Template talk:LDS70pres

message: Copied from Talk:Robert C. Oaks#Oaks and Bateman in the Presidency of the Seventy
Robert C. Oaks served in the Presidency of the Seventy from October 2, 2004-August 1, 2007. Merrill J. Bateman served in the Presidency of the Seventy from April 5, 2003-August 1, 2007. Because whoever was called first to the Presidency of the Seventy has the greater seniority, Bateman was senior to Oaks. I'm more than a little curious about why in the Seventy Presidents Template Bateman is listed after Oaks, and I don't know how to fix that. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see it should go Uchtdorf–Bateman–Groberg–Oaks–Andersen, unless I too am missing something. I will change it. Snocrates 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oaks and Bateman in the Presidency of the Seventy 

message: Similar to the difference between Template:Qof12 and Template:LDSApostles, the name of this template indicates that it is only for current members of the Presidency of the Seventy. If another template is desired to show all who have been ordained to the office of seventy, it may be needed but impractical. --Eustress (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you just altered the template to make it say that. It was never intended as a "current members" template — it has always been a historical members template. You need to heed your own advice and create a different template if you think one is justified for current members only, but not destroy this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought my reasoning was sensical and more organizationally correct, but I'll be accomodating. I created Template:LDS70presCURRENT. By way of compromise, I will also modify the header of this template to reflect the fact that it is a historical list of all current and former members of the Presidency of the 70. Hope this is reasonable. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the original name was more accurate, seeing as how this group has only been called "Presidency of the Seventy" since 1975 or 1976. Before that, it was "First Council of the Seventy", and before that, it was something else. Originally this was named "Seven presidents of the Seventy" as a neutral, purely descriptive term that could encompass all people through history despite the different names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not accurate...it's outdated. I've compromised and hope you will too. --Eustress (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? How is "Presidency of the Seventy" more accurate than a neutral descriptor term that has never been used to describe the group? The pre-1976 members were not members of the "Presidency of the Seventy", and the post-1976 members were not members of the First Council of the Seventy. I don't find favoring one of these above a neutral descriptor term a "compromise", I see it choosing inaccuracy and anachronism when none should exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "neutral descriptor term" is original research; i.e., you created it. This is a template, not an extant explanation of the topic. Users will be able to reference the article about the Seventy and learn about the history of the Presidency of the Seventy. "Presidency of the Seventy" is recognizable (even used by the editors above), while I think your term is confusing, rather than clarifying. --Eustress (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created it? Are you sure about that? Perhaps you'd like to research the history of this template before you accuse me of that. Perhaps also you'd care to actually research the term "Seven Presidents of the Seventy", and see if it's used in any external literature as a way of referring to people in this group both pre- and post-1976. (Hint: it is.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry about the false accusation. So, whatever name we use, it will be inaccurate, so why not use the current name? --Eustress (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the name "Seven presidents of the Seventy" is one that is widely used in historic studies to refer to the group of people, whether they be pre-1976 or post-1976. It's a term that has been developed by researchers to refer to both sets of people together, and thus also seems like the most logical term to use in a WP template including the same information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well would you mind describing who these researchers are and how they came to their conclusion? (P.S. I'm going to bed now, but I'll review your research tomorrow. Thanks.) --Eustress (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't like to write research dissertations on talk pages, but you can get a lot of research done yourself on the issue by just performing a basic google search. I couldn't tell you for sure with what "researcher" the term originated, though to some extent it probably came from the term "First Seven Presidents of the Seventy", which is a term Joseph Smith used to refer to the group prior to "First Council of the Seventy". Rather than being something that takes a whole lot of "development" or innovation by scholars, it just seems to me to be a commonsense, "everyday language" term to use, since (1) there are seven of them, and (2) they are presidents of the seventy: thus: the "seven presidents of the seventy". (I used the phrase "developed by researchers", which was perhaps a too neat and tidy description of what I was getting at, but I wanted to say it in less than what I'm writing here.) The earliest reference I can find without looking to hard is in the New York Times from 1900, when they referred to B. H. Roberts as "one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy": see here (pdf) (second line of news story). In any case, the LDS Church still uses the term "one of seven Presidents of the Seventy" in media releases to refer to someone in the presidency: see here. These templates and their names don't need to be "re-made"; in most cases, some thought has gone into them and the terminology to use, etc. The reason I know it's in wide use by researchers is it's commonly found in BYU Studies articles, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries, Dialogue articles, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how "it just seems to me to be a commonsense" is not POV. Anyway, I think most of your argument is irrelevant and am disappointed that you re-reverted the page when I was offline—not even allowing any time for other editors to chime in and not trying to reach consensus first. I've noticed your edits on several LDS-related articles in the past and have seen that things usually have to be done your way. I've tried to compromise and have been accommodating to your other requests, but you won't meet me in the middle. I hope we can collaborate more effectively in the future. Best --Eustress (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, taking "your side" is not a "compromise" or meeting "half-way", even though you'd like to identify it as such. You are the one who changed the wording intitially without consensus, so if anything it should revert to its original pending further input from other editors. Sorry if you aren't clear on how that works. By the way, you asked where I got the term that has been used, and you managed to pull out one statement I made about my personal opinion (and it was obviously made as such) and try to taint the entire term with POV as being "my" term, while ignoring the rest of the comment by simply saying it's "irrelevant". Nice technique, but it's not convincing and is no way to act when you ask for information and then get it. Anyway, since you failed to address the substance of my claim that this is the well-accepted term, I will assume that you are conceding the point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The nerve...I'm not conceding to your points, only to your hubris. I don't have time for edit wars over templates. --Eustress (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I can say for next time is if you don't want the information, don't ask for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Do you think your name change creates enough differentiation between Template:LDS70presCURRENT and Template:LDS70pres‎? My reason for getting involved on this template was to provide some type of distinguishing factor between current and historical (i.e., current and former) members of the Presidency, similar to the difference between Template:Qof12 and Template:LDSApostles. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "They have always been called presidents, and the quorum(s) have always been Seventy." Yes, and there's always been seven of them, which is the only difference between what I was saying and your proposal. Shorter is better, though, and to take out the one word is fine. It appears that Eustress will accept proposals from other editors, but not necessarily ones from those s/he has issues with. On reflection, this struck out portion of my comment was not appropriate, and I apologise to Eustress for making it and to anyone else that it bothered. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eustress - I suggest dropping the "Members of the" portion of the Template:LDS70presCURRENT title. That would make it consistent with the Template:Qof12 title (which doesn't say "Members of the..."), as both infoboxes are describing a body, i.e. the Quorum of the Twelve (a body) and the Presidency of the Seventy (a body). I think that one change would make Template:LDS70presCURRENT fully analogous to Template:Qof12, and Template:LDS70pres‎ analogous to Template:LDSApostles. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current members only 

