Talk:Masonic lodge officer

Untitled

I started creating this article just after Christmas 2006, but ran out of steam. Another editor encouraged me to finish the work a couple of days ago - so here it is. I hope people will agree that it helps clarify things, and is better than the collection of small individual articles (most of which now redirect to here) and the rather messy 'officers' section of Masonic Lodge. Timothy Titus 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

British slant

I fully understand how this can occur, but the list has a distinct British slant. It leaves out some positions that are very common in the US (such as Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony - who are in charge of preparing the candidates in the outer room, assist in escorting the candidates during the degree work, and escort potential cowains out of the room should they not have an apron or the password or something... amoung other duties). Even then, I doubt all 50 states do things the same. One way to deal with this would be to have several charts showing the officers common under several traditions, and then a fairly open text list to describe anyone we left out and what they do. Still... a good beginning. Blueboar 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be true (I can't be certain as I'm also British!), but this article certainly includes all the offices that were listed on the old "officers" part of the Masonic Lodge article, including all the entries made by Americans. I think this new version by Timothy Titus is a big improvement. But yes, an American table could be added as well. JCDomm 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my jurisdiction (the emphasis is there on purpose), the SD and JD take the the MC work, so I think it might be better to chop the table down a bit, or add alternate titles here and there. Our lines work differently, too, as the Inside Sentinel comes below the JS and SS. I'm going to try something, and remove the table. Revert it if you think it;s bad. MSJapan 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After doing the edit, let's not replace the table. I've done some heavy editing, such as removing "private", as I think it unnecessarily complicates matters, and removing a bunch of HTML breaks that we don't need. On another note, I know for sure we have a Grand Pursuivant, so I'll find out what he does (I don't know who he is, so I don't know what he does), and add it in, because I don't think he's the flag bearer. MSJapan 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What about other office bearers like Jeweller and Bible Bearer, which also feature in craft lodges of the GL of Scotland? I feel that these should be mentioned. Additionally in Scottish Lodges it is Worshipful Senior Warden and Worshipful Junior Warden. Perhaps this should also be included also. Aquizard 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These offices are probably unique to Scotland, but that's why section 3 exists "Other (less common) offices". Why don't you enter them there, assuming you know enough about the offices to write them up? Timothy Titus 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see it now... rename article to "Regular Blue Lodge Masonic Officers", etc &/or list every rite & version of "Freemasonry's" officers too...;~D But yeah, maybe an italicized small line below office saying it's UK/USA/whatevs-centric?

Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony

found mostly in some US jurisdictions

Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony

Not found in many/any UK Lodges

etc... Grye 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Marshal

Very common in US lodges (usually a "Line" office), not common in UK etc, etc, etc.

I really think we need to re-think how this article is organized .... We have to account for the huge variations that exist between different jurisdictions. Perhaps one section for "Elected Officers - common to all jurisdictions" (ie Worshipful Master, Wardens, Secretary and Treasurer... at least I assume these are common to all). Then a section on "Appointed Officers - common to all jurisdictions" (Deacons and Stewards?) And then final catch all section for "Other Officers - appointed in some jurisdictions but not in all" Blueboar 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

New Organization

I have re-organized the sections and moved some of the offices around. I think this is correct, but if you notice any errors, please correct them. Essentially the structure is as follows:

• Elected Officers - common to all jursidictions

Master, Wardens, Secretary, Treasurer

• Appointed Officers - common to all jurisdictions

Deacons, Stewards, and Tyler

• Appointed Officers - in some jurisdictions but not all

This contains almost everyone else

• Other Officers

Things like Poet, or Historian that are rare.

• Officers Unique to Grand Lodge

(do we really need this?)

Comments? Blueboar 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the revision. It doesn't appear to improve either clarity or the problems of different systems. In England the only elected officers are the Master, Treasurer and Tyler. This therefore puts both Wardens, the Secretary, and the Tyler into the 'wrong' category from an English perspective. Timothy Titus 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like there is no logical way to organize this stuff... There are simply too many permutations and variations - too many different Masonic jurisdictions with different officers and different ways to organize them. Given that, I have to question whether we should actually HAVE an article on Lodge Officers. Blueboar 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

