Talk:List of Freemasons

List of Freemasons:Manual of Style
The following could be a manual of style for List of Freemasons.

Guidelines for Inclusion in the list
We have established two requirements for inclusion in the list.
 * 1) There must be an existing article on the English Wikipedia on the person in question
 * 2) There must be reliable sources that establish the person was/is in fact a Freemason.

Basic Format
* name (date1–date2), text.


 * 1) Asterisk
 * 2) Single space
 * 3) Name including wikilink to article of the person.
 * 4) If the article name includes a parenthesis, use a barred link such as William Polk instead of William Polk (colonel)
 * 5) Single space
 * 6) Vital Dates:
 * 7) left parenthesis
 * 8) Birth Date
 * 9) Death Date
 * 10) right parenthesis
 * 11) comma
 * 12) single space
 * 13) Post-nominal letters (if any) (see below)
 * 14) Description (see below)
 * 15) Citations (see below)
 * 1) Citations (see below)

Dates

 * Dates should entered as d mmm yyyy that is to say 5 May 2013
 * If the person is still living, simply leave a space inplace of the death date.
 * If year only is known, then list year only. Check the person's main article.
 * If date is 'circa' then place c. before the date in question.
 * If date is unknown, place ? in place of the date in question.
 * Dates should NOT include references or citations. These facts are (presumably) cited in the person's main article (and if they're not they should be)

Post-nominal letters
Numerous notable Freemasons, especially in the United Kingdom, are entitled to display post-nominal letters. Within List of Freemasons these should be listed after the comma following the vital dates, and before the primary text. The templates Template:Post-nominals, Template:Post-nominals/AUS, Template:Post-nominals/CAN, Template:Post-nominals/GBR, or Template:Post-nominals/NZL should be used as applicable.

Description
This should not be a large paragraph. It should first include why the person is/was notable, and secondly things that are of specific relevance to Masonic membership.

Why they are notable
Short and to the point. We do not need every reason the person is notable. Give the "most notable" reason they are notable. For example, in the case of Theodore Roosevelt simply stating 26th President of the United States is sufficient. We do not need U.S. Cavalry Officer, Medal of Honor recipient, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 33rd Governor of New York, 25th Vice President of the United States, and 26th President of the United States.

Masonic Information
When possible, give the names and locations of any known lodge memberships. If known, give the dates, lodge name, and location of when he received his Masonic Degrees. Also, give any significant Masonic accomplishments such as being the Grand Master of a state, etc.

What to do and not do

 * 1) Do not include titles or ranks in front of the person's name
 * 2) This: John Smith (birth date - Death Date), Major General of the British Army...
 * 3) Not This: Major General John Smith (birth date - Death Date), British Army officer...
 * 4) With the exception of do not use abbreviations except...
 * 5) U.S. or US for United States
 * 6) U.K. or UK for United Kingdom

Peerage
Members of the British Peerage (and other countries for that matter) should be alphabetized as such:

Note that suitable See Also links should be added when applicable. For example, Prince Michael of Kent should have his main listing under M, could have a see also link under K.

Also, many peers and royals have multiple titles. For example, Prince William (who is not a Mason but should be) is also the Duke of Cambridge, the Earl of Strathearn, and the Baron Carrickfergus. These people should be listed under their senior-most rank, in this case Prince.

Comments
That's my two cents. Eric Cable |  Talk  12:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bravo. My only criticism is the inconsistency in the peerage. Why refer to Dukes by their titles and the lower ranks by their family names? Few people know that Melbourne's real name was Lamb, and fewer yet care. The rest is sound stuff. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trying to find the citation, but I am pretty sure this is the alphabetization method used in Burke's Peerage. Seems like I also read it in the The Chicago Manual of Style. I am reminded of a quote from the Dowager Countess in Downton Abbey: “"If I were ever to search for logic I wouldn't look for it among the English upper class." Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, quibble over. Well done. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also note the "See also" column above. That will help. With the example of Melbourne, under M we would have 2nd Viscount Melbourne. see William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne with a link to his main listing under Lamb. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry are publishing list of names
According to an article in the Telegraph and other newspapers, "A secret archive containing the names of two million Freemasons has been made public for the first time on the genealogy site Ancestry."

Membership records from 1733 to 1923 -- mainly in Britain and the British Empire --- have been digitised and published on the family history website Ancestry, the company said.

See: Was Titanic inquiry scuppered by the Freemasons?  Esowteric + Talk  17:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but this is really the lowest form of journalism. The Great and Good were often Freemasons in the 19th Century, as were ordinary tradesmen. However, you don't have to be a mason to cover up your colleague's incompetence, our civil service are still doing it. The Jack the Ripper stuff is now old and tired, and should be decently buried, with a footnote that Warren's investigations were impeded and he was persecuted out of office for his liberal politics. "Two million", "secret archive", "pinch of salt". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Enockah bp Enockackah bp (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding 46 Names to Letter V
I have gone all the way through the letter V in Denslow and am adding the following names all contained therein: Eric Cable |  Talk  15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * George Vail
 * William N. Vaile
 * Edward Virginius Valentine
 * Clement Vallandigham
 * Duke of Valmy
 * Jacob Van Braam
 * Authur "Dazzy" Vance
 * Joseph Vance
 * Pierre Van Cortlandt
 * Arthur H. Vandenberg
 * Willis Van Devanter
 * William Vandever
 * Vedder Van Dyck
 * Nicholas Van Dyke, Jr.
 * Walter Van Dyke
 * Robert Van Pelt
 * Jeremiah Van Rensselaer
 * Killian K. Van Rensselaer
 * Stephen Van Rensselaer
 * Samuel Rinnah Van Sant
 * Abraham Van Vechten
 * Murray Van Wagoner
 * Charles C. Van Zandt
 * James E. Van Zandt
 * James K. Vardaman
 * William Scott Vare
 * José María Vargas
 * Charles Varnum
 * James Mitchell Varnum
 * Harry H. Vaughan
 * Horace Worth Vaughan
 * Richard Vaux
 * James C. Veatch
 * Claude Joseph Vernet
 * Émile Jean-Horace Vernet
 * George Graham Vest
 * Albert Henry Vestal
 * Gabriel González Videla
 * Egbert Ludovicus Viele
 * Feliciano Viera
 * Bird J. Vincent
 * John Vining
 * John Charles Vivian
 * Daniel W. Voorhees
 * Foster McGowan Voorhees
 * Charles W. Vursell

Paginating the page does not help searching, it does the opposite
Having two pages for names does not help searching, is it not possible to search with a browser in two pages. If the list does grow two much, it could be better to find another way of reducing the page size.

Possible solutions to page size are:


 * Remove footnotes moving those to the personal page. In such case, we could add some badge (similar to the wikiquotes one saying there are quotes of him), with that extra info, leaving this page more clean.


 * Use another classification (not alphabetical), like profession (scientific, political/military). With this classification we have multiple pages, but it makes more sense to search there.

El Hoy (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to dismiss your concerns, but more for your information... all of your concerns have been discussed before... please look through the archives to see why we do things the way we currently do. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You{smiles]
Thank you, most humbly.I could have not looked correctly.Many thank yous .87.188.189.142 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Razu