling match, might contain just a bit too much detail. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply