Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry

Barnstar

I just created a Freemasonry Barnstar.

		The Freemasonry Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Article review

How about we adopt something like this: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria#Formal WikiProject review?

Capitalization

Wow, no action here for over a year. I hope there are members watching. I'm working on capitalization (over-capitalization?) and particularly on the application of MOS:OFFICE to some of the offices and titles in Freemasonry, especially when used generically for holders of the office, as opposed to the office itself or particular holders. See User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Your revert for starters. I recognize that Masons capitalize a lot of their terms, but in WP style, where do we draw the line? Comments welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why MOS:OFFICE should apply to Freemasonry differently from how it applies in various governments, militaries, corporations or religions. I've not been clear on whether it is correct to refer to a person as a Mason or a mason, but I'd think mason would be correct based on MOS:MARINE. Is it correct to refer to a person as a Freemason or a freemason? We do have an odd exception for scouting/Scouting though. @Dicklyon, thanks for taking this on. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Fraternal Order of Eagles, History of the Knights of Columbus - the MOS is not keeping up with standard practice across a range of articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like those articles have never had a good look by an editor who understands MOS:CAPS; even simple heading over-capitalizations such as Freemasonry#Exclusive Jurisdiction, Fraternal Order of Eagles#Structure and Organization, and Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks#The Hour of Recollection haven't been fixed. This is not a particularly unusual problem, or unique to this class of articles, just something to work on. So the question is where to draw the line. E.g. if Master Mason is capped as an official office, MOS:OFFICE says it would be lower-case when used generically with an article or as a plural. It seems clear that nobody has worked on that yet before now. Blaming the MOS for not keeping up seems like a bizarre defense of routine stuff needing work. Blaming gnomes like me for not keeping up would make more sense. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

MM isn't an office, though. All Masons who have gone through all three degrees are referred to as Master Masons. The capitalization distinguishes it from a master mason who might build your wall. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, they refer to it as a degree. More analogous to M.D. or Ph.D., for which we use the title Doctor but generic doctors. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep. And "The capitalization distinguishes it from a master mason who might build your wall" is exactly the kind of abuse of capitalization for signification-as-special that MOS:SIGCAPS says not to do. I mean it's like the most classic possible case. As with all ambiguity, you simply write better English to make the ambiguity go away; and the fact that we have links generally auto-resolves most such cases anyway. No one confronted with "Jones is a master mason at the Grand Lodge of Ontario" [or where ever] can possibly think we mean he's a bricklayer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization is a terrible way to distinguish in English, in much the same way that using them for emphasis is not useful. It's perhaps worse, because at least with emphasis a reader might add stress to those syllables; there's no analagous rule for pronouncing capitalized words differently. @SMcCandlish explains this well. ~TPW 13:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this: "I don't see why MOS:OFFICE should apply to Freemasonry differently from how it applies in various governments, militaries, corporations or religions." This basically is a religion (it's a faith-based organization).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Per SMcCandlish. Sarek, in the thread Dicklyon links to above, why are you suggesting that "House of representatives" might be ok, but definitely not "house of representatives"? Tony (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot depends on the specific term we are talking about, and the context in which it appears.

Consider: “The first person to be raised to the degree of Master Mason in Cumquat Lodge was John Smith, a master mason from Kansas. Smith went on to serve as Master of the lodge in 1925.”

The capitalization distinguishes two distinct meanings of “mason” and three distinct meanings of “master”. The first (the capitalized “Master Mason”) indicates a level of membership within Freemasonry. The second (not capitalized) indicates a professional rank (that that Smith was a skilled stonemason). Finally, the capitalized Master (without “Mason”) indicates that he held an office in the lodge (similar to the chapter President in other organizations).

In other words, the capitalization conveys meaning. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think you've got that example correct per MOS:OFFICE, since the capitalized Master Mason and Master are referring to the office or degree or title as such. But that doesn't mean you should throw our the rest of guideline that says not to cap when plural or preceded by an article, for instance. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, it depends on what you are specifically referring to:

”John, Fred and George were Master Masons” means something different than “John, Fred and George were master masons”

“Masters preside over their lodges” has yet a different meaning. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It's better to recast the sentence to make the meaning clearer without relying on capital letters, since they convey zero meaning to anyone who is listening to the audio version. ~TPW 13:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging - anyone else want to chime in here one way or the other? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is to not capitalize ranks, titles, etc. It's possible this can lead to confusion, but good writing can eliminate that. On rare occasions (the building of a new hall?) one kind of master mason could be confused with another kind of master mason, just like a brown recluse could be confused with a person, but again, good writing can make that clear. We expect good writing in Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that judicious (intentional) capitalization to avoid confusion is good writing. There is a reason why our MOS guidelines allow us to make occasional exceptions to otherwise good style rules. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes it is best to ignore the rules, but I don't think this is one of those times. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "Marine", a recently closed request, made with strong feelings, to change the Manual of Style. I understand the argument (does it also apply to mason?), but an exception there or here leads to so many other exceptions; Coast Guardsman, then Soldier, then Captain, then Third Floor Day Housekeeper, where we are capitalizing for reasons other than "proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence".

I'm a live and let live guy in many areas, but I think having and following a manual of style makes any publication better. I don't think making this exception makes Wikipedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I think an exception here does make WP better, but I respect your view. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Reasonable people can disagree. On a few rare occasions I have argued for capital letters. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I prefer rewording to avoid confusion, because capital letters are effectively invisible to anyone who uses audio tools to access Wikipedia, due to having no distinct pronunciation. ~TPW 14:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Per many of the other responses, I don't see an inherent reason to deviate from the guidance at MOS:OFFICE. Some example sentences offered to evidence ambiguity are given in isolation, wherein a fuller context such ambiguity would probably not exist or would be eliminated by good writing. There is an argument to capitalise such terms to distinguish them in text; however, we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. We should remember that we do not hear capitalisation and distinctions that rely on capitalisation are a disservice to those that rely on text readers - ie, there is a policy issue of accessibility. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)