Talk:Renaissance Providence Hotel

Should Veterans really redirect here?
Should Veterans really redirect here?--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless you write a new article on Veterans Memorial Auditorium (Providence).
 * Anyway, the two buildings share a history and were originally part of the same complex. Petri Krohn 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But is it really noteworthy? I'm tempted to say this should be AFDed for nn, and I'm not particularly sure it's a Masonic article if the building was never used as a Masonic building. MSJapan 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know if the Veterans Memorial Auditorium is noteworthy, but the Providence, Rhode Island article refeers to it. -- Petri Krohn 10:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Masonic
Should the category 'Freemasonry' apply to this article? It was removed by User:Blueboar in 2006 as the building has no current, or even recent, connection with Freemasonry. It has been added again in 2007 by User:SarekOfVulcan presumably for purely historic reasons? It does seem that the connection with Freemasonry is tenuous, to say the least, particularly as the building is being converted into a hotel now. Timothy Titus


 * I don't really care one way or the other... I removed it for the basic reason that it never actually served as a Masonic meeting hall... it was originally built with this use in mind, but never completed as such. I suppose the real question is what is the building called by the people of Providence?  If they call it by the name of the hotel, then it should not be linked to Freemasonry (and the article should be renamed).  If they still call it the Masonic Temple Building or someting, then a link is worthwhile to explain what "Masonic" means. Blueboar 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I see the argument for removing it... --Sar e kOfVulcan 01:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Masonic censorship?
I have reverted the manual move attempt Renaissance Providence Hotel, and restored the deleted content. It seem to me, that the motivation for the move was an attempt to hide the buildings association to Freemasonry. I see this as a form of censorship, not suited to Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...what Masonic connection? If it was never used as a Masonic hall, and never completed as such (and therefore not even dedicated Masonically), where's the connection, especially since this unfinished and abandoned building was converted into a hotel? MSJapan 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While the building was originally supposed to be a Masonic hall, it was never used as such (as is stated in the article, construction halted before the building was completed... no one ever occupied it). While it sat derelict, it made some sense to call it the "Masonic Temple" building, since that is how it was referred to in Providence.  Now that the building has been bought and renamed, we should use that name.  As for "Masonic censorship"... my revised version of the article states that the building was originally designed to be a Masonic hall ... where is the censorship?  To settle the issue, I will post an RfC so we can get outside input. Blueboar 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also do not quite get what Petri Krohn means by "deleted content" ... I re-worded when I moved the article, but did not intentionally delete any major content. Here is the text of my re-worded article:
 * The Renaissance Providence Hotel is a luxury hotel in central Providence, Rhode Island currently (as of March, 2007) under development by Sage Hospitality Resources. It will utalize a monumental building that was originally planed as a Masonic temple, but who's construction work was abandoned in 1929 as a result of financial difficultes caused by the Great Depression and WW II.
 * The building, constructed in the Greek Revival style, is located prominently on Francis Street opposite the Rhode Island state capitol, Rhode Island State House. The opening of the Providence Place Mall next door across Hayes Street has made the site prime real estate.
 * Where did I remove content or censor information? Blueboar 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC - Name of Article
What should we call this article? Please give reasoning behind your choice.

1) - Rename as Renaissance Providence Hotel
 * (please add reasoning for rename)


 * While the building was originally designed to be a Masonic hall, it was never completed or occupied by the Masons. During the time it sat empty (1930s to 2000s), it was known locally as either the "Masonic Temple" or the "Mason Building".  However, the building has been bought and renamed by a hotel chain, so we should use the current name. Blueboar 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Copy&paste is not the way to go about doing it. To rename a page, one actually "renames the page" using the "Move" feature of WP. Copying the contents to another page makes it much harder to track the history of the contents of the page. DMacks 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2) - Keep as Masonic Temple (Providence)
 * Move, but keep the interesting history of the building. Make Masonic Temple (Providence) a redirect. WegianWarrior 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (please add reasoning for keep)

3) - Other Ideas
 * A single hotel that's part of a standard chain/brand? Not really interesting or notable in a Wikipedia sense...on its face, doesn't sound like it would even survive an Articles For Deletion discussion. What's interesting/notable here is the building itself and its history, not just its current use. Nice example of lofty plans, Depression-era failures, urban decay & redevelopment, and local interest. DMacks 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the hotel is (or becomes) notable on its own merits then the current name should be kept. It sounds like most people familiar with the building would describe it as the "masonic temple." The hotel's current occupancy should certianly be noted. --Helm.ers 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (please add any other ideas here)


