Talk:List of grand master masons of the Grand Lodge of Scotland

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Freemasonry Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

On 21 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of Grand Master Masons of the Grand Lodge of Scotland to List of grand master masons of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The result of the discussion was moved.

Incorrect Title

This should read List of Grand Master Masons of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The title Grand Master Mason (GMM) is unique to Scots Freemasonry and any GL library in most States in the US should possess a copy of the Grand Lodge of Scotland yearbook. In that booklet the current (for the year of issue) GMM is pictured, as well as listing all the GMMs. So the title of this page is innacurate and needs to be changed. If we are going to have lists of these notable individuals then we should get their masonic title correct in the first place as it is an issue of accuracy and credibility.Aquizard 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I just went ahead and did it. Eric Cable | Talk 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

Based on the recent AFD, we have serious verifiability issues here. From my understanding of the arguments, there are sources that contain lists which can be used to verify names of the GMs up to a given date (the date of the source's), but not beyond... which leaves a large gap in recent years. I am not sure where the different sources cut off... so, I have TEMPORARILY been very strict... I have cut the list into two parts... 1) those GMs that have inline citations attached, and 2) those that don't.

As we find a source to verify a GMs office, we can cite that source, and move the name from the Unreferenced section up to the Referenced section. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs to distinguish between referenced/sourced material and unreferenced/unsourced/dubious material.

But I think that using the term "Referenced" in the body of the article itself can't be the right way. This is confusing Wikipedia's documentation with the material documented itself. In other words, you are using "Referenced" as shorthand for "Containing a footnote in its Wikipedia page".

Also, if you do split the list like this, you shouldn't use a numbered list.

Here is what I mean. This article places Sir Robert Gilmour, 1st Baronet in the Those Referenced list, with the ordinal "7" before his name. In other words, this article is asserting that Sir Robert Gilmour was the Seventh Referenced Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. But that doesn't make any sense.

That's why I say it's confusing what we are trying to document (the list of grand masters) with our method of documenting it (using references). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must sort this out once and for all

@EricCable:, @Blueboar:, @MSJapan:

It is nearly four years since this list was left to its fate. It is not difficult to find sources! Only this source here is sufficient for all Grand Masters until 1892. And this one here for all Grand Masters between 1892 and 1916. Hopefully, it will not be too difficult to bridge the gap.--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Excessive capitalization. Move per MOS:JOBTITLES, to be in line with similar articles such as:

Companions

Grand masters

I did this as a requested move out of an abundance of caution. Normally, I'd do this all manually. But these honorary and/or traditional titles can sometimes stir up strong emotions when attempting to modify them. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different situations here. The first is jobs / positions, and the second is class(es) of orders in various honours systems. MOS:JOBTITLES applies to the first situation, but not to the second. Therefore:

Support the following three:

Oppose the following four:

Paora (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support all. The plural form is a term for a classification, so it is a common noun, not a proper name. The same reasoning applies regardless of whether it is a job title or a conferred honour. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Support all though some names should be modified.

List of grand commanders of the Order of Dannebrog

List of grand cross recipients of the Order of St John

The general principles of MOS:JOBTITLES applies as these are ranks or positions within orders. Once the job or position award is pluralised, it is no longer capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me! I've added your suggestions to the original proposal. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please consider the proposed alternative names as my preferred option for renaming those specific pages. Thanks! --Woko Sapien (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all: Per MOS:JOBTITLES which applies to job titles whether or not it is an honor. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support lowercase all as proposed; not keen on the alternatives. e.g. "grand crosses" is used as such (lowercase, as a noun) in sources, while "recipients of" is not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and forth a bit on that one, but decided to go with the proposed alternative because "recipients of" is more precise (although either way probably works just as well).

As for the other proposed alternative, I think List of grand commanders of the Order of Dannebrog is absolutely the better option. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with "Order of Dannebrog", but the "recipients of" is distinctly not how those grand cross people are referred to in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should be referred to as a bailiff or dame (bailiffs and dames) Grand Cross of the Order of St John. The people are definitely not Grand Crosses. I suggested the slightly more concise recipients rather than bailiffs and dames but would be fine with either in the face of opposition to the former. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to go with bailiffs and dames grand cross if that's less controversial. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157, changing it to bailiffs and dames grand cross would be in line with knights and dames grand cross, as was established in this discussion. --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.