Talk:Odd Fellows Hall

Background
There is a large number of similarly named disambiguation pages. In alphabetic order:
 * Independent Order of Odd Fellows Building
 * Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall
 * IOOF Building
 * Oddfellow's Hall
 * Odd Fellows Block
 * Odd Fellows Building
 * Odd Fellows Building and Auditorium
 * Odd Fellows Hall
 * Odd Fellows Lodge
 * Odd Fellows Temple
 * Odd Fellows' Hall

I attempted to address this problem by expanding IOOF Building. (Why that page? No good reason - I'm from Adelaide; in Adelaide it was named the "IOOF Building".) On reflection, I would now say "I have had better ideas". The way the 11 pages are currently set up, it is far too much effort to maintain them and keep them consistent. Currently, the page with the largest number of entries is Odd Fellows Hall.

Proposal
I propose that the contents of all 11 pages mentioned above be merged into Odd Fellows Hall, (which is currently the page with the most entries), and that the other 10 pages be changed to redirect to Odd Fellows Hall.


 * Support - 11 pages are too many to maintain and keep consistent. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Amended proposal below - I prefer that proposal to mine. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 1 Several of these are mostly populated by U.S. ones listed on the National Register of Historic Places, both blue-links and red-links. To conform with disambiguation page standards hashed out in a long previous discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation about NRHP formatting, these items should be updated to show one bluelink per entry, as in, for what is currently a red-link:
 * Odd Fellows Hall (Eureka, California), listed on the NRHP in Humboldt County, California
 * and, for what is currently a blue-link:
 * Odd Fellows Hall (Cambridge, Massachusetts), listed on the NRHP in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 * Note every NRHP listing appears on one state, county, or city list-article of NRHP listings, but for the Cambridge one, given a bluelink for the article itself it is not necessary (or apppropriate according to the consensus in the NRHP disambig discussion) to also link to the corresponding NRHP list-article; one bluelink per entry suffices.
 * These NRHP ones should then be mixed in with the non-NRHP ones, so that a reader can look them up by location, unlike the current organization of some of the pages which segregate NRHP ones vs. non-NRHP ones. doncram (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 I see the value of having one big consolidated dab page with all the entries, organized geographically. But also, there is value of retaining the separate lists, which actually should be kept, in my view.  For example, if a reader is looking for a specific place named Odd Fellows Block, the reader should be able to find that on the short, currently 2 entry dab page Odd Fellows Block.  The short Odd Fellows Block dab page should of course contain clear directions towards the one larger, consolidated dab list of Odd Fellows Hall and all variations, organized geographically. doncram (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with amendment I do support a merger to Odd Fellows Hall, as long as all the separate dab pages for each specific name are also kept. It is not at all too much work to keep a system of 11 dab pages organized consistently.  The point of a "merger" should be to create one useful consolidated list, useful for readers looking up places geographically.  It does not preclude keeping separate, more specifically named shorter lists.  Such systems of dab lists for NRHP places are common, especially for church names that have many variations (like St. Paul's Church, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, St. Paul's Church and Rectory, St. Paul's Church Complex, etc. doncram (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Followup: I went ahead and "boldly revised" the IOOF Building dab page towards its serving as the main geographically organized dab page (probably to be moved to Odd Fellows Hall).  Note I've brought it towards achieving a DAB page guideline that there should be exactly one bluelink per entry.  If there is support and/or no objections, I'll edit the shorter other ones to similar format for their entries.  About future maintenance of the system, I think once a clear system is set up that most editors will be able to see the organization and add a new IOOF building appropriately.  Also, there is a surprisingly large number of editors associated with WikiProject Disambiguation (which i joined recently although I am more an NRHP specialist) who happily review and maintain dab pages.  For the current dab page, the DAB specialists might choose to delete entries that have neither a redlink nor a bluelink, so no links at all, and I would be hard put to argue against that.  If there is no article, there is no need for disambiguation.  So if you want a given entry to survive on the dab lists, you have to make sure there is either a valid article for it (hence a regular bluelink) or a redlink plus a supporting bluelink showing a valid regular article referring to the redlink (like the bluelinks to NRHP state-wide lists which show the validity of individual NRHP redlinks).  Is it okay if I continue like this?  doncram (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! You don't muck around, do you! I'm very impressed!
 * This is only my opinion, but as we're the only two who have commented, and we seem to be in agreement, I would very much like you to "continue like this"!
 * More specifically:
 * I went ahead and "boldly revised" ...  - Good move.
 * one bluelink per entry - Yes, when I looked at these pages, it occurred to me that at some time this would become an issue.
 * If there is support and/or no objections - You have both support and no objections from me!
 * About future maintenance ...  - That sounds reasonable.
 * I would be hard put to argue against that. - Agreed, but let's not delete any red or black lines just yet ...
 * If there is no article, there is no need for disambiguation. - I don't entirely agree, but as you said previously, "I would be hard put to argue against that."
 * So if you want a given entry to survive ...  - Agreed.
 * And repeating:
 * Is it okay if I continue like this? - Yes please!!
 * Many thanks! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Amended proposal
See above.


 * Enthusiastic Support - Pdfpdf (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd Fellows hall in Upper Lake, CA
Hello, haven't edited anything yet, but there's an Odd Fellows hall in Upper Lake, CA as well. Must I find the mention in a publication so that it wouldn't constitute original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.207.70 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some sort of supporting reference would be good ...
 * Suggest you have a look at some of the other pages and see how they've been done - you'll notice a large range of different ways that it has been done, but a certain amount of similarity. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)