Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 7

message: I have created the article requested on baby blessings. Please read, edit, feast, enjoy, rip apart, check for NPOV, change, or otherwise change or dismember the article to make it better. I make no claim to its perfection and welcome any input. Thanks. --Pahoran513 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I see is that no references have been cited. The Gospel Library may contain some sources we can use though. --Lethargy 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Blessing 

message: There has been some discussion of where to put Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was thinking that a theology article would be a good place to start as their are quite a few articles to draw from :Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices and a good summarization of this material would be good, and articles like Animals could then be broken off into minor theology articles, or individually as needed. Thoughts?? --Trödel 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lds theology article 

message: is on the main page, and I didn't see anybody I know in the history, so I thought I'd post it here just to make you all aware of it. :) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 02:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portrayals of Mormons in popular media]] 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo-hoo!  The Mormons get in version 1.0!  That table is currently empty.  I nominate Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, the Golden Plates, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Latter Day Saint movement (initially) as articles for it—just for starters.  Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. should be there also since it is a featured article. --Trödel 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that Joseph Smith, Jr. (and all of its subarticles about Joseph Smith), Latter Day Saint movement, all of the denominations listed on that page, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, The Book of Mormon, Golden Plates, and everything in the LDS template.  Are we limited based on number of articles or space occupied? Val42 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Who added the table to the right?  How about all the articles in the table for this one? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot!  I shall put these into the table when I get a chance.  I suggest listing the articles specifically mentioned in the above postings as "Top-importance" and others found in the template on the right go in as "High importance."  Does all that sound OK? Is the early life featured article one of the top importance ones, or just high importance (i.e. ignoring the article quality aspect altogether)?  Thanks, Walkerma 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I added some proposed content to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism).  I would appreciate knowing if any of it might be acceptable.  Thanks.  Agape bright 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endowment

message: Hi, is there any reason that there are 2 sentence stubs for all of Brigham Young's wives, see Category:Wives of Brigham Young. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, these articles would be more easy to access and far more useful as a list (and they are all in his article anyway).--Peta 10:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wives

message: How do we address POV problems in state articles which place a Mormon category outside of Christianity? For instance, Arizona has a section with percentage of Christians, and places Mormons in a separate section, "Other religions", even outside of the "Other Christianity" section already there. (They also had a link to freemasonry labeled as Mormon.)
The Pennsylvania article avoids the issue by never using the word "Christian". We need to have some sort of standard about how to avoid POV problems in demographics sections, possibly by avoiding clumping things into a Christianity section, and instead simply state church names and percentages.
Any thoughts? --Lethargy 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with the PA article.  I revised the AZ page to include Mormon under Christian.  Somebody can check later and see what happens to that edit. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I double checked the AZ article, and the percentage of Mormons was included in the Christianity totals, but the Mormon entry was under "Other religions". Perhaps someone recently vandalized this page, which would explain the link to freemasonry. --Lethargy 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  An anon moved Mormonism from Christianity to Other and changed it to freemasonry.  The same person (or IP address, at least) vandalized Newspeak as well, which I fixed. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. state article POV: Mormonism and Christianity 

message: :Category:Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and :Category:Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to be renamed to have a capital "The", and pages using those categories also need to be fixed, if anyone is willing to do this. --Lethargy 18:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put these up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. --Lethargy 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories to rename 

message: List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently underwent a review for Featured List status. The former "Status" column was seen as redundant since the chronological organization structure makes clear what the status of each temple is. The addition of the Notes column to hold information about currently closed temples or temples under construction is blank for most of the temples. Thus, there are two proposals for organizing the list to eliminate this mostly blank column. 
Please review and comment. Thx in adv --Trödel 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format for list of temples 

message: I have submitted Temple Square for the Mormon collaboration, but even if it doesn't pass, I wonder if anyone is knowledgeable/bored enough to help me expand this article? I would also like to expand the articles about the buildings in and around Temple Square, such as the Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake Assembly Hall, Salt Lake Tabernacle, LDS Conference Center, etc. but I am unfamiliar with much of the history of these. The Salt Lake Temple is the most famous temple and has become a symbol of the LDS Church, so it should be a high priority article.
Currently all of these articles are unreferenced, so we'll need to find references we can use. --Lethargy 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple Square 

message: If there is interest in such a thing, I would like to start a WikiProject specifically for temples, which aims to improve and maintain these articles: List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Is this worth creating? --Lethargy 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. Pahoran513 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll hold off on creating it until you (and others) have more time to help out. I haven't started a project page or anything yet, so I'll start thinking of how it should look. It would also be a good idea to wait until that list is featured, so we start off with an article we can point to as an example. --Lethargy 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Temples WikiProject 

message: I brought this up at Talk:Mormon pioneers, but I'll alert this project as a whole: We (mostly BRMo) managed to get Mormon handcart pioneers featured in time for the 150th anniversary this October. Let's see if we can pull that off again with the Mormon pioneers article, aiming to have it on Wikipedia's front page for Pioneer Day (July 24) 2007, which will be the 160th anniversary of the pioneers' entry into the Salt Lake Valley. Since it takes awhile for an article to be approved for the front page, I'm guessing we should aim to have this featured a few months before July.
I have nominated this for the Mormon COTM, if you are able to help out with this, add your comments or votes there. Hopefully it isn't inappropriate to mention the vote here, if it is I will remove this. --Lethargy 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon pioneers featured for Pioneer Day 2007 

message: Hello all.  Take a look at Mormonism and Judaism and my proposed split, see also Talk:Mormonism and Judaism.  Kaisershatner 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism and Judaism

message: User:COGDEN has been making several changes to the general template about the LDS movment.  While I think these are being done in good faith, I think it is wise to begin a discussion about what real limits ought to be place into this general template and perhaps some new directions as well.
Certainly the catagory system of Wikipedia works out well to do some searches, but it is also reasonable to use a template as a sort of quick navigation link for related topics as well, as it only takes one click to move to related articls as opposed to two clicks going through category pages.  As has been pointed out by this user, the template was getting overloaded simply due to the very large number of LDS-related articles in Wikipedia now and it needed to be cleaned up.  My main objection was that the cleanup happened without discussion, so I'm starting the thread here.
I would also like to propose themed templates that would cover a much more narrow focus that could be included or substituted for the general LDS navigation template.  This could be something like :Template:LDS Leaders, :Template:LDS Historical Locations, :Template:LDS Canon, etc.  Perhaps these more narrow focused topics could also be integrated into the more general LDS template but with some sub-section that would change based on the general category, with the more specific topical areas changing based on general categorization of the article.
Certainly this is something that needs some wider participation than a discussion on an obscure template talk page.  --Robert Horning 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:LDS|Template]] revisions and future directions 

message: Is it a good idea to have the exact same links (lds.org, Mormon.org, and a few about temples in general) on every temple article? That just seems like spam to me, and these links would be more appropriate at Temple (Latter Day Saints) or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course links that contain information about the specific temple in the article are completely appropriate, but this is ridiculous.
Perhaps we should collect a list of these links and request a bot to remove them. Comments? --Lethargy 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out a few articles and I see what you mean.  I agree with your assessment, but I don't think that we need a bot to remove the extraneous links. But I think that we should have at least one more person agree before we go and do it. Val42 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in temple articles 

message: FamilySearch has been nominated for AfD. Anyone care to weigh in on this? One of the reasons given for the AfD is that the article is "mormoncruft". -- 63.224.136.62 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FamilySearch]] 

message: I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article). 
Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think. 
Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).
You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").
Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religioustolerance dot org 

message: I recently created the Category:Anti-Mormonism, and in an effort to clean up and more clearly define the category, less that 24 hours ago I created the following subcategories: 
* Category:Law related to Anti-Mormonism
* Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism
* Category:Organizations related to anti-Mormonism
* Category:People related to anti-Mormonism
* Category:Places related to anti-Mormonism
At that time I also modified a number of the articles that had previously been under Category:Anti-Mormonism so that they were under one of those sub-categories. While I think that there is most definitely lots of room to debate if a particular entry really falls under this category or one of the subcategories, I think the categories themselves have a solid basis for their existence. However, at this time, there is a CfD on Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism. If this category has been already nominated this quickly, I though that it made sense to ask the participants of this WikiProject for their thoughts on all of these Categories. Do you think that the categories themselves should exist as is, should be modified, &/or deleted? Are the entries in each category appropriate? Are there any articles missing in the categories? -- FishUtah 15:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at this further it appears that the CfD nominator () may disagreed with my inclusion of Latter Days (of which the user is a frequent editor) into the "Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism", and instead of removing the category from the article, they are question the value of the category itself. After considering this, I removed the category from that article; just because the film deals with the controversial topic of homosexuality and Mormonism doesn't necessarily mean it is anti-Mormon. Am I off base on this? The film is still included in Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media where it is a solid fit, and "Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism" has a see also to that category. -- FishUtah 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see the discussion on at :Category talk:Cults#Category:Anti-Mormonism label applied to anti cult orgs -- FishUtah 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If I made any unfounded assumptions, I'm sorry. You are also making assumptions that I thought that somehow changing the article would make the CfD go away, and that was not my intent. The CfD made me rethink what was in the categories, and I realized I made a mistake with that article (and probably others too), and so I fixed the mistake I could identify and consulted with a wider audience of more experienced editors with an interest in the subject. You certainly are entitled to your opinion that the category doesn't belong, & I'd be happy to discuss this further. However using language like "Mr Utah now appears to be trying to cover his back" and describing the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement as a "WikiProject full of biased editors" doesn't help with having a discussion. I though I had been above board, honest, and open about what I was doing; any mistakes that I made are my own, and not a responsibility of anyone else. -- FishUtah 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WikiProject on religion is always full of biased editors - it's a sad, but true, fact. I don't really want to have a discussion about the CfD: I nominated it, and now I don't really care what happens to it. Don't give up on Mormon articles because of this experience, just be a bit more careful next time about your actions. Read up on WP:AGF and I'm sure you'll get along fine. Dev920 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Anti-Mormonism & subcategories 

message: I setup a page to outline the standards for the data going into the temple here: 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
* This will allow the data to be in one location and make it easier to keep it up-to-date.
* A new template will need to be created, templates will need to be moved
Please comment on the standardization WikiProject talk page, and please edit the proposed standars where appropriate. --Trödel 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards for Temple Data 

message: The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Religious leaders]] 

message: Why was the Nauvoo temple picture chosen?  I would think that an image of the First Vision (like the Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg on the mormonism page) would be more appropriate.  
I realize that Joseph Smith was martyred during the Nauvoo era, leading to the major schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement, but some groups split off long before then, and other groups that didn't organize until later believe that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet by the time of the Nauvoo era, accepting earlier revelations but rejecting his later teachings such as plural marriage, nature of God, etc. that came during the Nauvoo era.
74s181 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nauvoo temple as symbol for Latter Day Saint movement 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I found great pictures at http://www.lds.org/hf/art/0,16812,4218-1-3,00.html
Can I upload this pictures to wikipedia without copyright problems? I do not know. So please help me.Daniel3 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my detailed response on Daniel's talk page. --Trödel 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I upload this pictures? 

message: The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]] 

message: I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus]] nominated for [[WP:AID|Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: :Image:Themartyrdomoftheprophet.jpg is lacking source information. If it does not have the appropriate information within 7 days, it will be deleted. I assume that the licensing information is correct (PD), but without a source, we can't be sure. If anyone can research this image to prevent it from being deleted... go right ahead :). ~MDD4696 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Themartyrdomoftheprophet.jpg]] 

message: This is the current collaboration of the month. I would like to add the non-commercial LDS movies, Legacy: A Mormon Journey to the external Links section.I think to upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ would not be a problem because LDS movies like The Restoration (Google  Video) are also on http://video.google.com/ .But I can not upload this movie because I do not have it  and I´m from Europe and I´m not a mormon. So please, is there someone out there who can upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ and share it with us?Daniel3 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mormon pioneers]]

message: I asked for help on Trödel's talk page, but I didn't know about the RfC and the signs that he's busy in real life. Could anyone take a look at this (details on Trödel's talk page)? Help would be appreciated. -- 63.224.137.164 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some reorganizing and minor editing, and established headings, on this article.  But, even though I am aware of this Mormon pioneer, the article needs lots of work.  It may be a family project, as the primary author is using a Gardner name. I suspect some copyright issues as well.  I would encourage other editors, familiar with the pioneer period, to take a look.  Perhaps we should contact the primary editor about the LDS project and guidelines?  Best to all.  WBardwin 07:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Archibald Gardner]]

message: I say we create a userbox which says something like This user is member of wiki-project Latter Day Saint Movement. Anybody agree? --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do! --Austinsimcox 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the transclusion! Yes, looks good. ♠Tom@sBat 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject userbox 

message: The LDS portion of "Praise" need some serious attention. It looks like it's just someones personal opinions, mixed with scripture passages and very un-LDS like vocabulary; the bibilical passages in the "LDS" paragraph aren't even KJV. -- FishUtah 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the entire section.  I have no idea where the original editor got some of those ideas, and I agree they probably weren't LDS.  IMHO, the LDS treatment of Praise isn't much different than any other Christian religion.  Of course, anyone can go back and add something more meaningful if they don't agree with me. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: Garden of Eden#Latter Day Saints' geography for Eden needs some help. It seems to have more faith promoting speculativism & personal interpretation than actual documented teachings from published sources. -- 63.224.137.164 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garden of Eden 

message: In recent edits to Latter Day Saint movement,  appears to be intentionally injecting a Latter-day Saint centric POV into the article, so that the article now reads that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unequivocally the successor/continuation of the Church of Christ. I tried reverting this, but this user consequently undid the revert and additionally converted the lists of denominations into tables that also display POV issues. -- 12.106.111.10 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter Day Saint movement 

message: The article, Nation of Deseret, is truly a non-encyclopedic article. If someone would like to salvage something out of it for another article in this project, please let me know. If not I will Afd it in a few days. As it appears to be WP:OR and has no references I was tempted to Speedy it but I have no familiarity with the topic and there may be something useful in it. I don't think merge or redirect would work here. Thnx --killing sparrows 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the only thing useful there that I can see is some of the material about the Deseret alphabet, which could be moved to that article. -- 63.224.137.164 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nation of Deseret]] 

message: Unless I'm mistaken, we do not yet have articles on LDS Sunday School and LDS Young Men/Young Women organizations and functions.  Both have a long history!  Should we create these articles independently or develop a generic LDS Auxiliary article with summaries of all auxiliaries?   WBardwin 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auxiliary Organizations

message: Someone might want to look at this "interesting" article. -- 12.106.111.10 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Title and Value of the article:  Rotten title for this article (see Space opera) as it is constitued -- and the information is questionable at best.  Opinions on the article's value and changes needed?  WBardwin 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If no one objects, I plan to nominate it for deletion. Seems to be original research under a mocking title that doesn't actually refer to any heretofore known scholarship.  Article therefore fails WP:OR and WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worse than WP:OR, it is highly POV. I support a speedy delete if possible. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the prod should be fine. What I'm getting at is that POV is not normally a criteria for deletion (stock reply is to fix the page). The content is POV, but even if it weren't, it would need to be deleted because it's OR and an invented concept. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, would you take a shot at correcting the reasons or should I? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Too late, I went in and deleted the NPOV violation. Thank you for pointing that out. Anything else I should do? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we just wait. Assuming no one finds reliable sources to back up the existence and notability of this subject, we delete it in less than a week. I don't think such sources exist, so it's just a formality, but it's one we have to go through when an article doesn't neatly qualify for a speedy. Cool Hand Luke 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Space Opera in Latter-day Saints theology]] 

message: In the recent past there have been several CfD's for "polygamists" categories (1, 2, 3, 4) which removed them all, and also a related CfD on :Category:Bigamists. The consensus for leaving Category:Bigamists revolved around categorizing "convicted criminals" instead of pointing out polygamists.
I'd like to point out that a recent effort is being made to add into Category:Bigamists to a group of biographical articles (predominantly LDS related), which appears to have been done irrespective of criminal prosecution for bigamy of the subject of the article. This has the effect of recreating the deleted "polygamists" categories, and does not seem meet the criteria for inclusion in Category:Bigamists.  
I made some suggestions to User:Dr. Submillimeter (the person who submitted the CfD on Category:Bigamists) on his talk page but his reply he seemed to indicate he did not feel that these suggestions would work long term. I'd like to solicit some suggestions from members of WP:LDS on what they feel might be done. Should the inclusion criteria mentioned on the top of the Category:Bigamists be modified to better explain what the category is meant for, and if so how? How should Category:Bigamists be cleaned up to only include the relevant articles? How likely is it that this cleanup process would be sustainable over time? -- 12.106.111.10 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed most of the names of those individuals that were not convicted of Bigamy. I would like to see the category deleted, but I suspect that because there are those who are convicted of bigamy exist it stays. First, we should explain the purpose of the category and second, it will take monitoring to ensure the category does not bleed into other areas. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Bigamists 

message: Well, how about this emerging category??  LDS articles are being, in my opinion, quite casually placed here.  It seems to me that such a category would generate a list of articles for potential edit disagreement.  Quite polarizing.  Is that its intent?  What other purpose would such a category have?  Opinions?  WBardwin 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see the potential for such a category, but at present there is no definition / criteria and seems to be assigned to a wide range of articles, some of which are clearly controversial, but others where the controversy seems to be that others don't believe it.  The category has been nominated for deletion, BTW.  There is a discussion going on there. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Mormonism-related controversies

