Talk:Scoville Square

Requested move 02 September 2013

The following discussion is an archived 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: move. Sentiment and evidence shows that this is the more common, natural name in the present-day context. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Masonic Temple Building (Oak Park, Illinois) → Scoville Square – While the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places under the current title, the name is obsolete. The Masons have not met in the building in over 60 years. In the intervening years it became commonly known as "Gillmore's Department Store", while the modern name of the building is Scoville Square. Title should be changed per WP:COMMONNAME Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support "Now known as" should be sufficient reason. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming (weak oppose). "Masonic Temple Building" seems to be the single best name for this building. The building has been known by several different names. "Scoville Square" (actually, it's often given as "Scoville Square Building") is definitely the name under which space in the building is currently marketed, but it's not 100% clear to me (from the sources I've looked at) that this is truly its common name. The building's first owner was a man named Scoville, and "Scoville Block" is listed as one of several names the building has been known by. It turns out that the Scoville family built a lot of Oak Park, and the Scoville name is on several other buildings in the same neighborhood. I surmise that this building might have come to be called the "Masonic Temple Building" in its early history to distinguish it from other "Scoville" buildings. I'd be interested in getting some local knowledge from someone in Oak Park. Regardless of the title used for the article, the article needs to list the various names by which the building has been known. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It may have been called "Masonic Temple Building" at some point in the past... but I seriously doubt locals call it that today (considering that the Masons have not met in the building since the 1930s.) A google search on the current title results in nothing but mirror sites of the NRIS and Wikipedia. I could see locals still calling it "Gilbert's Dept. Store" (since the store was located in the building for over 60 years)... but the association with the Masons is long gone. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gilmore's department store closed circa 1976, so that name isn't exactly current, either. My observation is that he building has a had a slew of different names (I know of Scoville Block, Masonic Temple Building, Gilmore's Department Store, and Scoville Square), so one name looks about as good as any other. Since the Scoville family has its name on several buildings in the neighborhood, there may have been a desire to call it something else to avoid confusion. The association with the Masons is actually fairly obscure, but the fact that the building was listed on the National Register by the "Masonic" name gives that name some extra credibility. --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not when the only sources that use the "Masonic Temple Building" name are the NRIS and mirror websites. I suppose one could argue that the NRHP's name is its "official name"... but WP:AT says that we don't necessarily use "official names". If a building is called X in a significant majority of sources, we should use X as our title (Per WP:COMMONNAME). A google search shows significantly more hits for "Scoville Square" than any of the other alternatives (which is why I chose it as the target for this RM). I am quite willing to examine the other alternatives in more detail, but "Masonic Temple Building" seems to be the least common of the choices. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not just NRIS and mirrors that call this building Masonic Temple Building. This report by the Oak Park Historic Preservation Commission and village of Oak Park staff, dated 2003, uses the name. It's also described as "the Masonic Building that E.E. Roberts designed" on page 77 of a book about Oak Park history that was published in 2011. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The rationale for the move is pure guesswork. The evidence above is that the common name is still Masonic Temple. The guesswork is not even sound, in that many buildings keep common names long after these names have ceased to have any logical basis. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what the sources seem to indicate is that while preservation oriented sources still call it "Masonic Temple"... while modern business sources, such as the building's website, various realtors, and modern day tenants of the building (such as this and this) call it "Scoville Square". This makes sense... preservationists focus on history and often stick to obsolete historical names long after everyone else is using a new, more modern name. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this can happen. Two problems with this argument however. Firstly, two examples don't support the proposition that it is happening... what we want is the pattern, not examples which may be isolated. Yes, you would expect the building's owners to use the new name... after all, they chose it. So? Secondly, in choosing a name we look at the cultural significance of the topic, not just its current popular image. In this case, the preservation oriented sources are likely to be of considerably more interest than the current users of the building. Andrewa (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the other sources I provided... I think we do see a pattern. Preservation groups use the obsolete historical name, while everyone else seems to use the more modern name. As for cultural significance... the primary cultural significance of the building is its architecture. The fact that the Masons once had meeting rooms in the building (ending in the 1940s) is of much less significance. The simple fact is that the "Masonic Temple" name is obsolete... and has been for over 50 years. Since we have an alternative name for the building... one that reflects modern usage in the real world, we should use that alternative as our article title. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Some valid reasoning here, but also some other. Wikipedia prefers names that people do use, rather than what they should use. So, for example it would be better to avoid the term obsolete, which is ambiguous in this context, it could mean out of use, but it could also mean should be out of use. The first meaning makes for valid reasoning, but the second for irrelevancy. The period of time is irrelevant.

But you raise an interesting and relevant question. I was assuming from the article and original name that its intended use as a Masonic Temple was one of the reasons that the building was erected, and that its original design reflected this. This is important, but you seem to think that it is not true, that the Masons once had meeting rooms in the building is a much weaker connection, and if that's the only connection I might well reconsider. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This was always designed to be a commercial building... mostly office and retail space from the beginning. The "Masonic Temple" name can be explained by the fact that the Masons were originally the primary tenants. As with most office buildings, the primary tenant often gets to name the building for themselves... but just as often that name changes when a new primary tenant comes in... Think of the way the Pan-Am building in New York City became the MetLife Building. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, what's your source for your detailed information about how and when the Masons used the building? I've not seen that kind of documentation. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a written source... it's based on insider's knowledge. (That's why I have not added anything about this to the article... it qualifies as Original Research.)

What I described is, however, the norm for urban Freemasonry (where there are many lodges in a compact area) ... first, owning your own lodge building is an incredible waste of space and money (the typical lodge only meets once or twice a month, and if they own their own building it sits empty the rest of the time). So there is every incentive for urban lodges to band together and build a building with meting rooms that they can share. A building with only 2 meeting rooms can be shared between as many as 24 different lodges (each using one of the rooms on two meeting nights each month).

Second, there is an incentive to build a building with lots of commercial space in it. The bulk of the costs (property taxes, maintenance and repair costs, etc) are paid for by the rents charged for the office/retail space. Each individual lodge only has to pay a nominal amount to rent one of the lodge rooms on meeting nights. Its one way that urban lodges can afford to keep those impressive looking (but increasingly expensive "white elephant") buildings. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This was always designed to be a commercial building... mostly office and retail space from the beginning. So that statement is purely based on the pattern of other buildings, rather than on any information at all of this particular one other than what is in the article, is that correct? This pattern is completely different to the one I observe in Australia, I'm not sure for what reasons, but here many urban lodges own their own premises and finance them by renting them to other users, for example casual hire for a dance or concert or regular hire for a ballet class, but with no permanent commercial or retail tenants at all. Are you sure that the pattern you cite applies to the whole urban US of A? And in particular, what are the reasons for thinking it applies to this building? Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that what I described is the norm for urban Freemasonry in the US. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See below for the worldwide view. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources do indicate that this building's first owner was C. B. Scoville -- not a Masonic group -- and that it had retail stores on the ground floor from the beginning. Most of the rest of the statements about the initial purpose and uses of the building, as well as the Masonic groups' relationship to it, seem to be speculation. Side note: Since the building is on the National Register, it should be documented in a nomination form, but there's no document about this building on the website that's supposed to have the forms for Illinois. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The top story was added later, the bottom story was retail... but what about the other two? They contain fairly substantial meeting rooms if that's all they are, about the size that would be required for two Australian lodges to hold similtaneous meetings in fact. On what is claim above that the building was mostly office and retail space from the beginning based? Andrewa (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to these as "substantial" meeting rooms? Those look tiny to my eye... I seriously doubt that they equate to what was used for lodge meetings... Urgan/suburban lodge rooms in the US are typically much bigger. The typical attendance for a US urban lodge meeting in the early 1900s (the high point for Fraternalism in the US) was between 50 to 100 brothers. No way they could all fit in those conference rooms. No, the lodge rooms would have been larger... but not so huge that they took up an entire floor. Even if we assume two or three very large meeting rooms, they would not account for all the space in the building. So, I ask you... what do you think was in the rest of the building? The obvious answer (to me) is that the rest of the building would have been taken up by offices. Yes, that is a assumption on my part, based on what was typical for urban US Masonic Halls at that time... but my assumption fits with the size of the building as well as the norm.

No, I was referring to the original use of the building, questioning that it was mostly office and retail space from the beginning.

I'm not a Mason, and my experience of Masonic centres is entirely as a user, see for example Turramurra Masonic Hall (that's it's traditional name, and while it's been officially renamed decades ago it's still almost always known locally as the Masonic Hall). It was originally built purely as a Masonic hall, with rental to others as a sideline to pay the bills. This building would probably not quite have fitted into one of the two floors of the original Oak City building, it's a bit hard to judge but that's the scale we're looking at. When I was growing up the Masons used to occupy the entire venue for their meetings... including I assume the South and whatever else is involved. That's what the Turramurra building was designed for.

And that's why I'm taking the general assumption above that the original meeting rooms would have been small with some scepticism. It may be the pattern in the USA, but it's not true worldwide. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way... I don't think you will find any sign of the original Masonic usage in the modern building... it's been more than 60 years since the Masons met there, and the building has undergone substantial renovations... all traces of the Masonic meeting rooms have long since been removed by subsequent tenants. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why the photos and descriptions of the current tiny meeting rooms are completely irrelevant. Aren't they? You haven't answered my question at all. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Even if it were somewhat less common, the suggested name is well established and is suitable natural disambiguation, which is preferable to the parentheses. However, it looks like it's as or even more common, especially in sources after the name change in 1980.[1] "Scoville Square" gets 77 hits in the Google News Archives, while "Masonic Temple Building"+"Oak Park" only returns 13 hits, many of which aren't about this topic or predate the name change. "Masonic Temple Building" has the edge on Google Books (84 vs. 72), but it's close, and a lot of the former are Wikpedia ripoffs and NHRP references. It seems that Chicago Tribune has 25 articles mentioning Scoville Square compared to 19 for "Masonic Temple Building", several of which call it the "former Masonic Temple Building." All together, the proposed title looks to be as or more common, and is clearly well established enough to serve as WP:NATURALDIS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• How long has the building been known as Scoville Square? Are there any potential recentism concerns with renaming? --BDD (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we know. This source indicates that the company that renovated it "rechristened" it in 1982 (the same year that it was listed on the National Register as "Masonic Temple Building"). As recently as 2002 the village called it the Masonic Temple Building.[2] --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... WP:recentism is not a factor. If anything it's more the other way... the preservation oriented sources are subject to "historicalism". That's appropriate for a preservation group... the question is whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia. That is not an easy question to answer... it really has to be judged on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this, the building was " re- christened 'Scoville Square,' after the founding developer" in 1980.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 17 September 2013 (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.