![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why is this up for deletion? Bhludzin 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Gosh. What a splendid improvement since the first version. I have changed the first few lines, purely as a suggestion. I will not mind if you revert.
-- RHaworth 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's remove the "considered for deletion" notice. The vote ended and it was archived, with a keep result, and the article now addresses all original concerns. As far as precedence, and as far as I'm concerned this has been resolved. In addition, notices such as these inhibit readability. User:StoatBringer, any objections? - Visorstuff 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a minor issue, but are we striving for exact political location in the Location column, or a descriptive location that people familiar with that area would use to describe the location. I support descriptive rather than politically exact locations. Trödel• talk 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Denvoran and I seem to be at an impasse - is there anyone else who cares enough to make a comment about this issue - using municipalities vs using the smallest available geographical description? If not - I'll concede for now to leave it be to avoid an edit war over what I consider a trivial issue - but that does not mean we have found concensus on this issue. Trödel 07:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is the Halifax temple which is in Dartmouth - but is linked to the Halifax regional authority. This "city" is over 2000 square miles - i.e. it is aproximately 25 miles wide and 80 miles long. See this map. I contend that we use the municipality rather than county or state to identify location because it is, in general, the smallest political entity that is available to identify a location. However, with these mega cities (seriously NYC including all 5 boroughs is less than 500 sq miles), using the municipality no longer makes any kind of common sense. I think we should use the flexible title "Location" and use the most appropriate location available (which in most cases will be the municipality). Trödel 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We have a ways to go here - no consensus at all. Perhaps we should go on what the Church says. For example, the Mount Timpanogos temple sits on land jointly owned by Pleasant Grove, Highland and American Fork. Building permits from all three had to be obtained, if I recall correctly. Water and Sewer bill goes to American Fork, so the LDS church says it is located in American Fork, regardless of Pleasant Grove or Highland residents who say it is located in their cities. The Washington D.C. temple the church actually says is in Kensington, for more obvious reasons. In cases where there is dispute, let's standardize on what the Church says on it, as they have justifiable reasons and insight into why it is located where it is. Just my two cents. - Visorstuff 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the "attacks" in the form of the word choices "abomination" and "beloved" that have been directed at me. I have presented solid reasons for the original location designation that I inserted in the first place, which has since been contested by Troedel, without resorting to sarcasm. My suggestion for a compromise: listing the location as Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city), exactly as the corresponding article is titled, and linking to Halifax. This way, the "location" is pinpointed more closely to satisfy Troedel, yet the reader is alerted regarding the status of Darmouth and is directly linked to the actual city in which the temple is located. Denvoran 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I need more time to think about the latest edit - it is not consistent and I think most will say, why the difference? It doesn't make sense to do. Gellersen, you are getting close to your WP:3RR howver. I'm not sure why the mailing address cannot be used? Why don't we just change the City/Town to "Mailing location?" Trodel, I'm interested in hearing more about why you think we shouldn't take the church's web stated locations as the location? - Visorstuff 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of good faith, I am responding to Trödel's comments, although he has yet to respond to my latest comments both here and on his discussion page.
1. Why would Trödel care about keeping the city of Dartmouth "alive"? My guess is because he lived there and obviously has some emotional attachment to it.
2. The crux of the dispute is whether a consistent pattern of referring to locations should be used, or a "flexible" one that may or may not incorporate "vernacular"/"common usage" should be instead. Whether or not one has lived in Nova Scotia does not make one more qualified to decide between the two.
3. I have addressed the issue of common vernacular at length - please see my January 16, 2006 entry above.
"In fact, despite amalgamation, most residents of the municipality (and Canada Post) still refer to the names of the pre-amalgamation municipalities when describing geographic areas."
4. The City of Dartmouth has been dissolved for a decade - there is nothing I can do to "destroy" it. For the record, I don't appreciate the confrontational word choices "obsessed" and "destruction".
5. Trödel entered "lets leave it as it is" - then, with no further explanation, decides to "address the issue" weeks/months later. Trödel is free to change his mind, but shouldn't be surprised if I think it is "sneaky" when he, in effect, says one thing and then does another.
6. Trödel wants the location to read "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia". I want it to read Halifax. Trödel's compromise was to have "Dartmouth" listed, only to have it link to Halifax. How is this a compromise, when it appears on the list exactly how he wants it?
7. I have not refused to "identify why [I] care". It should be clear from all of my entries above that I care about having a consistent approach and reflecting the most current reality, because I feel that is the best way to present information in an encyclopedia.
Denvoran 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
One more thing I just discovered - Canada Post doesn't even consider large areas of the HRM to be part of the Halifax urban area FSA - pdf of FSAs and RTAs Trödel 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The way that footnote 5 reads, it is just the temple property that is being moved from Bluffdale to Herriman. From what I know, it is a group of landowners, one of the properties is where the temple will be. Would someone please find referenceable information about this and fix the wording. Val42 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Trödel's recent edit to the article page: Such a temple has been announced, somewhere in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. I'm thinking that it was at the most-recent General Conference (October 2005). I'll try to find a reference. No name or city has been given, but the general location has been. Removing Bluffdale is appropriate, but the temple itself has been announced. Val42 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We have previously announced a new temple in the southeast quadrant of the Salt Lake Valley. We have two other excellent sites in the west and southwest areas of the valley through the kindness of the developers of these properties. The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that. You may ask why we favor Utah so generously. It is because the degree of activity requires it. But we are also moving forward with new temples in Rexburg and Twin Falls, Idaho; in Sacramento, California; in Helsinki, Finland; in Panama City, Panama; in Curitiba, Brazil; and another which I had better not name at this time because it has not yet been announced but soon will be. There are yet others under consideration. On all of those I have named, we have the property, and work in various degrees of completion is going forward. [1]
During his opening remarks today at the first session of the 175th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that a new temple will be built in the western part of the Salt Lake Valley.
This new temple will be the fourth in the Salt Lake area and the thirteenth in Utah. The temple will be located in the Daybreak development, situated in western South Jordan, Utah. The exact site location will be announced at a later date.