message: Anyone interested in weighing in (for or against) this and this CfD? It would seem that the issues on both may be intertwined. -- 12.106.111.10 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anti-Christianity]] & [[:Category:Anti-Mormonism]] 

message: I noticed some additions yesterday which got me to wondering and so I made comment on the Template:LDS talk page.  I got an 'against' opinion that sounded reasonable.  Then what I had wondered at happened today.  Someone has added the portal to the Template:LDS.  I know nothing pertaining to this, but Wikignomes know religious 'stuff' can be controversial, and so I'd like to get the discussion going before feelings.
Is it a 'good' or 'bad' thing to have mention of the Latter-day Saints Portal in the template? Please discuss over at the template talk page (link above)
Shenme 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template and portal usage 

message: What is Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Sandbox for? Can this/should this be deleted at this time? -- 12.106.111.10 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Sandbox 

message: In pointing out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)#Avoid use of "Mormonisms" to another editor earlier today I noticed one thing that currently seems to be an issue. In that section the current wording is (bolding mine to highlight issue):
:*Never use terms like "The Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ" to refer to any specific church, in spite of the LDS Church's style guide recommending it. "The church" is acceptable when the word "church" is an uncapitalized common noun, but capitalized "Church" should only be used when it is part of a longer reference to a specific church.
Currently the naming used on the article The Church of Jesus Christ (as well as collateral references to that subject in other locations on Wikipedia such as on :Template:Mormon denomination tree), seem to contradict this statement. Likewise the church list in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) remains silent on this denomination. Would a rewording/reworking of these guidelines be in order? -- 12.106.111.10 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm raising this on those talk pages. The guidelines should be revised, as it is the official name of the Bickertonite church. Vassyana 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church of Jesus Christ 

message: Look at http://www.hopeofzion.com/stuff/map.jpg
and at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/images/Basic_BOM_Plates_2.jpg
Daniel3 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usefull pictures for wikipedia

message: There has been some discussion on usage of the :Template:Mormon denomination tree scattered throughout several pages. I decided to start the thread here to centeralize the discussion and any decisions resulting from it. (See Talk:The Church of Jesus_Christ#Tree Link (revisit) for one such discussion). Based on other discussions, I am proposing that the usage of this tree be limited to the Latter Day Saint movement page and any other page that references the movement on a similarly high-level. (Perhaps like Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints), etc.) Putting it on every page, particularly every different denomination's page, in my opinion just amounts to a bunch of clutter. It seems to be overused, and frankly I think the whole project would look better without this glaring at the reader at the bottom of every page, although it does have value on high-level pages discussing the entire movement. Thoughts? Stekun 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a great visual for the Latter Day Saint movement, but I agree that it is not needed on the denomination pages.  We already have a Latter Day Saint movement Template.  It has links to major things within the movement.  This template should be on general sites within the movement, but specific denominations seems a very cluttered.Jcg5029 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also recommend that the colors be muted somewhat.  I find the current version quit jarring.  A more subtle color scheme might make the results look more professional.  (I have always been color challenged, which is probably why I noticed it. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on the colors as well. It should be cleaned up a little, included on relavent high-level LDS movement pages, and cleaned up from the other random ones that it pops up on. This will make the whole project appear much more professional and easy to follow. Stekun 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you.  It has good info but jumps at you pretty hard.Jcg5029 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon Denomination Tree 

message: Anyone have any info that could help the stub on C. Terry Warner, BYU professor?  It is carrying a notability tag.  WBardwin 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty random, why is his site notable at all?Jcg5029 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[C. Terry Warner]]

message: Is it time to archive the remaining discussions from 2006? I have not noticed any comments on those items for some time now. -- 12.106.111.10 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive remaining 2006 discussions? 

message: There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project proposal 

message: I thought i'd bring this AfD to the attention of the project, as being raised LDS the basis and content of this article doesn't sound right to me. If you have some time to take a look at the article and make some positive contributions to the AfD discussion it would no doubt be appreciated. Thewinchester (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Debate - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgression (Latter Day Saints)]] 

message: A recently created article by  named Mormon Teachings About Extraterrestrial Life might use some attention. It's basically a extensive series quotes, with very little encyclopedic explanation or context about the included statements. -- 71.35.46.20 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon Teachings About Extraterrestrial Life