Talk:Order of Women Freemasons

Semi/demi recognition

Obviously, this order is not officially recognized by traditional (male only) Freemasonry ... however, I do know that there are a few bodies of women's (co-ed?) Freemasonry that UGLE has acknowleged as being "Masonic". Is this order one of those bodies, and if so we should mention something about this acknowlegement. Blueboar 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Buildings

I added discussion of the significant building of the Order of Women Freemasons. An editor revised the section title, by the way breaking links to the section, and I reverted that. An assertion was made in an edit summary that there are other buildings, but only one is discussed here and there is no ambiguity. What other buildings? If others are known, please provide documentation. It remains a subjective point as to what is the best wording for the section title, but I chose one wording and built it into links to this section, and a different wording is not clearly better, so I think this should stay. Given a recent history that has been labelled as edit warring and led to blocks of other editor and myself, I don't appreciate being followed by same editor and having my wording quibbled with, for no serious improvement. --doncram (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors, please, Doncram. "Headquarters" is clearly better in this case, and I've fixed the redirects to point there as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that "headquarters" is clearly better, in part because it makes the wording in the article repetitive. I agree that "building" is not really very clearly better either, although I do prefer it. If another editor agrees with me I will be inclined to switch it back.

I do resent the imposition by the first editor, which requires the involvement of other editors and this discussion, and which does not improve the Wikipedia. All cost and no benefit. And, I don't suppose the first editor, or you, SarekOfVulcan are going to disclose any other buildings of the Order of Women Freemasons, which were asserted to exist. As far as I know, there are local chapter groups but no such other buildings. Are either of you actually going to bring anything at all to the table, here? I think the involvement of the other editor and you so far provide, in total, a small detraction from quality of the contribution that I made in the article, and no contribution to understanding in this Talk space. --doncram (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you grant the existence of local chapters, you grant the existence of other buildings, unless you think they meet out in fields. Of course, most of them are not notable -- likewise, you're unlikely to find my local lodge building in the NHRP, even if it survives another 100 years, because it's just not that interesting.--SarekOfVulcan 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The title "building" implied that there was only one building used by the OWF..... the one used by the OWF as their headquarters. Their website gives a list of local level lodges in multiple cities... as Sarek notes, they have to meet somewhere. So... I changed the section header to account for this, and to note which building the section was about. I do not insist on the section title "headquarters"... that was simply the best word I could think of that describes the specific building and its relationship to the OWF. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to other editors of this article, for bringing the attention of editors Blueboar and SarekOfVulcan here, by their following my edit contributions. I don't agree with either of you. I reiterate that I think you have made the article a bit worse, and you have not provided any value in the form of identifying any other building, notable or not, which could be said to be an Order of Women Freemasons building. You don't know whether any such building exists. There are no other buildings mentioned in the article; "Building" as a section title was fine. You take away from my enjoyment of making the contribution of describing the building. Thanks for nothing. --doncram (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that OWF have lodges that meet around the country there is a clear implication that they use more than one building. It's not clear whether any of these other buildings are owned by any of the lodges under OWF, although as I know a reasonable number of Lady Masons I can state that they don't. They tend to rent them.

Personally I prefer Headquarters as a descriptor, as it's very clear that the order has more than one location.

ALR (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede mention of building

I've added mention of the listed building to the lede, seen it deleted by User:SarekOfVulcan, have just tried a different version of mentioning it. It seems appropriate and good to mention the building, in bold, in the lede, as some readers will arrive via redirect from clicking on building name elsewhere. This is currently a merged article on two wikipedia-notable topics, the organization and the listed building that it owns. It seems good to keep it as a merged article, as not much is available to write about the building, but as a merged article it is appropriate to show that it is a merged article, in the lede. A possible alternative would be to add hatnote explaining "Headquarters, Order of Women Freemasons" redirects to here, but I think lede treatment as i have edited both suffices and is better. The mention of the building is complementary to the lede's assertion of notability of the organization. It gets across that this organization is at least significant enough to have its own building, and a listed one at that. By the way, I note complete absence of identification any other Order of Women Freemasons buildings, which had been asserted to exist by other editors in other discussion sections above. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason no other buildings are mentioned is that none of the order's other buildings are notable. In fact, in the context of this article, I am not sure their headquarters is all that notable. What is notable is "27 Pembridge Gardens"... a "listed" building which happens to currently be used as the headquarters of the OWF. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's appropriate to claim this as a "merged" article, since as far as I can tell, there was never a standalone article from which the text was merged.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Started stub for the building itself