President Hinckley also indicated that a fifth Salt-Lake-area temple site has been acquired in the southwest part of the valley for future use as Church growth continues. [2]
I moved this back to 122 instead of listing it as 22 as on the lds.org website. My reasoning is that we don't have the other rebuilt temple, Nauvoo, #1 - but at #112 in the order it was dedicated after being rebuilt. Although lds.org lists Samoa as #22 - I don't think we have to match that numbering system and shouldn't if, editorially, we think a slightly different numbering makes sense. Trödel 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This changes the existing numbering system by causing all temples between #s 22 and 121 to be dropped one from the official listing. As such, "landmark" temples, which were noted at the time of their completion, such as #50 (St. Louis) and #100 (Boston) no longer have these numbers. Additionally, reconstruction of the Nauvoo Temple took nearly 150 years to get underway, while the Samoan Temple reconstruction was almost immediate. Besides, at least eighteen temples have been rededicated following extensive remodeling; should they also be renumbered according to their remodel date? I believe the Samoan Temple ought to be counted as similar to a remodel, given the brief time prior to its reconstruction, rather than as one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple. In light of this, and the additional advantages to having Wikipedia's numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's numbering system (besides those already mentioned, it will eliminate confusion pertaining to references such as "the Church's 82nd temple," as well as enable a more practical study of the list), I am reverting the numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's official list. Ryan Reeder 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the conclusion. Please remember back to the debate about the Nauvoo Temple, and if we should have two separate articles for it? It was decided that it should have two separate articles as it was a rebuilt temple - it was merely a replica of the same size, but different in other ways. I contended that doctrinally, it was the same temple, or the church would be under condemnation for not completing it, it may have been different on the inside, but basically, architecturally, it was the same. This is why it was fought for for so long to be rebuilt. The doctrinal implications were huge. So if we count Samoa only once, and it is not even the same size or shape, and it is not a renovated temple, but a different structure on the same spot, then I see no reason why Nauvoo should be counted twice. Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate that archived discussion between Cogden and myself and I believe you were included to Trodel. Finally, the samoan temple was "one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple." Whatever we do, we need to be consistent, regardless of time of rebuiling. There were other doctrinal and cultural reasons for the delay in the rebuilding of the Nauvoo temple that didn't seem to fit with the Samoan. Both were burned by arsonists, so they are much more similar than what a casual reader thinks. - Visorstuff 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the conclusion reached regarding Doctrine and Covenants 124:31-35. The LDS Church has not been under condemnation from 1848-2002 because it did not have a Temple in Nauvoo. Ryan Reeder 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice compromise there, Trödel. (Referring to including the unnumbered 1983 Samoan Temple immediately preceding the 2005 #22 Samoan Temple). Ryan Reeder 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, sorry for any confusion, but i wasn't saying the church was under condemnation, but that it had to be completed for the church to stand un-"rejected as a church" when the Lord comes. If you go back and research why president Hinckley's father was so adamant about it being rebuilt, and read president hinckley's own feelings on the matter, you'll get more insight into this. It had to be rebuilt according to the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith on the issue. Some felt D&C 128:49 would excuse them of this, but the consensus was held by many that all of the announced temples back in the mid-west would have to one-day be built. You'll also notice that president hinckley said that the rebuild came entirely through private donations - which is in accordance with specified revelation. Brigham wanted it burned (which ironically it was) and then rebuilt when the saints returned. Well, they returned and it has been rebuilt. There are other doctrinal implications as well. - Visorstuff 18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A few days ago someone italicized the Daybreak Temple (I think when they inserted the Cebu Temple), reasoning that since it is not on the official list it should not be included as a numbered temple, and Cebu should be before it. I wasn't quite sure what to think of this, but left it alone. Having done a little looking into it this, the Daybreak Temple was announced at General Conf, and is still listed under Events and Notices on the main temple page and the announcement is treated as official ( news item). Thus it can be distinguished from the SW temple for which only land was announced. Thus I think it should go back on the list in order of announcement until ground is broken, when we have traditionally changed the order on this page. As the offical list does not number the "Temples announced or under construction" at all - it is one of the useful differences that I think we have on this page. Trödel 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a way to get consensus on this any other way, here's a straw poll.
Please vote to support one of the following options. Sue Anne 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The Halifax Nova Scotia temple location should be linked in the following manner:
1. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) showing in the location column.
2. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) "hiding" in the link, so it would look like this - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
3. Link to Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia or Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The problem with any entry that links to the "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city)" article is that it is a self-described historical article. This is like linking to
East Germany or
West Germany, both of which are historical articles. If one is linking in reference to something in present-day western Germany or eastern Germany, one would link to
Germany, not to either of the historical articles - just as the list does with regard to the two temples located there. An up-to-date encyclopedia would not link to a historical article (i.e. Dartmouth) with regard to something in the present (i.e. the temple).
In light of points Trödel has raised, listing the location as "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia" may be more appropriate, but the link should go to an article of a present-day entity, not to one that merely describes the past history of one that no longer exists.
Denvoran
22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an issue that I feel particularly strongly about, but I received a message from Trödel saying "can you help?", so I'll weigh in with my thoughts. Hopefully, they can be helpful in resolving this issue.
The purpose of having a "location" column following a "name" column, when the name is generally a location, is to more clearly distinguish and define the location beyond what the official name of the Temple may be. In most cases, this is a clear and easy process. The Washington D.C. Temple is located in Kensington, MD.
In this case, doubt has arisen because of the questionable formal existence of Dartmouth as a location. It's technically part of Halifax, though Halifax is a very large municipality, giving an advantage to using Dartmouth as a more precise term for the location, which is the purpose of the location column in the first place. However, Dartmouth being a disincorporated area makes it technically not a place that can be listed.
However, nobody said that the "location" column has to be an incorporated city. If a temple were built in an unincorporated area (and there may be some that are), we would generally use the name of the closest incorporated area, or a larger city that would be reasonably near. However, for the purpose of a location column, I think it would be fine to list the location of this hypothetical temple as "20 miles SW of Cityville, Countria." It becomes more precisely defined in this manner. I would recommend a policy of when in doubt, follow what the official list says. Currently, the Official Halifax Nova Scotia Temple Page lists the address as "44 Cumberland Dr Dartmouth, NS B2V 2C7 Canada." ldschurchtemples.com has followed that convention. I suggest we follow this idea and list the location as Dartmouth. If you want to petition the LDS Church to revise the address of the temple on that page, and they do, we can switch to Halifax. Unless and until that happens, my vote is for Dartmouth.
As for "(former city)," I really don't care. -- Ryan Reeder 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Canada Post still uses Dartmouth, the local media still use Dartmouth, Dartmouth is still in common usage among local residents. The only difference is that it no longer has its own local government. This "Halifax Regional Municipality" thing is about as ridiculous as changing everything to Greater Sudbury, Ontario or Wood Buffalo, Alberta. Kirjtc2 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Where's this alleged policy on not linking redirects? As I understand it, current thinking is that "fixing" redirects for its own sake is not worth the effort. Alai 05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see any support for Gellerson's version. I came here from the Nauvoo Temple "what links here," and tried to add a non-interested, but informed, view but I can't tell if there is any real concensus on this. Abeo Paliurus 10:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Guys - I'm thinking of protecting this page, until you both come to an agreement on the talk page first. Consider this the warning, 24 hours to fix your issues. This page doesn't draw enough attention to build consensus, so you'll both have to figure out a compromise. There have been a number suggested, be consistent on conventions, and work it out. - Visorstuff 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you see the irony in having a heated debate like this in an article about Temples? -- Ryan Reeder 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As I researched how many and which temples Pres. Hinckley had dedicated during his lifetime, I noticed that there is a lack of complete and up-to-date tables online. It seem as though, the ones that have a column of who dedicated each temple, are not current. The ones that are up-to-date, such as this list, do not have a "Who Dedicated" column. Should this column be added to the list or would this make the table too crowded. Is there a better solution. I think the added info would be of value. Perhaps the info in columns Temple and Location can be combined to keep the table width smaller. Leon7 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't verify this on lds.org nor using Google - I am removing it pending verification that this announcement (probably made at a local conference) has a citable reference. Trödel 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not the original poster, but [6] is a source. jj 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See here for the transcription of an email that was sent to local stake presidents announcing it. See here as well. -- Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The announcement is included in today's LDS Church News. [7] It's official. Ryan Reeder 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the official church press release. -- Kmsiever 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that a temple has been announced for somewhere in France. Has anyone else heard this? -- Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add List of future temples(IE Far West, Paris, France, Independence) That will be built but are not yet announced. The 5th SLC one could go there (a separate page) jj 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)?
with Honduras, this is the 135th temple on our list. The church maintains 1 of the ones we have is not announced. Anybody know which one? jj 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as another fact that doesn't match - the June "News from the Church" item says, "As of June 13, 2006, 133 temples are announced, under construction, or operating across the world." Which I am guessing refers to the 131 temples on this page plus the Vancover and the Cebu temples - which would make 134 for the recently announced Honduras temple (although the letter left SLC on June 9th - see news item on reaction in Honduras here prior to the "As of June 13 date." For some reason the Church has not been counting the daybreak temple. Maybe we should move after Honduras. -- Trödel 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that ldschurchtemples.com is reporting a Tuesday, July 11, 2006 rededication date - but they don't provide any reference for that - so I didn't include it. -- Trödel 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that several of the later listings have no links. I assume it is because these pages do not yet exist in the wiki. I suggest adding the links (even if the pages don't exist) to encourage their creation. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase "Modern, single spire" as it is used on a ton of temples, but I will tell you, the Los Angeles temple does not look anything like the Provo temple, and yet they have the same description. I recommend using a better phrase for each temple design to distinguish unique temples, and to clump together standard temple design. So "Single forward spire" and "single central spire" make more sense. Even having a little picture of the design would be nice. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to see how the page looked with a photo of each temple, so I grabbed the first few to see how it looks. I won't be heartbroken if you think it is too much, but I prefer to see what the temple looks like as well as the textual description. Also it solves my dilemma above with the description text. If you like the idea, feel free to add more photos. I wish we could get some images of inside the temple. I know the church holds all copyrights to interior shots, but it would be great to have them on the wiki. - Bytebear 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we can add some notes or footnotes on the location column. I would like info on things like, "First temple in South Pacific", or "First temple in a communist country" or "Second temple in Canada" to give the reader a better historical understanding of the chronology. Your thoughts? 68.4.192.239 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that not all information on this site is correct and that you should not judge the church by an non-official website
Some time back I requested feedback from frequent participants in the featured list discussion on what we could do to get this list up to featured status. I have summarized the responses that still need attention below:
Suggestion | Action taken |
---|---|
Links need to formated in reference style and external link style. | links now use citation templates |
Is this list really comphrehensive? I.e. all temples are included? There seems to be a huge boom in 1999-2000. | Yes |
I think you need to link all temples. That will produce a ton of red links and one of FL criteria is no or very little red links, but that's the price for consistency. | Done, with at least a stub article, but usually more thx to Amaranth22 and others I added links to announced temples just now |
Some better way to format location is needed. Because now it's inconsistent: some locations give city and state/district, others city and country. | Done - all are city, state if availabe, country |
Some pictures/maps would be nice. | Started adding pictures |
The external links found throughout the table should be converted to footnotes as well | done |
Create a suitable lead section from Temple (Mormonism) (suggestions: temple is a...; total of x, y under construction,...; First was built ...; As of August there are ...; explain what is an official temple; | Complete |
Additional sources under References section | added 2 additional sources - may still need others |
Need to create stub articles for temples with red links | stub articles created for all articles except those under construction or announced |
Need to explain/link style information because, say, "spire" means nothing to me. (Perhaps we could create an article explaining the different styles). | Updated style to be more descriptive - could still create style article. |
I think we are almost there - mostly without discussion - just the efforts of everyone to improve the list. I archived the prior discussions so we could focus on getting the list to featured status - any help - or additional suggestions, etc would be appreciated. -- Trödel 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice on many of the featured lists, there are maps and charts. I am going to see if I can find a world map of the location of each temple. I doubt something exists, so I may end up creating it myself, although I welcome anyone else who is more artistic to volunteer. I suggest a green dot for existing temples, yellow for under construction or announced. I think for Kirkland we need a special marker (blue?) denoting a temple not owned by the LDS church. I dont know how to denote the old and new Nauvoo Temple though (blue and green?). Also, I wonder if we should mark temples that were never built but were planned like Far West or Independence. Any ideas? Bytebear 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created a lead section - it may be to long - I am not sure - but am going to review other Featured Lists to get an idea. Please review and copyedit -- Trödel 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this link from the articles it was added to by Kevandcan as it is the only edit they made on all the articles. However the link could be useful if the pictures can be properly licensed. http://www.lds-images.com/search.asp?keyword=temple
If there are no objections, I'd like to put who it was dedicated by below the dedication date. I think this is important. jj 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The endowment house performed temple ordiances but was not a temple. We have to add the red brick store if we add the endowment house as well as other places ordiances were performed. Endowment House only refers to it as a "Temporary temple" I have never seen it on other lists of temples. This does not list every place these sacred ordiances have been performes. If this is a temple, find a source, as there are no sources calling it a temple on this or its own site. jj 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Per one of the featured list suggestions - I have done some formatting based on year and status. If you object to the removal of the status column and using status to organize the sequential nature of the list - please indate here. Note I will be putting any closing information for remodeling or rebuilding in the "Notes" column - so we will still capture that information. -- Trödel 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes need to be added to define the styles of the temples, possibly with references, size, footprint, etc. I also think "Modern, single spire" is not descriptive enough. Both the Los Angeles temple and the Provo temple are defined as such, and they are nothing alike. Bytebear 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been a bit bold in attempting a new format for the page. I have altered the first two temples in a simpler two column format (picture, and details) where the details are listed with breaks. If you think it is a good change, I will continue with the rest of the page, but want outside opinions first (I will assume silence is an afirmative agreement). I also am thinking of moving the number to the left of the name as opposed to a separate column. so it would be:
My reasoning is because now that we have added the photo the rows are quite tall, and can accomodate the format easier than before, and also, we have quite a few footnotes that may be better suited for the Notes: area, which in this format can be incorporated more easily. I do think that footnotes are appropriate when the same information is repeatable, such as Dedicated by Hinkley (as discussed earlier). Bytebear 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: This all started because it was hard to edit sub-sections with the table information mucking up the preview. Bytebear 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
25. Papeete Tahiti
|
|
Not bad. And a great idea to do a test page. I was so afraid of just changing two of the entries, but this way, I cam muck with it all I want.
I think I like the two column format, Rather than the three colums, but mainly because there is a lot of white space when you add the Notes column, and the bullet list gets wrapped too much. Also the height of the row grows which will stretch the page. I will do some experiments and we can discuss further. We should also label each example explicitely so we all know what we are talking about. Bytebear 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote against the vertical format. I like the column format.
Bhludzin
04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
After seeing Trödel's latest concept on the Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/New Format page, I think I like it best of all. I will let others mull over it for a few more days, but since only three people have discussed it thus far, I suspect that we won't get a lot of backlash. Bytebear 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been playing around with stuff - and have used a template {{ LDSTemple}} to store all the information about each temple - this way we can have whatever format we want - for example see: a reproduction of the entire list using a template to handle all the ugly table formatting.
I think this would be much easier for people to maintain - and you can change to other formats without having to make changes to the data - see the [Sandbox link no longer contains example] to see how the same data can be transformed using different templates. -- Trödel 02:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I added who dedicated each temple - to see how that would look -- Trödel 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Salt_Lake_Temple_spires.jpg Salt Lake Temple | |
I noticed that on the
ldschurchtemples.com it lists the following details that we might want to consider adding now that we have more room than the column format.
I don't want to plagerize the information, but I think we should incorporate some information, like number of rooms and maybe announcement, groundbreaking, and open house. Too much? Bytebear 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add a new version of the graph in the statistics section with a capitalized The for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? -- Lethargy 03:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two proposals for a new format for the temples. One is a verticle list of the attributes of each temple to the left of the picture (see #Vertical list), the second is a change to the current column list combining the style and notes section into one column (see #Style/Notes together). Please review these proposals and comment below. Both styles make use of a templates so that the temple information can be formatted and edited more easily without the editors updating this list having to understand table formatting.
Also - please comment on whether the person dedicating/rededicating the temple should be mentioned.
<<examples removed since the underlying templates changed formats and they no longer reflect the former and proposed formats>>
Or we could return to the original form and replace notes with Status - and just put notes in the status column :)
I have proposed a new WikiProject which would aim to maintain and improve all of the temple articles listed here. If there is any interest, you can leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Temples WikiProject. -- Lethargy 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dedicated is the heading for temples that have not yet been dedicated in the date column jj 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
b== New Style ==
Ok, I changed the style of the page. If you like it, we can leave it, if not, let's discuss why not. Thanks to Trodel for both templates. If we agree this is the wayt to go we should revert back and change the template from User talk:Trödel/Sandbox4 back to Temple and change the Temple template. Bytebear 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
top alignment (implmented) | use of subtable | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
I care more that we reach some kind of concensus more than I favor one approach over the other — I can see advantages to both. Some comments:
I requested comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement but none were made about the different proposals. I guess is that most see this as "tomāto" - "tomăto" type of thing.
This is the only issue holding up Featured Status for this list - since there should not be an on-going controversy to be featured. I'd like to see the list featured soon :) -- Trödel 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what you guys think of Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the column format - we could add # of Ordinance Rooms, # of Sealing Rooms, include groundbreaking and announcement dates for all the temples - use a different date format like mm/dd/yyyy so that we could fit more stuff and make comparing easier, etc. -- Trödel 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The first mention of this goal I could find was in the 1997 October General Conference:
The source was: Gordon B. Hinckley: Look to the Future. 167th Semiannual General Conference, October 1997.
The "program" he was talking about is here.
The LDS News mentions that the goal was made at the end of the 1998 conference, and also names a specific date for the goal to be completed ("...by the end of this year."), so obviously the goal must have been made official during the 1998 conference, but was originally mentioned in '97. Perhaps we could rephrase it with something like "this goal was first mentioned in the 1997 General Conference..."? I'll need to look through the 1998 conference report online to find the goal.
The aforementioned LDS News article states that this goal was accomplished in 2000 with the Boston Temple, but both statements might be correct. The difference is that this one is unsourced, so I don't know if 102 were completed before 2001. :) -- Lethargy 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created an infobox template for the temple pages. It probably has too much information, like cafeteria and clothing rental availability and possibly address and phone number. But I do think it is important to have visitor center info in the infobox as well as any other info we find that is useful (all fields are optional). You can see an example of it at San Diego California Temple. Anyone want to help tackle rest of the temple pages? Bytebear 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed we have recently announced temples included, but should we also include historically announced temples? IE, Far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Jackson County 24 and others? I don't want to get into prophecied temples, but the church owns land for most of the above. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[copied from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive2] The original Apia Samoa should be listed under "temples destroyed" section. No number as in the text below. But it seems odd to be numbered below. let's move it up.
I like the idea of moving Apia Samoa under Nauvoo. Not sure where we would put "Abandoned" temples (under Announced maybe?) - of course Harrison NY is looking pretty abandoned ;) - We may also want to included Hartford Connecticut. It was announced and abandoned as well. -- Trödel 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I like efforts suspended. - Visorstuff 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the original Apia Samoa temple should be listed similar to the Nauvoo temple, even with a photo, if one exists. The rebuilt temple was a totally different style, and the list should reflect this. I think announced/groundbroken temples that were never built should not be in the list, but mentioned in the intro paragraphs. Bytebear 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from
User_talk:Bhludzin)
As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the
Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx --
Trödel
22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I setup a page to outline the standards for the data going into the temple here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
It will effect this page in the following way:
Please comment on the standardization WikiProject talk page, and please edit the proposed standars where appropriate. -- Trödel 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The standards that are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples have been implemented for the first 10 temples and the new templates are used on this page.
The are also used for the Infoboxes on the individual article pages for the first 10 temples (see Salt Lake Temple for example). Please register any bugs/concerns on the talk page. Thank you -- Trödel 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the additional style information could go directly into the Style field rather than in a footnote. It is not too long and thre is room with the verticle list style. -- Trödel 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you include a footnote with a reference to the naming convention? I understand that the LDS church hierarchy decreed that temples should be referred to by geographic name without commas (such as "Villahermosa Mexico Temple"), but to someone who isn't aware of this the names probably look a bit odd. A citation might help those of us who are not Mormon but who are interested in reading about such things to understand why it is done the way it is. 1995hoo 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the map of all the temples, there is no dot for the Berlin Temple. I do not know how to add pictures to Wikipedia, so I am saying this so someone else can do it.
I would do these myself, but I don't have the sources handy: the Cardston (Alberta) Temple had an addition built on and was redidicated in the early 90's. If someone finds the source before me, please add!
Mr Minchin
16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that efforts really are suspended on the White Plains temple? If so, a note about what happened should probably appear in the article, otherwise perhaps it deserves its own section ("Status Unknown"). Trödel noted in the Announced Temple section above that it's no longer listed on the official list, but does that really mean that efforts have been abandoned? I've searched for any statement indicating such, but wasn't able to find anything. The best information I found was in a 2004 Deseret News article (whose main topic was the spire of the Manhattan Temple) that indicated that efforts were reportedly still underway, although slowed by lawsuits and zoning issues. For now I'm adding a note regarding the status in 2004 and the fact that it's no longer listed on the church's website.
Also, wasn't White Plains the official name of the temple? In my searching, I didn't see any reliable source that called it the Harrison Temple, but only mentioned Harrison as the city where it was located, but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm changing it to White Plains in the article. If someone can verify Harrison as a "more" official name for the temple itself, they can change it back. Xsadar 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the bug that makes it so that templates which include the <ref> and </ref> tags not work correctly is still not fixed - I have implemented a work around. The <ref> and </ref> tags must be on the calling page for the footnotes to properly link to the section where the <references /> code is inserted. Therefore; on temples which have footnotes please add after the | format = Talk:Temple name/data the following: "|reference=<ref>your citation (citation templates are ok here)</ref>. Additionally add the line
| reference = {{{reference|}}} <!-- please include references on the List of Temples of CJC of LDS page -->
as the last line on the Talk:Temple name/data page so that the reference information will be passed on from the data page to the formatting template. (This line should be added to all data pages - help me if you have time :).
You may have noticed that the references that were included on the data pages were numbered after the Announced (so instead of starting at like 7 they started at 39) and that when you clicked on them the link didn't work and the information in the reference footnote was not included at the bottom of the page. This work around will ensure that the footnotes are included and the links work.
I know this kind of defeats the purpose of having the data template - since we now have data in two places; however this is the only page that the format template uses the footnote information, and since the bug means that this page is not properly referenced, I thought a work around would be appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Trödel 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have implemented a proposed new heading structure as a result of feedback from the List of the Day nomination proposal that is being put forward. Please let me know what you think of the new structure - or propose a different structure -- Trödel 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why is this up for deletion? Bhludzin 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Gosh. What a splendid improvement since the first version. I have changed the first few lines, purely as a suggestion. I will not mind if you revert.
-- RHaworth 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's remove the "considered for deletion" notice. The vote ended and it was archived, with a keep result, and the article now addresses all original concerns. As far as precedence, and as far as I'm concerned this has been resolved. In addition, notices such as these inhibit readability. User:StoatBringer, any objections? - Visorstuff 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a minor issue, but are we striving for exact political location in the Location column, or a descriptive location that people familiar with that area would use to describe the location. I support descriptive rather than politically exact locations. Trödel• talk 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Denvoran and I seem to be at an impasse - is there anyone else who cares enough to make a comment about this issue - using municipalities vs using the smallest available geographical description? If not - I'll concede for now to leave it be to avoid an edit war over what I consider a trivial issue - but that does not mean we have found concensus on this issue. Trödel 07:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is the Halifax temple which is in Dartmouth - but is linked to the Halifax regional authority. This "city" is over 2000 square miles - i.e. it is aproximately 25 miles wide and 80 miles long. See this map. I contend that we use the municipality rather than county or state to identify location because it is, in general, the smallest political entity that is available to identify a location. However, with these mega cities (seriously NYC including all 5 boroughs is less than 500 sq miles), using the municipality no longer makes any kind of common sense. I think we should use the flexible title "Location" and use the most appropriate location available (which in most cases will be the municipality). Trödel 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We have a ways to go here - no consensus at all. Perhaps we should go on what the Church says. For example, the Mount Timpanogos temple sits on land jointly owned by Pleasant Grove, Highland and American Fork. Building permits from all three had to be obtained, if I recall correctly. Water and Sewer bill goes to American Fork, so the LDS church says it is located in American Fork, regardless of Pleasant Grove or Highland residents who say it is located in their cities. The Washington D.C. temple the church actually says is in Kensington, for more obvious reasons. In cases where there is dispute, let's standardize on what the Church says on it, as they have justifiable reasons and insight into why it is located where it is. Just my two cents. - Visorstuff 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the "attacks" in the form of the word choices "abomination" and "beloved" that have been directed at me. I have presented solid reasons for the original location designation that I inserted in the first place, which has since been contested by Troedel, without resorting to sarcasm. My suggestion for a compromise: listing the location as Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city), exactly as the corresponding article is titled, and linking to Halifax. This way, the "location" is pinpointed more closely to satisfy Troedel, yet the reader is alerted regarding the status of Darmouth and is directly linked to the actual city in which the temple is located. Denvoran 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I need more time to think about the latest edit - it is not consistent and I think most will say, why the difference? It doesn't make sense to do. Gellersen, you are getting close to your WP:3RR howver. I'm not sure why the mailing address cannot be used? Why don't we just change the City/Town to "Mailing location?" Trodel, I'm interested in hearing more about why you think we shouldn't take the church's web stated locations as the location? - Visorstuff 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of good faith, I am responding to Trödel's comments, although he has yet to respond to my latest comments both here and on his discussion page.
1. Why would Trödel care about keeping the city of Dartmouth "alive"? My guess is because he lived there and obviously has some emotional attachment to it.
2. The crux of the dispute is whether a consistent pattern of referring to locations should be used, or a "flexible" one that may or may not incorporate "vernacular"/"common usage" should be instead. Whether or not one has lived in Nova Scotia does not make one more qualified to decide between the two.
3. I have addressed the issue of common vernacular at length - please see my January 16, 2006 entry above.
"In fact, despite amalgamation, most residents of the municipality (and Canada Post) still refer to the names of the pre-amalgamation municipalities when describing geographic areas."
4. The City of Dartmouth has been dissolved for a decade - there is nothing I can do to "destroy" it. For the record, I don't appreciate the confrontational word choices "obsessed" and "destruction".
5. Trödel entered "lets leave it as it is" - then, with no further explanation, decides to "address the issue" weeks/months later. Trödel is free to change his mind, but shouldn't be surprised if I think it is "sneaky" when he, in effect, says one thing and then does another.
6. Trödel wants the location to read "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia". I want it to read Halifax. Trödel's compromise was to have "Dartmouth" listed, only to have it link to Halifax. How is this a compromise, when it appears on the list exactly how he wants it?
7. I have not refused to "identify why [I] care". It should be clear from all of my entries above that I care about having a consistent approach and reflecting the most current reality, because I feel that is the best way to present information in an encyclopedia.
Denvoran 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
One more thing I just discovered - Canada Post doesn't even consider large areas of the HRM to be part of the Halifax urban area FSA - pdf of FSAs and RTAs Trödel 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The way that footnote 5 reads, it is just the temple property that is being moved from Bluffdale to Herriman. From what I know, it is a group of landowners, one of the properties is where the temple will be. Would someone please find referenceable information about this and fix the wording. Val42 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Trödel's recent edit to the article page: Such a temple has been announced, somewhere in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. I'm thinking that it was at the most-recent General Conference (October 2005). I'll try to find a reference. No name or city has been given, but the general location has been. Removing Bluffdale is appropriate, but the temple itself has been announced. Val42 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We have previously announced a new temple in the southeast quadrant of the Salt Lake Valley. We have two other excellent sites in the west and southwest areas of the valley through the kindness of the developers of these properties. The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that. You may ask why we favor Utah so generously. It is because the degree of activity requires it. But we are also moving forward with new temples in Rexburg and Twin Falls, Idaho; in Sacramento, California; in Helsinki, Finland; in Panama City, Panama; in Curitiba, Brazil; and another which I had better not name at this time because it has not yet been announced but soon will be. There are yet others under consideration. On all of those I have named, we have the property, and work in various degrees of completion is going forward. [1]
During his opening remarks today at the first session of the 175th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that a new temple will be built in the western part of the Salt Lake Valley.
This new temple will be the fourth in the Salt Lake area and the thirteenth in Utah. The temple will be located in the Daybreak development, situated in western South Jordan, Utah. The exact site location will be announced at a later date.