 * Delete - As DMacks said, one hotel is not notable. There's some minor interesting stuff here, but nothing really of any more than anecdotal value.  The Masonic connection is tenuous at best; remove it, and it's just another building in Providence.  I know of plenty of buildings that used to be something else; that doesn't make them inherently notable unless there's other circumstances, like a major factory being turned into condos (and BTW, that item is not in the WP article for the company in question). MSJapan 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions
Before I commented on the RfC, I took the time to read the article carefully... and I have two questions that perhaps the original author can answer:
 * construction work was abandoned in 1929 as a result of financial difficultes caused by the Great Depression and WW II.
 * How can WWII stop construction in 1929, when WWII didn't start until 1939? Is the intended meaning that the construction was halted because of the Depresion and not taken up again later because of WWII? If so, this isn't clear as it reads right now.
 * The adjoining building known as the Veterans Memorial Auditorium, located between the Mason Building and Interstate 95, was taken over by the city in the 1980s and reinhabited. It now houses the VMA Arts & Cultural Center.
 * ...the building next door? But then why is it in this article? Why not in an article titled Veterans Memorial Auditorium (Providence) or the article on Providence, Rhode Island?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just puzzled. WegianWarrior 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WW - It looks as if there used to be a seperate article on the VMA... not sure why it was redirected to this article. As for the WWII statement... I think you are correct.  The context seems to indicate that  construction was halted due to the depression and WWII prevented it from being taken up again. Blueboar 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that someone couldn't or shouldn't write something about it, but that VMA(Providence) page looks like it was never anything more than a redirect to the Masonic Temple page. DMacks 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone created a page just so it would be a redirect? Strange. Blueboar 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that one of the major arts venues in a major city should have its own article... so I have started one in stub form. See VMA (Providence).  Please feel free to expand it. Blueboar 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Do I want to know why it's at "VMA" instead of the proper name of it (the existing page that's the redirect)? DMacks 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Veterans Memorial Auditorium (Providence) redirects to this article, and I can't figure out how to undo it and create the page. Feel free to rename it if you can figure it out. Blueboar 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since a straight move will not work - can't move on top of a redirect - I requested help from an admin. And I still think the first sentence I had trouble with ought to be looked at by someone whos English is steadier than mine is right now. WegianWarrior 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive. Blueboar 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Move or delete?
I see that several people have commented that this article should be deleted rather than moved (see RFC above). I have no problem with that, but I want to get a sense of consensus first. I will start with summarizing the arguments above... feel free to add your comments.

Reasons to Delete:
 * It isn't really notable.

Reasons to Keep, but rename:
 * The building is a good example of urban decay and redevelopement. But since it has a new name, we should use that name.

Reasons to Keep as it is:
 * "The Masons" seem to want to hide something, and we should not let them get away with such nefarious censorship.

WP:LOCAL has some guidelines that might be useful here. It appears we do have some cited sources here, so an article about "this thing" could be viable. The sources cover the building including its revival as a hotel, not "the hotel", suggesting that the article is building-centric (all its incarnations) per my comment in the article naming RfC above. I'm not sure there's enough material now to have a full page, but the parent locality page (Providence, RI) is already fairly long so not unreasonable to keep viablish self-contained parts in separate pages. DMacks 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... some good points. Let's take renaming the article off the table for now... since I suppose the issue of renaming really needs to wait until the hotel opens... if the people of Providence start calling it the Renaisaunce Hotel instead of the Mason building, then there would be more reason to change the title. If they continue to call it the Masonic Temple or Mason building or something similar then the article should stay as is.


 * That leaves us with Keep or Delete... You say you are not sure there is enough material now to have a full page... The question is if anything more can be added? If so, I could agree on keeping.  But I think that this stub already says just about everything you can say about the building.  Is there anything that makes it really notable as a building? Blueboar 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

cat removal
Once again I am removing the Freemasonry category... this is an article about a building, not an article that is related to Freemasonry. The Masons are only tangentially involved - they never even occupied it. The Freemasonry category is designed to be used for articles about the fraternity, not a building they once owned. Blueboar 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC comment
I saw the RFC for this article. I guess I don't have a single vote between the three choices mentioned above, but I'll comment anyway.

The Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission lists the buildings as, "Veterans Memorial Auditorium/Masonic Temple, Brownell Street1 (11/4/93)". This implies that the entire complex is listed. This link from the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation seems to imply that they're two separate buildings. As far as the article title goes, I'd lean more toward "Masonic Temple (Providence)" since that's the historic name, but I don't have a strong opinion on it.

Regardless, since both buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places, I think they merit inclusion. The National Register designates buildings that are worthy of historic preservation, which should be enough of a notability standard for Wikipedia. Feel free to ask us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for additional guidance -- I think there are some people who could help out. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 03 November 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: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island) → Renaissance Providence Hotel – Proposed title reflects both modern usage and WP:COMMONNAME. When this was last discussed (back in 2007) the building had just changed hands and there were not enough sources to justify a move. Today there are (see google search). Furthermore, the current title is misleading as the building never actually served as a Masonic Temple (construction was halted before the building was complete). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 3 November 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 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.