Since Grade II heritage buildings are inherently notable, we should have a separate article on the building (distinct from the Order)... I have undone the redirect that pointed 27 Pembridge Gardens to this article (as "27 Pembridge Gardens" is the official "as listed" name of the building) and started a stub article. I have moved the material that dealt with the building (as opposed to the OWF) to that article, and linked appropriately. I hope this will help with the confusion between the notability of the Order and the notability of the building. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no real confusion. There was weird hair-splitting going on above about whether the article should be termed a "merged" article or not, if the building was not previously covered in a separate article, which has no importance.

I think this version of this article which served as one merged article was better than the current version of this article. And the separate article about the building alone is better redirected back to here. I'll pause for any discussion, but plan to remerge soon. And then the article will be properly termed a "merged" article, so all confusion will be ended. --doncram (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have strong objections to merging at this time. This article is about an organization. That article is about a building. Both of them are notable without the other. Combining the two of them is adding unnecessary complexity. It's not like merging a building into a list of buildings, or a fictional character into the work the character came from. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they should be separate articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2‎, in part because of the ownership displayed in the notice above. Further input is welcome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge request

It has been suggested that the 27 Pembridge Gardens article be merged into this one. I oppose this merger. 27 Pembridge Gardens is a listed heritage building, and would be notable for that fact no matter who occupied it. It deserves its own article. The OWF is a notable Masonic group, and would be notable no matter where they had their headquarters. It deserves its own article. In other words, we have two distinct topics, each notable enough for its own article... It just happens that the two topics intersect. They should not be merged. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Blueboar's points -- he raised everything I would have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As the proposer of this merge, (but a slower typer than Bb/SoV!) this is my logic. It seems that the automatic notability bar seems to be set somewhere around Grade II*, so I'd disagree that 27PG is inherently notable through its listing. By SoV/Blueboar's logic we would have separate articles for 25 Pembridge Gardens, 29 Pembridge Gardens and so on. At best you might have a separate article for the street, but not for individual houses. But for me the most compelling argument is to think of our readers. It's unlikely that readers would be interested in 27PG other than for its Masonic connections, and so it serves our readers best if our information about 27PG in the context of the OWF. It's not as though a paragraph or two on 27PG is going to unbalance the article, if it does get unmanageable then it can always be split out again at a later date. Le Deluge (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Grade II buildings are not considered inherently notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Le Deluge is saying. That is my understanding of what British historic sites editors now judge. They are working on articles for Grade II* plus buildings, for example reflected in a recent bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 23#British Listed Buildings; editor MJRoots comments there just as Le Deluge does here. BTWA, it would be relevant to give notice of this discussion at wt:HSITES or elsewhere to attract attention of some other British historic sites editors; i may post such a notice if I don't see one done already or done soon. --doncram 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Support merge Thanks, Le Deluge, for opening this. I think one article, much like this prior version or the version after that, before the article was split, would be best. Picture and other information about the building is good in the OWF article, supporting the importance of the OWF as an organization which at least has a building (in fact a very fine building). There's no need to make readers go to two places to get a complete picture, when it is a matter of adding back a few sentences about the small porch with Doric columns and otherwise. Based on previous comments by English historic sites editor(s), I think there's not going to be a lot more info coming available on the building. We have what is available from English Heritage. I agree with Le Deluge that if and only if a ton of info on the building came in, then it would make sense to split it out. --doncram 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well... If being a Level II building is non-notable, is there really anything that the the building article mentions that is worth adding to this page? We already note that the building is the order's headquarters. Perhaps a simple delete is the better choice. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah - that's a revealing slip of language. On checking, I see you're all from across the pond, so some crossed wires are forgivable. Obviously the US and E&W systems don't equate directly - for instance we put ruins and archaeology under a separate classification of Scheduled Monuments. But as a first approximation Grade II listing is roughly equivalent to the NHRP's idea of a "contributing resource" in a historic district, rather than a full NHRP listing. It's not enough to get you any grants or anything, it just means that you're subject to much tighter planning controls - you can't go painting the porch pink or installing uPVC windows. So as I say, the notability probably resides in the street as a whole, rather than individual buildings.
Having said that, 27PG has gained from the extended connection with OWF, and vice versa. It's not like their current headquarters is a six-month lease on an office block in Croydon, 27PG is part of who the OWF are. So I think one or two paragraphs would be very appropriate, as would some photos. Which is kinda how I find myself here - I'm working my way through all the geotagged articles in central London that don't have photos. On my current rate of progress I won't get to Notting Hill Gate for a few months yet - and I'm unlikely to get inside, so don't let me inhibit anyone from taking photos off their own bat! It looks like they've built quite a bit into the garden, I don't know the details. Le Deluge (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Le Deluge, I suspect that while you understand buildings, you don't really understand Freemasonry ... 27PG is definitely NOT "part of who the OWF are". It's simply the building they happen to meet in. Sure, the members of OWF are probably quite fond of their building, but the building could burn down tomorrow and it would not really change the OWF one iota. They would still exist as an organisation, and they would still do exactly what they do today... they would simply have to do it in a new building. And that new building could well be a six-month lease on an office block in Croydon. It would not matter. Where a Masonic body meets is not as important as the fact that they meet. Masonic Lodges and Grand Lodges are groups of people... not the buildings they occupy.

This is something we are re-discovering over here in the US... since more and more lodges (and even some Grand Lodges) are finding that they can no longer afford to maintain the big fancy meeting halls we constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As lodges (reluctantly) give them up, the Masons have discovered that we don't actually need the big fancy buildings to be successful... Back in the 1700s, Masonic lodges held their meetings in member's homes, or the back rooms of pubs, or in rented space in office buildings. We are re-discovering that this works just as well as (or even better than) meeting in a fancy building. It's nice to have an impressive building... but it isn't important to have one. Hell, there is one lodge I know of that regularly meets out doors, in a limestone quarry... ie with no building at all (it's actually very appropriate and symbolic and meaningful for a group that claims to descend from the stone-masons guilds to meet in a quarry) Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Trust me Blueboar - I get that. Again we seem to have crossed wires slightly, I did not mean that OWF was like an art gallery or something, the organisation set up to service a particular building. It's just that a Wikipedia article involves describing the history and corporate culture of an organisation, and a building becomes part of that history, and influences the the culture. It may not have a direct link, but for an organisation that is all about people, the location has a big influence on who is recruited to the organisation, and hence on its culture 20-30 years down the line. I think it's safe to say that OWF would have had very different people influencing it if it had spent much of its history in Croydon rather than in the sort-of equivalent of New York's Upper East Side (only more so). I know 27PG is merely the centre of a devolved network of lodges but a mention of the HQ is appropriate and commonly seen in organisation articles, whether corporate (eg Google#Googleplex]] or non-profit - Royal Society#Carlton_House_Terrace. That doesn't mean the articles go into an exhaustive list of every Google office or place where a meeting has happened under the aegis of the Royal Society. The Royal Society is a particularly good example, not only is it not defined by its building it was in a different one for much of its history and like the OWF has ended up in a stuccoed townhouse in a posh bit of London. In fact for me the RS article could actually do with a bit more on its relationship with its old home Burlington House, but that's another argument. I'm not saying you should make a big deal of 27PG, but a para or two seems appropriate. Le Deluge (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I also understand what you are saying... and I can agree with some of it...for example I agree when you when you say "...a building becomes part of [an organisations] history" but I very much disagree with the second part of the sentence... "and influences the culture". Not for Freemasonry. You see, the culture of Freemasonry is defined by its philosophy (as expressed in its rituals) not by its buildings. The culture of Masonic groups is essentially the same across all of England (and indeed across the world). Every Masonic body has essentially the same culture... and yet they meet in different buildings in different places. The culture of Freemasonry is designed to be portable, not dependent on location. It isn't like a private club (where the location of the club house does indeed influence culture of the club). It's more like a multinational corporation ... where the culture of the organization transcends the location of its headquarters and branch offices. Or perhaps a better analogy is to liken it to the Church ... where the corganisational culture transcends the location of the cathedral or parish hall.

All that said (and to cut to what is really important)... I can agree that a short paragraph or two on the building is appropriate... but this article already has that. So my question is... what's missing? Looking at the information that is currently stated at the 27PG article but omitted in the OWF article... can you tell me what information needs to be transferred?... and can you tell me why you think that information needs to be stated in the OWF article? Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think LeDeluge needs to specify what is to be merged, and there's no need to belabor this further. Briefly, though, what is to be merged is the small amount of architectural details info which a few Masonic editors removed from the OWF article to the 27PG article, after i and an English editor had put it into the 27PG article. Maybe there would be need to specify which info, if the 27PG article were going to be deleted rather than redirected. It is appropriate to redirect rather than delete, in part to leave the content in the edit history, so that it can be referred to in any further discussion. At this point I would support LeDeluge just going ahead and doing the merger, exercising editorial discretion about what to put in. About done here, right? Blueboar can you just comment if you have some big objection to merger now, but it seems from what you have said that you do not. --doncram 16:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point of my last comment to LeDeluge... Why do the architectural details of the building need to be discussed in an article about the OWF? The architectural details of the building have nothing to do with the OWF. To put it bluntly, if the architectural details are moved to this article, I would remove the information on the grounds that it is irrelevant (indeed we created the 27PG article in part because that information was irrelevant here). And there really isn't any other information in the 27PG article to transfer over. I won't object to redirecting the 27PG article to this one if you want (although I think it better to simply delete it as non-notable), but that does not mean all the information currently stated in the 27PG article will or should be included in this article. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate my objections to the merger (or at least my concerns) let me make another analogy... Think of this article as being similar to the article on the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the article on the United States Congress... the topic of those articles are the respective governmental bodies, the institutions that are Parliament and Congress. Those articles may mention that Parliament meets in the Palace of Westminster or that Congress meets in the United States Capitol building, but they don't go into the architectural details of the buildings in question. This is because architectural details of a building are irrelevant to an article about a governmental body. Its the same here... This article is about a fraternal (or, I suppose, a "sororital") body, the institution that is the OWF. It is appropriate to mention where that body's headquarters are located in the article... but the architectural details of the headquarters building are irrelevant to an article about a fraternal body. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You're getting your knickers in a twist. It's not so hard. Let the article cover the organization and the building. Call it a merged article, covering two topics that are related and intertwined, in fact. Let an interested capable editor (meaning Le Deluge) exercise some good editorial discretion; don't fight, don't even talk excessively about every possible detail. --doncram 18:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No knickers are twisted here... sorry that you don't like me expressing my views and reasons for opposing the proposed merge. It's not so hard... don't add irrelevant details that have nothing to do with the topic of an article. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While I can see the argument that the building in its own right is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article that converts the discussion to "what level of coverage is appropriate in an article about the organisation that meets in the building.