President Hinckley also indicated that a fifth Salt-Lake-area temple site has been acquired in the southwest part of the valley for future use as Church growth continues. [2]
I moved this back to 122 instead of listing it as 22 as on the lds.org website. My reasoning is that we don't have the other rebuilt temple, Nauvoo, #1 - but at #112 in the order it was dedicated after being rebuilt. Although lds.org lists Samoa as #22 - I don't think we have to match that numbering system and shouldn't if, editorially, we think a slightly different numbering makes sense. Trödel 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This changes the existing numbering system by causing all temples between #s 22 and 121 to be dropped one from the official listing. As such, "landmark" temples, which were noted at the time of their completion, such as #50 (St. Louis) and #100 (Boston) no longer have these numbers. Additionally, reconstruction of the Nauvoo Temple took nearly 150 years to get underway, while the Samoan Temple reconstruction was almost immediate. Besides, at least eighteen temples have been rededicated following extensive remodeling; should they also be renumbered according to their remodel date? I believe the Samoan Temple ought to be counted as similar to a remodel, given the brief time prior to its reconstruction, rather than as one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple. In light of this, and the additional advantages to having Wikipedia's numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's numbering system (besides those already mentioned, it will eliminate confusion pertaining to references such as "the Church's 82nd temple," as well as enable a more practical study of the list), I am reverting the numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's official list. Ryan Reeder 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the conclusion. Please remember back to the debate about the Nauvoo Temple, and if we should have two separate articles for it? It was decided that it should have two separate articles as it was a rebuilt temple - it was merely a replica of the same size, but different in other ways. I contended that doctrinally, it was the same temple, or the church would be under condemnation for not completing it, it may have been different on the inside, but basically, architecturally, it was the same. This is why it was fought for for so long to be rebuilt. The doctrinal implications were huge. So if we count Samoa only once, and it is not even the same size or shape, and it is not a renovated temple, but a different structure on the same spot, then I see no reason why Nauvoo should be counted twice. Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate that archived discussion between Cogden and myself and I believe you were included to Trodel. Finally, the samoan temple was "one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple." Whatever we do, we need to be consistent, regardless of time of rebuiling. There were other doctrinal and cultural reasons for the delay in the rebuilding of the Nauvoo temple that didn't seem to fit with the Samoan. Both were burned by arsonists, so they are much more similar than what a casual reader thinks. - Visorstuff 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the conclusion reached regarding Doctrine and Covenants 124:31-35. The LDS Church has not been under condemnation from 1848-2002 because it did not have a Temple in Nauvoo. Ryan Reeder 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice compromise there, Trödel. (Referring to including the unnumbered 1983 Samoan Temple immediately preceding the 2005 #22 Samoan Temple). Ryan Reeder 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, sorry for any confusion, but i wasn't saying the church was under condemnation, but that it had to be completed for the church to stand un-"rejected as a church" when the Lord comes. If you go back and research why president Hinckley's father was so adamant about it being rebuilt, and read president hinckley's own feelings on the matter, you'll get more insight into this. It had to be rebuilt according to the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith on the issue. Some felt D&C 128:49 would excuse them of this, but the consensus was held by many that all of the announced temples back in the mid-west would have to one-day be built. You'll also notice that president hinckley said that the rebuild came entirely through private donations - which is in accordance with specified revelation. Brigham wanted it burned (which ironically it was) and then rebuilt when the saints returned. Well, they returned and it has been rebuilt. There are other doctrinal implications as well. - Visorstuff 18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A few days ago someone italicized the Daybreak Temple (I think when they inserted the Cebu Temple), reasoning that since it is not on the official list it should not be included as a numbered temple, and Cebu should be before it. I wasn't quite sure what to think of this, but left it alone. Having done a little looking into it this, the Daybreak Temple was announced at General Conf, and is still listed under Events and Notices on the main temple page and the announcement is treated as official ( news item). Thus it can be distinguished from the SW temple for which only land was announced. Thus I think it should go back on the list in order of announcement until ground is broken, when we have traditionally changed the order on this page. As the offical list does not number the "Temples announced or under construction" at all - it is one of the useful differences that I think we have on this page. Trödel 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a way to get consensus on this any other way, here's a straw poll.
Please vote to support one of the following options. Sue Anne 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The Halifax Nova Scotia temple location should be linked in the following manner:
1. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) showing in the location column.
2. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) "hiding" in the link, so it would look like this - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
3. Link to Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia or Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The problem with any entry that links to the "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city)" article is that it is a self-described historical article. This is like linking to
East Germany or
West Germany, both of which are historical articles. If one is linking in reference to something in present-day western Germany or eastern Germany, one would link to
Germany, not to either of the historical articles - just as the list does with regard to the two temples located there. An up-to-date encyclopedia would not link to a historical article (i.e. Dartmouth) with regard to something in the present (i.e. the temple).
In light of points Trödel has raised, listing the location as "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia" may be more appropriate, but the link should go to an article of a present-day entity, not to one that merely describes the past history of one that no longer exists.
Denvoran
22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an issue that I feel particularly strongly about, but I received a message from Trödel saying "can you help?", so I'll weigh in with my thoughts. Hopefully, they can be helpful in resolving this issue.
The purpose of having a "location" column following a "name" column, when the name is generally a location, is to more clearly distinguish and define the location beyond what the official name of the Temple may be. In most cases, this is a clear and easy process. The Washington D.C. Temple is located in Kensington, MD.
In this case, doubt has arisen because of the questionable formal existence of Dartmouth as a location. It's technically part of Halifax, though Halifax is a very large municipality, giving an advantage to using Dartmouth as a more precise term for the location, which is the purpose of the location column in the first place. However, Dartmouth being a disincorporated area makes it technically not a place that can be listed.
However, nobody said that the "location" column has to be an incorporated city. If a temple were built in an unincorporated area (and there may be some that are), we would generally use the name of the closest incorporated area, or a larger city that would be reasonably near. However, for the purpose of a location column, I think it would be fine to list the location of this hypothetical temple as "20 miles SW of Cityville, Countria." It becomes more precisely defined in this manner. I would recommend a policy of when in doubt, follow what the official list says. Currently, the Official Halifax Nova Scotia Temple Page lists the address as "44 Cumberland Dr Dartmouth, NS B2V 2C7 Canada." ldschurchtemples.com has followed that convention. I suggest we follow this idea and list the location as Dartmouth. If you want to petition the LDS Church to revise the address of the temple on that page, and they do, we can switch to Halifax. Unless and until that happens, my vote is for Dartmouth.
As for "(former city)," I really don't care. -- Ryan Reeder 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Canada Post still uses Dartmouth, the local media still use Dartmouth, Dartmouth is still in common usage among local residents. The only difference is that it no longer has its own local government. This "Halifax Regional Municipality" thing is about as ridiculous as changing everything to Greater Sudbury, Ontario or Wood Buffalo, Alberta. Kirjtc2 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Where's this alleged policy on not linking redirects? As I understand it, current thinking is that "fixing" redirects for its own sake is not worth the effort. Alai 05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see any support for Gellerson's version. I came here from the Nauvoo Temple "what links here," and tried to add a non-interested, but informed, view but I can't tell if there is any real concensus on this. Abeo Paliurus 10:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Guys - I'm thinking of protecting this page, until you both come to an agreement on the talk page first. Consider this the warning, 24 hours to fix your issues. This page doesn't draw enough attention to build consensus, so you'll both have to figure out a compromise. There have been a number suggested, be consistent on conventions, and work it out. - Visorstuff 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you see the irony in having a heated debate like this in an article about Temples? -- Ryan Reeder 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As I researched how many and which temples Pres. Hinckley had dedicated during his lifetime, I noticed that there is a lack of complete and up-to-date tables online. It seem as though, the ones that have a column of who dedicated each temple, are not current. The ones that are up-to-date, such as this list, do not have a "Who Dedicated" column. Should this column be added to the list or would this make the table too crowded. Is there a better solution. I think the added info would be of value. Perhaps the info in columns Temple and Location can be combined to keep the table width smaller. Leon7 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't verify this on lds.org nor using Google - I am removing it pending verification that this announcement (probably made at a local conference) has a citable reference. Trödel 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not the original poster, but [6] is a source. jj 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
See here for the transcription of an email that was sent to local stake presidents announcing it. See here as well. -- Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The announcement is included in today's LDS Church News. [7] It's official. Ryan Reeder 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the official church press release. -- Kmsiever 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have heard that a temple has been announced for somewhere in France. Has anyone else heard this? -- Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add List of future temples(IE Far West, Paris, France, Independence) That will be built but are not yet announced. The 5th SLC one could go there (a separate page) jj 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)?
with Honduras, this is the 135th temple on our list. The church maintains 1 of the ones we have is not announced. Anybody know which one? jj 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as another fact that doesn't match - the June "News from the Church" item says, "As of June 13, 2006, 133 temples are announced, under construction, or operating across the world." Which I am guessing refers to the 131 temples on this page plus the Vancover and the Cebu temples - which would make 134 for the recently announced Honduras temple (although the letter left SLC on June 9th - see news item on reaction in Honduras here prior to the "As of June 13 date." For some reason the Church has not been counting the daybreak temple. Maybe we should move after Honduras. -- Trödel 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that ldschurchtemples.com is reporting a Tuesday, July 11, 2006 rededication date - but they don't provide any reference for that - so I didn't include it. -- Trödel 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that several of the later listings have no links. I assume it is because these pages do not yet exist in the wiki. I suggest adding the links (even if the pages don't exist) to encourage their creation. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase "Modern, single spire" as it is used on a ton of temples, but I will tell you, the Los Angeles temple does not look anything like the Provo temple, and yet they have the same description. I recommend using a better phrase for each temple design to distinguish unique temples, and to clump together standard temple design. So "Single forward spire" and "single central spire" make more sense. Even having a little picture of the design would be nice. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to see how the page looked with a photo of each temple, so I grabbed the first few to see how it looks. I won't be heartbroken if you think it is too much, but I prefer to see what the temple looks like as well as the textual description. Also it solves my dilemma above with the description text. If you like the idea, feel free to add more photos. I wish we could get some images of inside the temple. I know the church holds all copyrights to interior shots, but it would be great to have them on the wiki. - Bytebear 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we can add some notes or footnotes on the location column. I would like info on things like, "First temple in South Pacific", or "First temple in a communist country" or "Second temple in Canada" to give the reader a better historical understanding of the chronology. Your thoughts? 68.4.192.239 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that not all information on this site is correct and that you should not judge the church by an non-official website
Some time back I requested feedback from frequent participants in the featured list discussion on what we could do to get this list up to featured status. I have summarized the responses that still need attention below:
Suggestion | Action taken |
---|---|
Links need to formated in reference style and external link style. | links now use citation templates |
Is this list really comphrehensive? I.e. all temples are included? There seems to be a huge boom in 1999-2000. | Yes |
I think you need to link all temples. That will produce a ton of red links and one of FL criteria is no or very little red links, but that's the price for consistency. | Done, with at least a stub article, but usually more thx to Amaranth22 and others I added links to announced temples just now |
Some better way to format location is needed. Because now it's inconsistent: some locations give city and state/district, others city and country. | Done - all are city, state if availabe, country |
Some pictures/maps would be nice. | Started adding pictures |
The external links found throughout the table should be converted to footnotes as well | done |
Create a suitable lead section from Temple (Mormonism) (suggestions: temple is a...; total of x, y under construction,...; First was built ...; As of August there are ...; explain what is an official temple; | Complete |
Additional sources under References section | added 2 additional sources - may still need others |
Need to create stub articles for temples with red links | stub articles created for all articles except those under construction or announced |
Need to explain/link style information because, say, "spire" means nothing to me. (Perhaps we could create an article explaining the different styles). | Updated style to be more descriptive - could still create style article. |
I think we are almost there - mostly without discussion - just the efforts of everyone to improve the list. I archived the prior discussions so we could focus on getting the list to featured status - any help - or additional suggestions, etc would be appreciated. -- Trödel 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I notice on many of the featured lists, there are maps and charts. I am going to see if I can find a world map of the location of each temple. I doubt something exists, so I may end up creating it myself, although I welcome anyone else who is more artistic to volunteer. I suggest a green dot for existing temples, yellow for under construction or announced. I think for Kirkland we need a special marker (blue?) denoting a temple not owned by the LDS church. I dont know how to denote the old and new Nauvoo Temple though (blue and green?). Also, I wonder if we should mark temples that were never built but were planned like Far West or Independence. Any ideas? Bytebear 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created a lead section - it may be to long - I am not sure - but am going to review other Featured Lists to get an idea. Please review and copyedit -- Trödel 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this link from the articles it was added to by Kevandcan as it is the only edit they made on all the articles. However the link could be useful if the pictures can be properly licensed. http://www.lds-images.com/search.asp?keyword=temple
If there are no objections, I'd like to put who it was dedicated by below the dedication date. I think this is important. jj 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The endowment house performed temple ordiances but was not a temple. We have to add the red brick store if we add the endowment house as well as other places ordiances were performed. Endowment House only refers to it as a "Temporary temple" I have never seen it on other lists of temples. This does not list every place these sacred ordiances have been performes. If this is a temple, find a source, as there are no sources calling it a temple on this or its own site. jj 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Per one of the featured list suggestions - I have done some formatting based on year and status. If you object to the removal of the status column and using status to organize the sequential nature of the list - please indate here. Note I will be putting any closing information for remodeling or rebuilding in the "Notes" column - so we will still capture that information. -- Trödel 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes need to be added to define the styles of the temples, possibly with references, size, footprint, etc. I also think "Modern, single spire" is not descriptive enough. Both the Los Angeles temple and the Provo temple are defined as such, and they are nothing alike. Bytebear 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been a bit bold in attempting a new format for the page. I have altered the first two temples in a simpler two column format (picture, and details) where the details are listed with breaks. If you think it is a good change, I will continue with the rest of the page, but want outside opinions first (I will assume silence is an afirmative agreement). I also am thinking of moving the number to the left of the name as opposed to a separate column. so it would be:
My reasoning is because now that we have added the photo the rows are quite tall, and can accomodate the format easier than before, and also, we have quite a few footnotes that may be better suited for the Notes: area, which in this format can be incorporated more easily. I do think that footnotes are appropriate when the same information is repeatable, such as Dedicated by Hinkley (as discussed earlier). Bytebear 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: This all started because it was hard to edit sub-sections with the table information mucking up the preview. Bytebear 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
25. Papeete Tahiti
|
|
Not bad. And a great idea to do a test page. I was so afraid of just changing two of the entries, but this way, I cam muck with it all I want.
I think I like the two column format, Rather than the three colums, but mainly because there is a lot of white space when you add the Notes column, and the bullet list gets wrapped too much. Also the height of the row grows which will stretch the page. I will do some experiments and we can discuss further. We should also label each example explicitely so we all know what we are talking about. Bytebear 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote against the vertical format. I like the column format.
Bhludzin
04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
After seeing Trödel's latest concept on the Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/New Format page, I think I like it best of all. I will let others mull over it for a few more days, but since only three people have discussed it thus far, I suspect that we won't get a lot of backlash. Bytebear 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been playing around with stuff - and have used a template {{ LDSTemple}} to store all the information about each temple - this way we can have whatever format we want - for example see: a reproduction of the entire list using a template to handle all the ugly table formatting.
I think this would be much easier for people to maintain - and you can change to other formats without having to make changes to the data - see the [Sandbox link no longer contains example] to see how the same data can be transformed using different templates. -- Trödel 02:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I added who dedicated each temple - to see how that would look -- Trödel 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Salt_Lake_Temple_spires.jpg Salt Lake Temple | |
I noticed that on the
ldschurchtemples.com it lists the following details that we might want to consider adding now that we have more room than the column format.
I don't want to plagerize the information, but I think we should incorporate some information, like number of rooms and maybe announcement, groundbreaking, and open house. Too much? Bytebear 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add a new version of the graph in the statistics section with a capitalized The for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? -- Lethargy 03:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two proposals for a new format for the temples. One is a verticle list of the attributes of each temple to the left of the picture (see #Vertical list), the second is a change to the current column list combining the style and notes section into one column (see #Style/Notes together). Please review these proposals and comment below. Both styles make use of a templates so that the temple information can be formatted and edited more easily without the editors updating this list having to understand table formatting.
Also - please comment on whether the person dedicating/rededicating the temple should be mentioned.
<<examples removed since the underlying templates changed formats and they no longer reflect the former and proposed formats>>
Or we could return to the original form and replace notes with Status - and just put notes in the status column :)
I have proposed a new WikiProject which would aim to maintain and improve all of the temple articles listed here. If there is any interest, you can leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Temples WikiProject. -- Lethargy 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dedicated is the heading for temples that have not yet been dedicated in the date column jj 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
b== New Style ==
Ok, I changed the style of the page. If you like it, we can leave it, if not, let's discuss why not. Thanks to Trodel for both templates. If we agree this is the wayt to go we should revert back and change the template from User talk:Trödel/Sandbox4 back to Temple and change the Temple template. Bytebear 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
top alignment (implmented) | use of subtable | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
I care more that we reach some kind of concensus more than I favor one approach over the other — I can see advantages to both. Some comments:
I requested comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement but none were made about the different proposals. I guess is that most see this as "tomāto" - "tomăto" type of thing.
This is the only issue holding up Featured Status for this list - since there should not be an on-going controversy to be featured. I'd like to see the list featured soon :) -- Trödel 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what you guys think of Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the column format - we could add # of Ordinance Rooms, # of Sealing Rooms, include groundbreaking and announcement dates for all the temples - use a different date format like mm/dd/yyyy so that we could fit more stuff and make comparing easier, etc. -- Trödel 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The first mention of this goal I could find was in the 1997 October General Conference:
The source was: Gordon B. Hinckley: Look to the Future. 167th Semiannual General Conference, October 1997.
The "program" he was talking about is here.
The LDS News mentions that the goal was made at the end of the 1998 conference, and also names a specific date for the goal to be completed ("...by the end of this year."), so obviously the goal must have been made official during the 1998 conference, but was originally mentioned in '97. Perhaps we could rephrase it with something like "this goal was first mentioned in the 1997 General Conference..."? I'll need to look through the 1998 conference report online to find the goal.
The aforementioned LDS News article states that this goal was accomplished in 2000 with the Boston Temple, but both statements might be correct. The difference is that this one is unsourced, so I don't know if 102 were completed before 2001. :) -- Lethargy 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created an infobox template for the temple pages. It probably has too much information, like cafeteria and clothing rental availability and possibly address and phone number. But I do think it is important to have visitor center info in the infobox as well as any other info we find that is useful (all fields are optional). You can see an example of it at San Diego California Temple. Anyone want to help tackle rest of the temple pages? Bytebear 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed we have recently announced temples included, but should we also include historically announced temples? IE, Far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Jackson County 24 and others? I don't want to get into prophecied temples, but the church owns land for most of the above. Thoughts? - Visorstuff 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[copied from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive2] The original Apia Samoa should be listed under "temples destroyed" section. No number as in the text below. But it seems odd to be numbered below. let's move it up.
I like the idea of moving Apia Samoa under Nauvoo. Not sure where we would put "Abandoned" temples (under Announced maybe?) - of course Harrison NY is looking pretty abandoned ;) - We may also want to included Hartford Connecticut. It was announced and abandoned as well. -- Trödel 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I like efforts suspended. - Visorstuff 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the original Apia Samoa temple should be listed similar to the Nauvoo temple, even with a photo, if one exists. The rebuilt temple was a totally different style, and the list should reflect this. I think announced/groundbroken temples that were never built should not be in the list, but mentioned in the intro paragraphs. Bytebear 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from
User_talk:Bhludzin)
As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the
Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx --
Trödel
22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I setup a page to outline the standards for the data going into the temple here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
It will effect this page in the following way:
Please comment on the standardization WikiProject talk page, and please edit the proposed standars where appropriate. -- Trödel 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The standards that are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples have been implemented for the first 10 temples and the new templates are used on this page.
The are also used for the Infoboxes on the individual article pages for the first 10 temples (see Salt Lake Temple for example). Please register any bugs/concerns on the talk page. Thank you -- Trödel 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the additional style information could go directly into the Style field rather than in a footnote. It is not too long and thre is room with the verticle list style. -- Trödel 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you include a footnote with a reference to the naming convention? I understand that the LDS church hierarchy decreed that temples should be referred to by geographic name without commas (such as "Villahermosa Mexico Temple"), but to someone who isn't aware of this the names probably look a bit odd. A citation might help those of us who are not Mormon but who are interested in reading about such things to understand why it is done the way it is. 1995hoo 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the map of all the temples, there is no dot for the Berlin Temple. I do not know how to add pictures to Wikipedia, so I am saying this so someone else can do it.
I would do these myself, but I don't have the sources handy: the Cardston (Alberta) Temple had an addition built on and was redidicated in the early 90's. If someone finds the source before me, please add!
Mr Minchin
16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that efforts really are suspended on the White Plains temple? If so, a note about what happened should probably appear in the article, otherwise perhaps it deserves its own section ("Status Unknown"). Trödel noted in the Announced Temple section above that it's no longer listed on the official list, but does that really mean that efforts have been abandoned? I've searched for any statement indicating such, but wasn't able to find anything. The best information I found was in a 2004 Deseret News article (whose main topic was the spire of the Manhattan Temple) that indicated that efforts were reportedly still underway, although slowed by lawsuits and zoning issues. For now I'm adding a note regarding the status in 2004 and the fact that it's no longer listed on the church's website.
Also, wasn't White Plains the official name of the temple? In my searching, I didn't see any reliable source that called it the Harrison Temple, but only mentioned Harrison as the city where it was located, but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm changing it to White Plains in the article. If someone can verify Harrison as a "more" official name for the temple itself, they can change it back. Xsadar 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Because the bug that makes it so that templates which include the <ref> and </ref> tags not work correctly is still not fixed - I have implemented a work around. The <ref> and </ref> tags must be on the calling page for the footnotes to properly link to the section where the <references /> code is inserted. Therefore; on temples which have footnotes please add after the | format = Talk:Temple name/data the following: "|reference=<ref>your citation (citation templates are ok here)</ref>. Additionally add the line
| reference = {{{reference|}}} <!-- please include references on the List of Temples of CJC of LDS page -->
as the last line on the Talk:Temple name/data page so that the reference information will be passed on from the data page to the formatting template. (This line should be added to all data pages - help me if you have time :).
You may have noticed that the references that were included on the data pages were numbered after the Announced (so instead of starting at like 7 they started at 39) and that when you clicked on them the link didn't work and the information in the reference footnote was not included at the bottom of the page. This work around will ensure that the footnotes are included and the links work.
I know this kind of defeats the purpose of having the data template - since we now have data in two places; however this is the only page that the format template uses the footnote information, and since the bug means that this page is not properly referenced, I thought a work around would be appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Trödel 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have implemented a proposed new heading structure as a result of feedback from the List of the Day nomination proposal that is being put forward. Please let me know what you think of the new structure - or propose a different structure -- Trödel 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)