Talk:President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

message: COGDEN, I am curious to know the reason of the name change of this page. LDS Apostles have asked the the word Apostle be dropped (avoid its often use, and there are other Apostles ordained from time to time that are not assigned membership in the quorum). However, I'd like your reasoning before giving mine on why it should be changed back. Especially from a historical point of view and locating scheme. It may be more correct, but does it make it harder to find? Would a common misperception correction in the first paragraph suffice? -Visorstuff 23:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right. My reasoning was that Quorum of the Twelve was more correct historically, and I wasn't sure that other denominations had adopted the same terminology. But the addition of "Apostles" seems to be in pretty common use, even in the Community of Christ, where the Quorum is called the Council of Twelve, but informally it is called the Council of Twelve Apostles. I'm okay with changing it back. COGDEN 07:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An image used in this article, File:Boyd K. Packer.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Boyd K. Packer.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hinckley 2007 10.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi Jgstokes. I'm wondering why my recent revisions were undone. Most were grammatical changes to improve the flow of the page, so hopefully those weren't an issue. The more lengthy changes are:
* Rudger Clawson: in its again-current form, it states that his tenure as Quorum President is the longest in history, which is demonstrably incorrect. The very list containing the statement shows that Orson Hyde had a longer tenure, hence my clarification that Clawson's would have been the longest under current practice.
* Joseph Fielding Smith: in its again-current form, it states that “He was a member of the First Presidency until 8 January 1970, but remained a member of the Quorum during this time." This ambiguous statement is extremely confusing, since there is also a Quorum of the First Presidency. I realize that only the President and his first two Counselors constitute the Quorum of the First Presidency, but that information is somewhat esoteric and is definitely not common knowledge—not among Latter-day Saints, and certainly not among non–Latter-day Saints. So, of which quorum did Smith remain a member?I was also very confused by the fact that no Acting President is listed during Smith's tenure. Who served in that capacity while Smith served in the First Presidency? It took me probably 5-10 minutes of additional research to figure out that no one did. A single phrase of my edit clarifies this and, I believe, thus enhances the article.
Bottom line: I'm not sure why these edits were reverted. They are brief, are supported by the existing citations, and clarify the existing text without distorting its meaning. Could you please explain your thinking? Thanks! -TheOtter (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , as I stated in my edit summary, the biggest issue I had was that the edits, while factually and grammatically correct in substance and phrasing, the notes as written in the article were too cumbersome. What I mean by that is that the entries for Hinckley, Monson, and Oaks state concise information about why an Acting President was needed during their terms of service. Those shorter explanations are great for the table. So my suggestion is that the longer explanations should be scaled down to a similar length in the table, and that any additional details (which are contextually important), if they are included, should be featured in a footnote. Also, some of the relevant details in the the text you added are essentially duplications of information available elsewhere on Wikipedia (such as this one, this one, and this one. There are even subsections in each of those 3 articles that could be linked to in the article body here that could also help to scale down the amount of space needed for the notes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the note content or substance. My only concern is that including all relevant information about certain factors in the table may make the table itself less useful to readers here. Hope that explains my objections. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 August 2022 Revisions