UGLE elections

No, the UGLE does not elect the wardens - they are appointed by the WM. Under UGLE bye-laws, the WM treasurer and tyler are elected, the rest of officers are appointed. It is generally expected, especially after reaching the wardens chair, that you will progress through the chair, but this is not writ in stone. Blueboar, I would revert to Baldricks Mum's version. --docboat 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... In most, if not all, US Jurisdictions the Master, Wardens, Treasurer and Secretary are all elected (as are, in most jurisdictions, a group of "Trustees" as required by tax law)... the Tyler is appointed (and often is not even a brother of the lodge, but a hired brother from another lodge). Different strokes. Blueboar 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In Hong Kong we have 3 constitutions under one roof. As a member of 2 (English and Scottish) I see the differences immediately. In the Scottish constitution (not Scottish rite!) the officers are all elected. Usually we see the RWM and the senior officers voted for individually. After that is done, the rest are voted for en bloc. docboat 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As we say in NY... Oy veh! If we start getting into every variation, this is going to end up as a very confusing article. As I see it, we have two options... 1) not talk about who is elected vs. appointed at all (with the possible exception of mentioning that the Master is always elected) or 2) Start with a strong caveat explaining that traditions over who is elected vs appointed will be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the most common variations are as follows... (etc.).

At this point, I am leaning towards the first option. Blueboar 12:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh ... yes please, option 1 sounds good. docboat 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I have cut the references to being elected vs. appointed for everyone except the Master (I do think it is important to mention that it is an elected position).

Trustees/Directors are not required by tax law. They'd be required by state law and tax law piggybacks. kcylsnavS ^{screech} 21:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

First, I have no problem with having pictures in this article... but do the ones that are currently being added (pictures of the Chairs) really help explain or demonstrate what is being dicsucces? Does it really tell us anything about the officer to see a picture of an empty chair where that officer sits? On a related note... if we are going to add pictures of empty chairs... could we find better ones? In the picture of the Worshipful Master's chair, for example, the actual chair can barely be seen. Blueboar 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded in over a month... I am going to delete the pictures. I just don't see what they add to the article. If you disagree... please do me the courtesy of explaining why you think they belong in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I uploaded the pictures, and obviously thought they added to the article, perhaps you should have done me the courtesy of letting me know you planned to delete them. As no one responded to your message is it possible that no one agreed with you? Jack1956 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get upset. I assumed you added them in good faith. Please assume I deleted them with equal good faith. People disagree about additions and deletions to articles all the time... The standard practice on Wikipedia is: edit, revert, discuss. So let's discuss...

Could you explain what you think the pictures add to the article? What does a picture of an empty chair tell about the officer who sits in that chair? If such pictures do add something to the article, why not include pictures of where all the other officers sit... why not include pictures of the Secretary's or Treasurer's desk, or the Junior Steward's chair?

I do understand that pictures can add something to an article... I just don't see what these pictures add to this article. As a suggestion, what about using pictures or drawings of each officers badge or emblem of office instead of their chairs... at least that would reflect something mentioned in the text. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I can arrange for the relevant officers, in their regalia, to sit in the chairs and photograph them again. My reason for adding the pictures as they were was because the chairs show the emblems of the respective Officers,and some of the objects connected with their Office in the Lodge, ie columns, ashlars, levels, plumb rules, etc. Jack1956 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... I understand your reasoning... and can even agree with what you were trying to do - as a concept. But that raises another issue about these particular pictures... it is nearly impossible to make out the details you wanted to show. Perhaps you are trying to show too much in one picture? If you went with a well framed close up of the emblems that might work better (I would have to see the end result... carvings in wood are hard to photograph well). That's why I suggested using a drawing of the emblems (square, level, plumb, crossed keys, cornocopia, etc.) instead. I know there are several websites that have such drawings under Free Licience for download. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, having seen the photos, are we going to see the people, or are we going to see the emblems? My thought is that the regalia itself is going to detract from what the pictures are supposed to show, and I personally don't believe that the chairs are that useful, especially since there's no standard of Lodge room design. Just something to consider. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I really am not trying to be obstructionist here, my brothers. I very much approve of the idea of illustrating this article... just not the attempts that have been presented so far. Perhaps someone could take some nicely lit close up shots of the various jewels/emblems/aprons of office (if using the collars, focus on the jewel and place it against a dark background, so the details really stand out... and don't show it being worn by anyone, otherwise the eye is distracted by seeing a person and does not focus on the regalia). Alternatively we could use clip art type drawings. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for this article

We really need to find some sources for this article - at minimum internal documents like "Stations and Places", but preferably something external to Masonry. Without such sources the article risks being nominated for deletion for not meeting the criteria of WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

confused

How can "every lodge have a Chaplain, but this is not universal"? Either every Lodge has a Chaplain, in which case it is universal, or every Lodge does not have a Chaplain, in which case it is not universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a missing phrase that got dropped somewhere along the way. I think the section used to say "every lodge has a Chaplain, often a clergyman but this is not universal" (or something like that). However, I am not sure if that is correct. It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Certainly if a given jurisdiction calls for having Chaplains, then every lodge within that jurisdiction will have one. Indeed MOST jurisdictions require the lodges to have Chaplains... but a few might not. I have reworded a bit, so hopefully the situation is clearer. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Senior Warden

An IP editor keeps adding the following to the section on the SW: "He cannot, however, act as the master of lodge while open, unless he is a past master and has been asked by the master to do so." I suspect that this may be a Jurisdictional thing, but I know for sure that under GLoNY the exact opposite is true ... the SW automatically becomes "Acting Master of the Lodge" in the absence of the Worshipful Master, and has full authority to open the lodge, conduct business, confer degrees, etc. (The same is true for the JW if both the SW and the WM are absent). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but I can't imagine that it's jurisdictional in nature. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So under GLMA the SW presides in the Master's absence as well? I was not sure.

It seems to be a UK vs US difference (see the IP editor's most recent edit). Or perhaps it is a miscommunication as to what "acting as Worshipful Master" means. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, if the SW and JW succession was not in place, the absence of the Master would cause a violation of GL bylaws and revocation of charter, as the Lodge could not hold its stated communication as required. Furthermore, this duty is stated in the installation of the officers as well. I can actually find out what the UK ruling is and see if that really is the case, though I'd lean towards a misunderstanding someplace.

Additionally, even though I could go look first, do we have anything in the article regarding bylaws and charters? Those are pretty fundamental as far as Lodge governance is concerned. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Under UGLE, in the event of the WM not being present the IPM takes the chair, followed by any subscribing PM present, only when you've run out of PMs does the SW take the chair. It's not prevented, but it's unlikely.

Similarly in GLoS although in the first instance the Substitute Master would take the chair.

ALR (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Emblems/Jewels of Office

Given that different jurisdictions seem to use different emblems for the same office (for example, the Deacons have doves in the UK while they have a S&C with either sun or moon in the US), do we really need to mention them? I am wondering if we just confuse our readers by going into all the differences.

Purely as a point of interest while we are on the subject of Jewels (and not to go into the article)... I took a look at the Officers' Jewels used in my lodge... while the Deacons' staffs have the traditional US emblems on top (A S&C with a blazing sun for the SD and with a crescent moon for the JD)... the jewels that hang on large collars around their necks are different... the SD has what looks like a pick axe, and the JD has what looks like a sledge hammer. The lodge is quite old by US standards (founded 1787) ... and our regalia seems to date from at least the mid-Victorian era ... so these may be archaic emblems. Just wondering if anyone knows something about this? Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I concur that we should not go into emblems unless there's a generic way to do it - not only do they differ lodge ot lodge, but the GL equivalents aren't always the same either (for example, our GL's JD jewel is a dove, despite it being a US jurisdiction). However (and this may answer your question as well as solve issue number one), I've got a QCCC book on regalia that might help, and might in fact be a good generic resource for emblems. I'll peruse it at some point eithin the next few weeks. MSJapan (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In my lodge (founded 1768, Albany NY) the jewels of the Masters of Ceremony are pickaxe-like objects (possibly some form of mason's gavel) acquired in the late 18th C.- and no one has the least idea what they mean. It makes for an interesting Lodge Walkabout: "The jewels of the Masters of Ceremony are crossed swords.....but not in our case....."Saxophobia (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

unbalanced parentheses

There is an unbalanced left parenthesis at the beginning of the second sentence of the section "Secretary". That sentence starts out "(One notable exception to this norm was [...]". I suggest that we either get rid of the left parenthesis at the beginning of that sentence, or else do something to terminate the range. If we do the latter (that is, if we do not delete it), then a later "parenthetical expression" - a little further on in the sentence ["(English jurisdiction)"] - will be a nested set of parentheses -- which is perfectly OK in languages like Fortran and C and (((of course))) lisp, but is considered by some to be nerdy and/or "out of place" in English (and [perhaps], especially in an encyclopedia - at least, in an article that is not about nested sets of parentheses, nor some mathematical stuff, such as "formal languages"). I apologize for [perhaps?] not being bold enough today. Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed: someone fixed the above (see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Masonic_Lodge_Officers&diff=225723228&oldid=214695164) very soon after the above "bug report". It was done while retaining the [now] nested set of parentheses, which is a decision that seems OK to me. CASE CLOSED. This section of the talk page probably should [therefore] be deleted now -- perhaps after being archived. (right?) Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lodge Mentor?

Couple of sources:

• http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-11/p-58.php MQ Magazine Issue 11
• http://www.pglel.co.uk/Secretariat/elpubs/library/A%20candidates%20Guide.pdf

But many more out there - Berkshire PGL is even making this an official officer position in the lodge (and many are following in a similar manner) - is there a thirst for me to add a section on this? Middlesex Fire (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about thirst... but if Berkshire PGL considers "Lodge Mentor" to be an "official officer position", I don't see any reason not to add it. If it is only done in Berkshire and a few other English PGLs I would suggest adding it in the "Additional (less common) Offices" section (with an eye to moving it to the "Officers found in some jurisdictions and not in others" section in the future, as it becomes more common.) Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The direction came out from UGLE about three years ago that each Lodge was to consider the post of mentor, to support and assist new members in their first steps in the craft. It's not an office as such; no Jewel and no position in the line of progression. It may have now been mandated across the board.

We've certainly had them in my London lodge and Hampshire lodge for some time, the research lodge I belong to doesn't, but we don't initiate.

ALR (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewels are now being handed out in Berkshire (I just left an installation) - I would certainly agree that it should be in the minor/additional section. I'll put something together and add it tomorrow. Middlesex Fire (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it is usually assumed (though not always done) that a candidate's sponsor becomes his mentor, so it might be useful to add that while the position is not always "official", it does have some duties and responsibilities in various jurisdictions. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro Grand Master

There has recently been an article introduced about a person who has recently been named "Pro Grand Master". My research tells me that when the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England is a member of the Royal Family he is empowered to appoint a "Pro Grand Master" to act for him on those occasions at which he cannot be present. Should this position be listed on this page, or on the Grand Master page, or anywhere else in the Freemasonry spectrum? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Being Pro Grand Master is not really all that notable (I don't expect that the article on Mr. Lowndes will last all that long... it does not properly establish notability per WP:NOTE). As for mentioning the position in this article... most jurisdictions have Deputy Grand Masters of some sort or another (which is what the Pro Grand Master is)... I suppose we could mention it in passing, but I would not go into any sort of detail. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have added Pro Grand Master into the paragraph on Deputy Grand Master... I realize that these are two seperate positions in UGLE... but in most jurisdictions the function is the same (ie filling in for, and acting as GM when the actual GM can not be present).

Secretary

The article makes many non-encyclopedic statements concerning the Secretary. While functionally true in many Lodges, the continued caveat to these statements, reminding the reader that 'this is tradition, not law' only serves to prove the point - the statements are not proper in the scope of an encyclopedia. The inclusion of the exception of Kipling doesn't prove anything more than Kipling was Secretary. It is too small a sample from which to drawn any valid conclusion.

The miniscule ritual responsibilities, and the limitation to exclusively administrative affairs makes not a 'key' position, or a 'real power base' in a Lodge. For example, the first duty of the secretary, is not to advise the master, but to observe the will and pleasure thereof (us slant). The second duty, is not to meet with candidates, but to record the proceedings.

Acquired responsibilities based on long tenure of service, and/or administrative complacency of others, are out of scope for an encyclopedia. This article should be limited to the verifiable, and definitive powers of office. Nothing more.

I offer for consideration (here come the secretaries) limiting this topic to those powers of office and duties for which the Secretary has specific legal and ritualistic responsibility: observe the will and pleasure..., record the proceedings..., collect monies..., etc...

Additionally - and I invite jurisdictional comment - does the office confer upon the custodian thereof, the duty/power to advise the Master any more than any long tenured Brother who has the Master's ear? Jmitchell4466 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed per your suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Chaplain revisited

We currently list Chaplain as "in some jurisdictions but not others"... I am not sure if this is correct. Do we know of any jurisdictions that don't have a Chaplain in every lodge? Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Quite a few of the sections in this article set off their topics with "quotes." 'Quotation marks' when used in this way generally indicate irony, or even sarcasm. Absent any objection I think I'll go through and clean these up. kcylsnavS ^{screech} 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Italicization in wikimarkup is is done with two singlequotes/apostrophes in a row - it looks like somebody changed it at some point, and I don't recall that offhand. I think the italicization is probably what we want, so if we can just adjust that, it should fix the problem. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Master

I have reverted a good faith edit about the duties and prerogatives of the Worshipful Master. These shift from jurisdiction to jurisdiction... so we have to keep what we say in this article very generalized. (the same goes for the other officers as well.) Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, is there any objection to me going back and changing the single quotes to italics markup? Also, what what the problem (if any) regarding my edit regarding the PM(V) degree? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem with changing the quotes to italics. As far as the PM(v) degree... remember, our audience is non-masons who have not a clue about Masonry. Going into details about the difference between the York Right PM(v) degree and the actual PM degree will just confuse them (hell, it confuses Masons sometimes.) I would leave it out. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I am going to cut the discussion of the York Rite completely... it is irrelevant to Craft Freemasonry. Keep this simple and general. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WM to PM

Blueboar, why the upper part of the change in this diff? The prior text seems provides truthful and as far as I can tell uncontroversial information not present in the text as revised (although truth to tell "voting members" should not have been capitalized or marks as irony). kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Woops... that second edit was an error... I have changed it back to the fuller version, which I think is more accurate. In NY at least, "Past Master" is not really a "rank". It is a description, like "Former President". PMs in NY continue to be addressed with "Worshipful" (as in "Worshipful Brother Smith"), but that honorific is the extent of their privileges. Once again, different jurisdictions do things in different ways. There are a few jurisdictions where only the Master gets the honors... and PMs go back to being plain old "Brother" in both status and address. There are other jurisdictions where Past Master is a distinct rank in the Grand Lodge, entitled to vote in Grand Lodge elections and proposals. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In NY State a Past Master gets recognition out of courtesy, and that is it.Saxophobia (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Immediate Past Master

How widespread is Immediate Past Master? In England, he is not a lodge officer, but he sits to the left of the WM, contributes to opening and closing, and is expected to step into the breach when the WM isn't there. Even a new lodge needs an IPM. Does the role need mentioned? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, the role of IPM is rare in the US. - In most US jurisdictions, if the WM isn't there, the Senior Warden steps up to govern the lodge (and the Junior Warden does so if they are both absent). That said, I know of a few lodges that have a tradition of appointing the IPM as Chaplain (and in that role he would sit to the left of the current Master)... but in most lodges, the IPM has no formal role or function. He is simply one more honored Past Master (among several). Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Our Wardens aren't allowed to drive unless they are already Past Masters. The mason governing a regular lodge has to have received the benefit of installation, and if the Master is absent, the IPM is first in the queue, and most likely to remember the ritual. After a year as IPM, the Chaplain's chair beckons, where I ought to be now if I hadn't been put back in the Chair of King Solomon.

I was contemplating contributing a couple of paragraphs on the early history of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, and I see now that Woodford's role as IPM of a new lodge needs explaining. Perhaps a sentence here wouldn't go amiss. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup... different jurisdictions - different rules. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tyler or Tiler? Which is more common?

Both spellings are used in sources ... but my experience is that "Tiler" is the more common of the two (and thus should be listed as the primary spelling, with "Tyler" would be the alternate). I freely admit that this is based my personal experience, and not based on an analysis of usage in the sources. So... We need to double check.

An important Preliminary Question: is this an WP:ENGVAR issue? (if so, previous consensus was to go with UK spellings). Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is "Tyler" in UGLE, Grand Lodge of Scotland, and Grand Lodge of Ireland. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This site MasonicDictionary.com makes some interesting points that it is tiler, not tyler based on the origins of the words in Latin and French and gives cites. Eric Cable  |  Talk  11:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You say tomato, I say tomatotl. Also Anglo-Saxon tigele, to cover. The fact remains that it is written into our ritual and constitutions with a y. The two vowels were often used interchangeably in English, and the French have never had tilers OR tylers (exterior "couvreur" or "frère terrible"). I suspect that usage depends on British/American English, and I would be surprised to see any consistency of spelling in the Eighteenth century on either side of the Atlantic. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... MasonicDictionary.com is quite useful for looking at this in more depth... searching both spellings, we get a lot of references that support each spelling. In usage, neither is significantly more common than the other.

However, if you look into who uses which, it does indeed seem to break down into UK vs US preference (UK sources consistently spell it with a "Y", while US sources consistently spell it with an "i"). So, it looks like this is a WP:ENGVAR situation. As I said above, previous consensus at the project level was to follow UK spelling and usage when there is a conflict (the rational being that since Freemasonry originated in England, it qualifies as a "UK topic").

Given this... I am now leaning towards "Tyler" as our primary spelling (with "Tiler" mentioned as the alternate). Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

US Sources Consistently spell it with an i... or do they?

If you look in the Code of the Grand Lodge of AF&AM North Carolina here [1] and here[2] you will see it spelled with a y. Personally, I prefer the y, but as you say toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So UK is consistent and US is inconsistent... one more reason to go with "Tyler". Shall we call it settled and amend? Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Also consistent with Tyler (Masonic) where a similar discussion occurred 13 months ago. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Tyler, not tiler. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DONE. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Tyler (Masonic), I've created Tiler (Masonic) as a redirect, and linked it from Tile (disambiguation). Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Provincial GMs?

Apparently we have an article on this, so it might be useful to add a section in here on that office. MSJapan (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My call... add the office to this list... but nominate the article for deletion (and redirect to this page). While there are several sources cited in that article, none of them really discuss the topic (the position of "Provincial Grand Master") in any detail. Which means we have to question whether the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article.

And, as long as we are adding various Grand Lodge officers, we should probably also add the office of "District Deputy Grand Master" to the list. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2015

The following is a closed 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: MOVED,' consensus reached, plus old page in clear violation of WP:NCCaps. TheJack15 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Masonic Lodge Officers → Masonic lodge officers – Following on from the consensus to decapitalise at Talk:Research lodge and Talk:Masonic lodge, I also think this article should be decap'd per WP:NCCAPS. Although a specific person could hold the role of "Masonic Lodge Officer", this article is about the generic term and is not a proper noun, much like chief executive officer. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Question... I think the nomination is correct in regards to the word "officer" but I am not so sure about how to capitalize the word "Lodge". "Lodge" is a proper noun here. In Freemasonry a "Lodge officer" refers to someone who is an officer at the local (Lodge) level... as opposed to a "Grand Lodge officer" - an officer at regional (Grand Lodge) level. Does this explanation affect the capitalization? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - splitting hairs a bit. The title issue is not "lodge", per se. The title is "Masonic Lodge" as opposed to "Elks Lodge" etc. It is a proper noun here, and actually, so is "Chief Executive Officer" when used in a particular context. MSJapan (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

valid point... but the end result of both our comments is that, as proposed, the move request is flawed, but the alternative of Masonic Lodge officers would be acceptable. Yes? Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify a bit. A Masonic Lodge is a proper noun, because there are many fraternal organizations that have lodges. We are not referring to the "lodge system" (which is an IRS-used term, by the way), but rather a particular organizational unit belogning to a particular fraternal group, and I feel that the caps on both would differentiate a Masonic Lodge from an Elks or Oddfellows Lodge. MSJapan (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Generic term. Absolutely no need for capitalisation. Note we have already recently renamed Masonic Lodge to Masonic lodge in an RM discussion, making a couple of the above comments redundant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have questioned the recent move of Masonic Lodge to Masonic lodge... this isn't a settled issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain why it's a proper name? Since every masonic lodge is called a masonic lodge how is this not a generic name? It doesn't apply to a specific organisation. It sounds a bit like Freemasons arguing they should be a special case with very little basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Something that was not discussed at the move of Masonic Lodge... the word "Lodge" is a term of art that has a specific meaning in Freemasonry... it refers to the meeting more than the building in which the meeting takes place. Freemasons will ask each other, "Are you attending Lodge tonight?" The same is true for the term Grand Lodge (as in "Joe has been appointed to represent our Lodge at Grand Lodge"). I am not sure if other fraternal orders use the term in this way. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

But that is internal to Freemasonry. And this usage is not exclusive to it. For instance, I work at a university. University publications and internal communications always refer to it as "the University". But we wouldn't do when referring to it in an article on Wikipedia; we'd just say "the university". Wikipedia is not required to give terms the reverence they are given within the organisation that uses them. It is irrelevant whether the term refers to the meeting, the building or the organisation. The lodge name should only be capitalised when the full name is given: Trinity Lodge 254 is obviously capitalised, as it is a proper name; "the masonic lodge" or "the lodge" is not, whatever may be the practice within the organisation itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have looked at sources relating to other fraternal orders... almost all use capitalization to clarify what they are referring to... they use "Lodge" when referring generically to local entities and "lodge" when referring to the buildings. ("We need a stronger Lodge" is a plea to recruit lots of good members... "We need stronger lodge" is a plea to build a building that won't collapse). Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's purely internal usage. It's not common English usage or binding on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing a usage that is limited to a specific topic area (in this case fraternal orders) with not being common. But the fact that a usage is specific does not make it uncommon. Take a look at the following n-gram searches: here, here and here... the capitalized version is actually more common than the non-capitalized version. This reflects the distinction I have been talking about. The the usage isn't "purely internal". Now, if we were discussing the word in a non fraternal context (example: ski lodge) I would agree that we should use lower case... but in a fraternal context (such as Masonic Lodge, Elks Lodge, Oddfellows Lodge), it is actually common usage to capitalize. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely you must realise that most books about fraternal organisations are by members of fraternal organisations and thus stick to the usage of fraternal organisations? That doesn't make it common usage by everyone else. If you do a search on a neutral website like the BBC you will see both "Masonic Lodge" and "masonic lodge", but the predominant usage by far is "Masonic lodge". As I've pointed out above, look on the website of my university or official publications of the university and you'll see it pretty much exclusively referred to as "the University". That doesn't make the capitalisation common usage by everyone else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per MSJapan. Should have same capitalisation as Chief executive officer. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fiddler... "Support as per MSJapan" is a bit confusing, since MSJapan is actually opposed. Could you clarify? Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar, MSJapan used Chief executive officer as example/prototype. His reasoning is sound, he just didn't look at the article. Irony;- gets creasy out of shirty. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Officially Don't Care and I'm not saying that to be a troll. I just don't think it matters that much. It's the title of an article so wouldn't you use capitalization? But like I said, don't care enough to argue. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we don't capitalise article titles (except the first letter of the first word) just because they're article titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure we do... when appropriate. For example: Catholic Church and Episcopal Church (as opposed to "Catholic church" and "Episcopal church"). The contextual capitalization of "Church" is actually a good analogy to the contextual usage of "Lodge" in Masonic Lodge, Elks Lodge and articles on similar fraternal orders... just as the capitalization of the word "Church" distinguishes between a religious entity and it's buildings ... so the word "Lodge" distinguishes between a fraternal entity and it's buildings. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I said "we don't capitalise article titles...just because they're article titles", which is what User:EricCable seemed to be suggesting. I didn't say we never capitalise article titles. That would clearly be a ridiculous thing to say. What you are describing are the proper name of an organisation (obviously capitalised) and a disambiguation page (capitalised because the links will usually be capitalised). Not the same situation at all. The Catholic Church is a unique organisation (although there are obviously other churches that have "Catholic" in their names, but they are not being described in that article). The Masonic Lodge is not. There are thousands of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There are also thousands of Catholic churches and Episcopal churches... again the capitalization distinguishes entity from building. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that article is about one of them, not all the others. But you're rather undermining your own argument here. The local church is the Catholic Church of the Annunciation (capitalised because that's its proper name), but just the Catholic church (uncapitalised because that's not a proper name). The local Masonic lodge is Trinity Lodge 254 (capitalised because that's its proper name), but just the Masonic lodge (uncapitalised because that's not a proper name). We wouldn't say, in normal usage, "the Catholic Church" to refer to the local church organisation but "the Catholic church" to refer to the building alone. We'd use the latter for both. There is no such organisation as "the Masonic Lodge", as there is "the Catholic Church", since each lodge has its own name and the higher organisations in Freemasonry also have their own names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But this article (and the article on Masonic Lodge) deals with the topic as a single conceptual entity, exactly as the various "Church" articles deal with those as a single conceptual entity. Again... context matters.

• Support per nom. This is a common noun, thus lowercase. Very straightforward. Neutrality^talk 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Alternative suggestion... just to think outside the box... what if we move the title to Lodge officers (Freemasonry)? I know this suggestion does not resolve the broader issue, but it would avoid the issue at this specific article. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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.