My own view is that is little more than a sentence fragment along the lines of "the GL of the OWF resides in 27PG, a Grade II Listed building." There is a risk that it provides a hook to start including all manner of synthesis and original research talking about the building when it only has very peripheral importance to the Order; it prevents the records getting wet when it rains...

ALR (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point... but said in a lot less words. Thanks.

As a suggestion for an alternative that might make us all happy: LeDeluge noted earlier that Level II buildings are similar to what we in the US call a "contributing resource" in a historic district, and that "At best you might have a separate article for the street, but not for individual houses."... Why not go with this approach? Merge the 27PG article into a new article on Pembridge Gardens. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a much more sensible merge than combining it with this article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If/when some English editor a) finds significant sources and b) chooses to develop an article about the "district", they may, and it would be appropriate to cover the OWF building there. However, it is now, and still would be then, appropriate to cover the OWF building more fully (one or two sentences is all that is likely) in the OWF article, allowing for better experience for readers of the OWF article, which is what LeDeluge wants to accomplish.

I assume the donation of the building, and the OWF having continued use of it, is highly significant in explaining OWF's survival and "culture", as discussed. Why several U.S. self-avowed Masonic editors are so adamant about wikipedia not covering a building highly associated with OWF, in the article about OWF, I cannot fathom. (Except for invalid reasons that we could go into, or not.) It is circular reasoning and not helpful to keep insisting that a sentence or two about the architecture is off-topic in an article which you define to exclude mention of the architecture. Let it be on-topic, then, voila, it is on-topic.

Another aspect of the coverage to restore would be to note the location is in Notting Hill, which got removed by the U.S. Masonic editors (I assume they don't appreciate the significance). (N.b. i recognize one Masonic editor here apparently has British association, and would appreciate that.) Again, suggesting merger to a non-existent article too, simply does not address the reasonable, polite request of a British editor to merge the small amount of material here into the OWF article. --doncram 14:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple. The International Temple has little if anything to do with the "survival and culture" of the Order of the Eastern Star, and no sources have been offered to indicate that 27 Pembridge Gardens has anything to do with the survival and culture of the OWF. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I assume the donation of the building, and the OWF having continued use of it, is highly significant..."

As they say on Mythbusters... "Well there's yer problem" ... you are assuming a significance that does not, in fact, exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I said here on the Talk page that I assume something. Which is fine. You 2 also are assuming a lot, and sometimes stating it on Talk pages and sometimes not. What is not fine is battling adamantly based on your assumptions, without disclosing. Yes, I agree the importance of the building to the OWF should not be overstated in the article, i.e. nothing should be stated without sourcing. However, the building was donated, and is relatively prime real estate, and has long been the location of OWF, and I think that it is reasonable to assume the building is important. Note that the organization identifies itself with the building (note the organization's webpages which highlight the building) and so on.

Is there a game going on, whose goal is to prove that editor doncram is wrong about something? I have been wrong about a lot of things, I'll grant that. If I agree that an "assumption" should not be stated in the article, will y'all agree to let LeDeluge edit the article without your exercising excessive control? --doncram 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If my opinion was based on assumption, I would definitely "disclose"... however, it is not. It may be based on "insider's knowledge" (a form of OR), but not assumption. Nor is anyone "exercising excessive control"... no one has made edits to the article, nor has anyone reverted an edit to the article. We are merely explaining our view that the proposed merger is inappropriate, and explaining why we feel that way. That's what a talk page is for. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is your and some others' assumption that the building has only peripheral importance, consistent with your assumptions many times over that various Masonic buildings do not have importance in Wikipedia notability terms (leading to many AFD and other battles, all (i think) of which have led to there being Wikipedia articles on those buildings confirmed by consensus as Wikipedia-important). More specifically about here, the main website of the organization lists "Headquarters" as table of contents item 4 or 5, and in the subpage states "In 1924 a member gave the freehold of 27 Pembridge Gardens in London’s Notting Hill – now a listed building - as a permanent home and headquarters for the Order. All our members take pride in maintaining this elegant house and its extensive Grand Temple in a fitting style..... (emphasis added). I do see that we both have differing assumptions, differing prior beliefs about importance of buildings. Here, I think the info from the organization itself supports describing the building in this OWF article. We're talking about a few sentences. --doncram 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don, of course they say they take pride in their building... its a lovely building. However, you are giving the statement far more significance than is justified. The fact that they they take pride in their building is not exceptional or noteworthy. It's meaningless puffery. Most organisions (and certainly every Masonic group) will say they are proud of their buildings. Now, if they said "We hate our building and have purposely let it deteriorate"... that would be noteworthy! Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are 177 level II listed properties in London alone, according to the current contents of Category:Grade II listed buildings in London. I don't think we need to worry overly much about this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And the implication you intend for this article is? I do agree that not so much editor attention from far away ought to be applied here. Let LeDeluge do a nice article like the Royal Society one. About the significance of a building, it is a significant resource for an organization to have such a building. I don't know property values there, but assume it is worth "a lot" and owning it outright is a considerable financial advantage. Or mortgaging it or otherwise deriving financial benefit is also possible. This is an organization which actually has a substantial building, as opposed to other Masonic organizations which do not. --doncram 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

*headdesk* Thanks for the category fix above. I have to take issue with "other Masonic organizations which do not" -- besides the International Temple I called attention to above, there are also (to name just two in the general neighborhood) the Grand Lodge buildings for Massachusetts and New York, both of which are sizeable buildings; the Scottish Rite Cathedral (Indianapolis, Indiana)... don't think I need to go on here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just saying this is one Masonic organization that does evidently have a building (contributing to its financial resources), unlike some other ones that do not. There are many of both types I am sure. I think i started most of the articles in List of Masonic buildings, so of course i am aware of many! --doncram 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How does having a building contribute to a Masonic body's financial resources? If anything, it is a burden on financial resources (as the body must pay to maintain it, pay property taxes on it, etc.). It's why so many of those "Masonic buildings" you started articles on are no longer in Masonic hands... the Lodge/Grand Lodge could not afford them any more. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Chaps, can we just calm down a bit here? It all seems to be getting a bit theoretical, and I think it would be helpful to have something more tangible to debate. I'll come up with a sample wording later tonight (I need a drink first....), hopefully that will focus things a bit. I certainly don't envisage too much on the finer architectural details of 27PG, it's more the history and stuff like the temples which are relevant here, I think all this debate is actually about one or two subclauses here or there. Just on the thing about setting up an article on PG, my emphasis was on the "contributing resource" bit rather than the "historic district" bit of the analogy. We don't have historic districts here really, and even with the listing covering the whole of the Pembridge Gardens/Square development, I'd guess that even the combined development would struggle for notability. You could argue that really the listing is for its contribution to Notting Hill Gate as a whole (as an aside - NHG should be mentioned, it's weird to say something is merely in "London"). Just picking up on a coupla other points - I'm no estate agent, but I'd guess 27PG is probably worth US$3-5m, a few blocks away are the only streets in Britain where every house is US$20+m. And corporate culture varies dramatically between multinational corporations - I've had a vivid example of that as a friend has just switched between the London offices of multinationals based on opposite sides of the world. Culture shock doesn't even begin to describe it, let's just say that all the national stereotypes are alive and well in their London outposts. I'd guess there's something like 50-100,000 Grade II structures in London. Anyway, give me some time to come up with some wording, and we can take it from there. Le Deluge (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I get what you mean by the building being part of the street and the street being a contributing part of the entire NHG area... having lived in NHG for a year (while I was doing a year abroad in College), I would agree that the street (and building) is fairly typical of the entire NHG area. As for pausing and waiting until you can suggest some language... No problems here. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording for HQ

