![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)