Talk:Clearwater Masonic and Grand Army of the Republic Hall

Title
Shouldn't this be at Clearwater Masonic Lodge—Grand Army of the Republic Hall, per WP:MOSDASH? I'm pretty sure double-dashes are Right Out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or something to that effect, at least -- I think I put an emdash in my suggestion above, and it looks like MOSDASH wants an endash instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page to Clearwater Masonic Lodge–Grand Army of the Republic Hall, which reflects the property's official NRHP name, better represents its historical use than provided by the discussion below, and satisfies MOSDASH style. -McGhiever (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota). (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearwater Masonic Lodge → Grand Army of the Republic Hall – (or if disambiguation is needed: Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater). The proposed title better reflects the topic (a building) and avoids confusion...  Clearwater Lodge is a local chapter of the Freemasons, not a building.  The topic of this article is the building, not the lodge.  The Clearwater Masonic lodge (or more accurately "Clearwater Lodge No. 28") is not notable (per: WP:BRANCH)... much less notable enough to be highlighted in the title. What is notable is the building in which that lodge meets... and what makes this building notable is its historic association with the GAR, not its current association with a local level Masonic lodge. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The proposed title is a dab with many buildings by this name, and I doubt this one meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) would thus be the best title. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

VERY slow move warring?
Since the above Move Request... an editor has moved the article back to the "old" title (without discussion). I don't feel strongly either way... but since the current title was discussed and approved at WP:RM, I think any subsequent moves should go through the same formal process. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Clearwater Masonic and Grand Army of the Republic Hall. Fair call to question the relisting, in future if you have similar concerns please contact me on my talk page as otherwise I'm unlikely to see your comments until it reaches the RM backlog again. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) → Clearwater Masonic Lodge–Grand Army of the Republic Hall – Property's official NRHP name, better represents its historical use as a joint facility. Also, why highlight historical use by a defunct organization (the Grand Army of the Republic) and ignore Masonic use which continues to this day? McGhiever (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Opposed - see the previous RM from 18 October, 2013 for the explanation as to why the article title was moved away from the "official NRHP name". The primary reason was to prevent confusion caused by using the term "Lodge" incorrectly. In a Masonic context, "Lodge" does not refer to a building (although a lot of people get this wrong)... it refers to the group of people that happen to meet in the building - the local chapter of the Freemasons. The buildings that Masonic Lodges meet in used to be called "Masonic Temples".  In the modern era they are most commonly called "Masonic Halls" (to avoid the religious connotation of the word "Temple").
 * As for the NRHP name... see WP:Official name vs WP:COMMONNAME... if the COMMONNAME happens to be the "official" name, great... but often it isn't. (by the way... what we entitle this article should not affect how the building is listed on the various NRHP pages... it is absolutely appropriate to use the "official" NRHP name on those pages... linking to this article (whatever title we give it) though either a pipelink or a redirect.)
 * That said... To offer an alternative that at least mentions the Masons, what about using a descriptive title? That would avoid the entire issue of having incorrect terminology in an "offical" name) ... I would accept something like "Clearwater Masonic and Grand Army of the Republic Hall" (and I am open to other suggestions). Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed that the objection to the NRHP name was because it misused the term "lodge"—happy to withdraw that as a consideration. Clearwater Masonic and Grand Army of the Republic Hall sounds great to me. -McGhiever (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * QUESTION - Not sure why this was relisted... the proposer has withdrawn the original request, and there seems to be agreement on an alternative title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)


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