Category talk:Masonic buildings

What makes something a "Masonic building"
This category has grown in recent months... somewhat under the radar, and somewhat inconsistantly. I think we need some definition. What makes a building a "Masonic building"?

Currently we are applying this cat to articles on a) buildings that were origninally built as Masonic halls that are currently not connected to Freemasonry; b) buildings originally built as something else that are currently being used as a Masonic hall; c) buildings associated with Freemasonry for other reasons (for example, Masonic homes, schools, museums, etc.)

To my way of thinking, a "Masonic building" is one originally built by and for the Masons... and still used by the Masons. If the Masons build a building, but then sell it off, it no longer qualifies as a "Masonic building". And if a building was orignially built for some other purpose, and the Masons simply purchased it at some point, it is not a "Masonic building" Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if it was built as a lodge building, it counts for the category, whether or not it is still in use. For example, Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island) was never finished until it was renovated into a hotel, but I would consider it valid for this category. I'm also tempted to include buildings that were converted into Masonic buildings, but I don't feel as strongly about those. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is a prime example of something I don't think belongs in the category, and why we need to clarify ... yes, the property was at one time owned by the Masons... and construction on the building was started by the Masons... but apparently they ran out of money part way through construction and it was never completed... no lodge ever met in it. It sat as an abandonded building until about a year ago when it was purchased by a major hotel chain... who completely gutted, renovated and remodeled it.  Only the hotel bar evokes the building's original proposed purpose (with very nice checkered floor tiles and pseudo-Masonic decoration... but these were added by the hotel, as part of the renovation and were not part of the original).  I really have a problem with calling this a "Masonic building" Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that particular building may be a special circumstance. But there are plenty of buildings that were once major Masonic temples and since have been sold that I would still consider “Masonic Buildings” as they are a part of a Masonic legacy. Masonic membership may have dropped significantly through the years but I think that the marks Freemasonry has left on the world are still noteworthy. PeRshGo (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So if a building was built by and for the Masons, it qualifies? OK... in which case, let's look in the other direction... What makes Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) a 'Masonic building'? It wasn't built by or for the Masons.  But it is currently used by a lodge... is this enough to call it a "Masonic building"? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite what I said above about being tempted to include it, given this actual example, I'd say it shouldn't belong. There doesn't seem to be anything "Masonic" about it except that it's currently being used by a lodge. On the other hand, if they have done major renovations to make it more lodge-like, it might indeed count -- but there's no evidence of that given in the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we have the issue of various Masonic homes and memorials... these I think do qualify, even though the the Masons don't meet in them. (in other words we can not use "the masons meet there" as a criteria).
 * Which brings me back to my point... what criteria should we use for inclusion in this cat? ... what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh... one other note... I note we also have List of Masonic buildings. I think we should have either a list or a cat... but not both.  They seem duplicative.  In this case, I think categorizing is a better choice.  Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that list really has to go. It's another one of those ridiculously vague lists with no defining criteria, which means it's unmanageable and incomplete. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)