Sorry guys - my wiki time has been limited of late to what can be done whilst I'm on the phone :-) - end of the financial year is a bad time. Plus there were some off-web sources I needed to check, but it hasn't done me a lot of good. So even after merging in the dedicated 27PG article, I think we're looking at something that is pretty much what we've already got. Obviously this will be reffed, but refs are a pain on talk pages so take them as read :

Buildings

The Order has its headquarters at 27 Pembridge Gardens in Notting Hill Gate. The large Grade II listed building was constructed during the mid 19th century in the stuccoed Greek Revival style typical of west London. It was given to the Order in 1924 and is home to both the Grand Temple of the Order and a second, smaller temple. The Order operates two residential homes for members, Porchway House in Worthing and Northolme in Lytham St Annes. Le Deluge (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite reasonable... To be nit-picky, I would suggest the following tweaks (which I put in bold here, but would not bold in the actual article) for the last two sentences:

"...It was given to the Order in 1924 and contains both a "Grand Temple" meeting room and a second, smaller temple room. The Order also operates two residential homes..."

But I would not be insistent on either tweak. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not include the historic buildings infobox and additional details now off in the separate buildings article, which will redirect to this buildings section of this article. The info over there is:

27 Pembridge Gardens is a heritage building located in the Notting Hill Gate area of London. The building is a Grade II listed building, number 422765, dating from mid-19th century. It is a 3 story building, stuccoed, with rustication. It has a small Doric-style central entrance porch, pediments on the first floor windows, and is "part of unified scheme with Nos 2-34, 1-25, 29 and Pembridge Square."

Since 1924 it has been occupied by the Order of Women Freemasons and is used as the order's headquarters.

There is no reason not to mention the rustication, Doric style entrance porch, pediments. and being part of a unified scheme with some other buildings. I hope my comment won't lead some to argue that this is too much, and that those few details must be in a separate article. It is just a couple sentences to cover the architecture with the available info, which is not going to change/grow. Unlike for a U.S. NRHP-listed building, I don't believe we're going to obtain a more detailed historic register listing document. --doncram 21:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Appears fair enough to me, although I'd veer away from BBs suggestion over the use of the "room" term, that's implicit in the titles. I recognise that usage is quite different on either side of the pond though.

Personally I wouldn't add any more as the article is about the order.

ALR (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Doncram's suggestions, I think mentioning the fact that the building has a doric style porch, pediments on the first floor windows, etc. would be adding a level of detail that is unnecessarily trivial within the context of this article. As multiple editors have said, the focus of this article is on the Order, not the building. While the fact that the Order owns a historic building is worth mentioning, I think the trivial architectural details of that building are not worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is some editorial discretion which has to be exercised here. I happen to think that some mention of the architectural details is appropriate and good in an article about an organization and its buildings which are naturally covered together. Those who define the article to be about the organization with specific exclusion of any mention of buildings highly associated with it, are of course correct that there should be no mention of architectural details in such an article. Anything defined to be trivial is, of course, trivial. However, I personally think it seems useful to mention the architectural details, which serve to establish there exist some architectural details which can be noted, and also to put them into context as not being too extraordinary in that the building is similar to others in a unified scheme.

The interest of several U.S. self-identified Masonic editors, one or more of whom also disavow any interest in or knowledge of architecture, in commenting upon the architectural merits of a listed building in England remains extraordinary. --doncram 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been around here far too long for me to need to remind you to COMMENT ON EDITS, NOT EDITORS, but I'll do it anyway, since it obviously didn't take the first hundred-or-so times you read it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I think the details are trivial and should not be mentioned... Doric porches and pedimented windows, etc. are typical features of Greek Revival architecture. LeDeluge's suggested language already has a link to the WP article on Greek Revival architecture, so if someone wants to know what the architectural details of the building are, they can click on the link.

Now, if the architectural details of this particular building were different from the typical Greek Revival building, I could see mentioning them ... but they are not. London (especially the West End) has hundreds (if not thousands) of Greek Revival buildings and they all have the same details and features. Such details are so typical that mentioning them is like mentioning that the building has walls and a roof. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: since no one has objected to LeDeluge's suggested changes, I have implemented them. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And I have tweaked a bit... if anyone objects, feel free to revert back to LeDeluge's original. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Picking up on a few things (eventually!). ALR seems to be implying that usage differs in US and UK over whether "temple" implies the physical room or not? If so, WP:ENGVAR requires that the British convention is followed. I'd also question whether the building "contains" both temples. The Peters lecture in the external links talks of "a Temple erected in the garden at the rear of the house" - looking at satellite pics it looks like a freestanding structure, not "contained" in the existing house. I would guess that building gets referred to as the Temple even if the building consists of more than a single room.
Just as a comment Blueboar - try to keep your English uncomplicated, avoid long subclauses and words like "also" where possible. It makes your writing clearer for everyone, but you should also bear in mind that a large part of en.wiki's readership are not native speakers of English. See these tips for more on that front. I also don't like "donate" - on this side of the pond it normally implies a gift of money rather than property, and it implies an active gift. Given when it happened, there's a good chance it was passively left to them in the will of someone whose heirs had died in WWI or the 1918/19 flu epidemic - it happened a lot around that time. We also don't have a source for the giver being a member. It's a fair bet she was, but "by a member" is clutter in a sentence that is already overlong. I'd break the subclause out of the brackets, too. In other words - I wrote it the way I did for a reason! <g>
As for doncram's points, Blueboar has pretty much said what I wanted to say. It's about finding a balance between detail and avoiding getting bogged down in the same. Just because we have verifiable information, doesn't mean it should be dumped in the article willy-nilly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. OTOH, I meant to say, I wouldn't object to having a link to the listing document in the external links for those who wanted all the details, that seems an appropriate way to handle this although I think EH are messing around with the Heritage Gateway at the moment.
You could criticise my version for the Greek Revival description not being sourced, but I thought it was a neat way of getting across the fact that it's late Regency, rusticated, pedimented, with Ionic bits etc in a way that's a lot more concise than doncram's version. Blueboar's right, there are 100's if not 1000's of these buildings in the area, we're not talking a one-off like Freemasons' Hall. The similarity with the rest of Pembridge Gdns/Sq is pretty trivial in comparison with the broader homogeneity with the rest of Holland Park / Mayfair. At least that's my view - if having an interest in architecture, familiarity with our listing procedures and living in the UK/knowing the area concerned count for something. Le Deluge (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Le Deluge, thanks for pointing out the fact that there is a separate, stand alone temple building on the property. I was under the inaccurate impression that the two temple rooms were within the original building (ie two rooms in the original structure had been converted into meeting rooms). I stand corrected.

It seems that when we talk about "27 Pembridge Gardens", we are really talking about two separate buildings located at the same address... the Headquarters building (the Level II, Greek Revival style building) and a separate Temple building (of unknown style) that is located behind it, in what used to be the garden (unknown: whether this building contains both the Grand Temple and the smaller Temple, or whether one of them in the original building?)

So, to be as accurate as we can be (given the lack of sources)... instead of saying "the building contains the Grand Temple of the Order and a second, smaller temple" we should say "the property contains the Grand Temple of the Order and a second, smaller temple". I think this would cover all bases. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess on the basis of no facts whatsoever, that the Grand Temple is in the garden and the other one is a room in the original building. We obviously don't have the sources to back that up. Whilst the structure in the garden appears to be freestanding, it's not clear if it is linked to the main building by a corridor or covered pathway, so it's debatable whether you count it as a distinct "building". I'm not wild about using "contain" in relation to property; to my mind the property is the land, so it can only "contain" things that are dug into the soil. Hence my use of "home to" - I'm sure there are other ways of putting it but that's suitably vague and works as British English, at least.Le Deluge (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me -- I changed the wording as you suggested. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

feh... "home to" sounds odd to my ear... but it's not worth arguing about. No objection. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

References