This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

National Register of Historic Places

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

NRHP

[edit]

We need to double check that the buildings designated as "Masonic Lodge No.123" (etc.) in the NRHP (currently all red linked) do not have some other, alternative designation. Technically, (from POV of Freemasonry) a Masonic lodge is a group of people... who may meet in a Masonic temple or Masonic hall, etc. (although that is not required... historically many Masonic lodges met in taverns and private homes... today some meet in multi-purpose halls, shared with non-masonic groups). However, this distinction is not always understood by non-masons, so the NRHP may well incorrectly designate the building as "Masonic Lodge, No. ... " Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing, but the distinction may be that the NRHP name may reflect the common name, which developed in general usage in a given town, for the Mason building. My bet is that it is more likely that, that the NRHP listing is naming what is actual usage at the time of NRHP listing, rather than the NRHP nominator getting it wrong. Your beef would then be with the local usage. Anyhow, for any or all of these, I would be happy to help develop articles, if anyone else is willing to request the free NRHP nomination document available for each one of these (one way to get is by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov) and do some writing. --doncram (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]