message: I suggest dropping the "Members of the" portion of the Template:LDS70presCURRENT title. That would make it consistent with the Template:Qof12 title (which doesn't say "Members of the..."), as both infoboxes are describing a body, i.e. the Quorum of the Twelve (a body) and the Presidency of the Seventy (a body). I think this one change would make Template:LDS70presCURRENT fully analogous to Template:Qof12, and Template:LDS70pres‎ analogous to Template:LDSApostles. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion...nice work! --Eustress (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I suggest that  be merged into  just as  was merged into .  This is a very easy change and it brings 2 related templates into one place that can can be changed when the Presidency is changed, with no loss of information.  I did a mock up at User:ARTEST4ECHO/template, including examples and documentation  If you look in the "Examples" you can see how this can be done under the  example.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern with that is that where we only want the current presidency to be listed, it might be impossible to just list the current presidency instead of all of this information. If you can find a way around this difficulty, then by all means, merge them! --Jgstokes (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I do have one question though. In looking, for example, at Richard J. Maynes, there are two templates relating to the Presidency of the Seventy that he is not mentioned in: First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy and Senior or Presiding President of the Seventy. Is there a way to "turn off" or make invisible the templates that do not mention Maynes? It doesn't seem logical to have templates not associated with him in an article about him. I imagine this is a problem for the rest of the current Presidency of the Seventy members as well, except for with Ronald A. Rasband we would want the Senior or Presiding President Template to stay in there. And what about those in the other templates? Take for example Tad R. Callister. He shouldn't have all templates actively showing under his name, just the one for Presidency of the Seventy. And with Bruce R. McConkie, the only template we'd want to show is the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy / First Council of the Seventy. I know that would be a lot of work, but it shouldn't take all that long if it's doable. Is it something that can be done? Or are we forever doomed now to have all templates relating to the Presidency of the Seventy showing up on all pages of all who fall under any of the categories? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's all one template, as far as I know they all do appear, but the various sections can be defaulted to collapse. ARTEST4ECHO might know more about this, though, and there might be a way to make some invisible. The only way I would know of to avoid it would be to make all of the templates separate, but since they all involve what have essentially been the same positions, I think we've agreed to merge the templates and keep them together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion