Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement

message: Since Template talk:Latter Day Saints already redirects here, I will open this discussion here.
At some point in the past two Latter Day Saint movement templates,  and , did very different things.  I have yet to figure out exactly what they did, but it appears to have been some kind of attempt to allow for multiple Latter Day Saint movement templates to be called out using only one template. (see TFD: Latter-day Saints)
However, at this point neither of these templates do what seemed to be intended purpose, nor do they follow WP:MOSLDS.  is a redirect to , but the coding of  only calls out for the use of .  So the net effect is  redirects to  which redirects to .  (NOTE: While  appears on the actual  template page, the coding dose not pass  on to any page using .  Therefore any page that calls out  only gets .)
After a little work, I fixed the few pages (10 or so) that used  and  in the past, can changed it to the appropriate template, i.e any combination of ,  and .
At this point, if you check "Pages that link to  "Template:Latter Day Saints" and "Pages that link to Template:LDS, you will see that that these two templates are now only used on Talk, Wikipedia and Sandbox type namespaces and these templates are no longer used on any articles.  This means can do anything we want to them
: I'm proposing the following:
:#Redirect - Template:Latter Day Saints to a to Template:Latter Day Saint movement - Per WP:MOSLDS, the capitalization of the "D" and lack of "-" actually means something, so it would better fit WP:MOSLDS to have it redirect to Template:Latter Day Saint movement in case of future use.
:#Keep - Template talk:Latter Day Saints as a redirect to Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement.  Since Template talk:Latter Day Saints is already a redirect to Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement, which is weird as it goes to a different place then where the template redirect to, it should stay the way it is now.
:#Redirect - Template:Lds (and talk page) to a redirect for Template:LDS (and talk page)  - By doing this we eliminate a case where a "name-space collision can occur" as these two templates are case sensitive.  Since "LDS" is the more appropriate capitalization, then Lds should be the redirect.
What dose everyone think?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support — well thought out reasoning; this is inline with the guidelines mentioned than current state. Thank you for taking the time to unravel the template mess. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems pretty uncontroversial.  I've done it. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Latter Day Saint movement templates 

message: As I've spent more time with this and other templates, the balloon-like size of it has increasingly dawned on me. There are nearly 160 links in the template as it presently stands. While essays are not binding policy, they can provide advice that is persuasive and useful; I think this essay about navigation boxes is both:  and . The current template is so over-exhaustive a reader can get lost in what is, effectly, a "sea of blue". As the essay asks,  Does a link to second anointing really serve a Wikipedia user reading about Joseph Smith III?
Additionally, the links overwhelmingly favor topics pertaining only to one denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (The "Doctrines and practices" section even links not to a page about the doctrines and practices of the Latter Day Saint movement, but of Latter-day Saints specifically!) It's understandable there's more Wikipedia pages about that denomination, because there's more secondary source coverage of it—but is it really useful for this template to have so much overlap with the existing template:Latter-day Saints?
I propose a more focused template that refrains from unnecessary overlap with other templates and concentrates on highlighting what will be of the highest utility for a cross-denominational template about the overall movement: comparative reading about various denominations and leaders. I have created a potential new version in a sandbox. What do editors think of this? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A navbox with 160 items is fine if it creates a comprehensible and understandable map of Wikipedia's collection on the subject. I don't know enough about the topic to know if the navbox flows well, and would guide a reader through the subject material in a way that gives them an accurate overview without gaps which can be filled by existing articles. As to your question, if the Second anointing is an LDS topic which is covered by Wikipedia then it belongs here somewhere, the key is "where" and if placement is accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the topic very well, from my editing on Wikipedia and from training in the history of American Christianities, and the existing navbox with 160 links is overwhelming and confusing. It's hard to find anything in it because there's so much and so disjointedly organized. Mormon fundamentalism and Mormonism and Nicene Christianity are juxtaposed as if both are foundational to the Latter Day Saint movement (when I'd argue both are quite niche), the Restoration Branches categorized under history when the article doesn't even have a history section, a bibliography of critical books about Mormonism being "Related" but not under "the Mormon image" (academic term for perceptions of Mormonism), so much of this being redundant with template:Latter-day Saints (and relatively distinct to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints as a singular denomination), etc. It'd be like having a navigation box about Europe but 80% of it links to England articles. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I think you have misinterpreted that essay... It isn't even a large template yet and we haven't gotten close to cramming things with limited relevance into it (it has maybe 1 in 100 LDS movement related articles on it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than look at the ratio of navigation box links to Latter Day Saint movement topic articles, I'd invite looking at the relevance of each link to the overall Latter Day Saint movement. If a user is learning about this religious movement, getting an introductory educational experience, how relevant is an article like Adam–God doctrine (extant only in some denominations of Mormon fundamentalism) or son of perdition (extant only in the Brighamite strain of the tradition)? If I'm reading the Joseph Smith III or Christian fellowships of "the Remnants" movement articles, links to other leaders, to other denominations, other texts considered sacred—those links make more sense than links to topics that are niche rather than introductory. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we making such assumptions about the user? Whatever they are they won't be monolithic. You seem to be suggesting what happens when an article is in multiple navboxes. That is actually encouraged until about ten navboxes or so. If you're on Book of Mormon for example you will get this Template:Religious books navbox. If you want a navbox with a number of relevant texts maybe make a navbox for new religious movement texts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In context,  refers to various texts of the Latter Day Saint movement, like the Book of the Law of the Lord (significant to Strangism) or the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (significant to Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ). This is very telling, however: the existing navigation box is so bloated and overstuffed that the various sacred texts linked didn't even register. This goes toward why I propose trimming this navigation box down to something more manageable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that telling? Mormonism is a niche new religious movement not a mainstream or deeply historical religious movement. Why would a generalized template for religious texts include their minor texts in addition to the Book of Mormon? Not being due one place doesn't say anything about whether or not its due somewhere else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you've summarized what I've said suggests there's a misunderstanding. This subthread about whether there are multiple navigation boxes on an article is, anyway, ancillary to whether this navigation box is overstuffed. I maintain it is too long and has too many links. It is difficult to navigate. Its bloatedness makes it less useful to a reader. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between being too long and having too many links? I don't find it difficult to navigate, what makes it difficult for you? I also don't think its bloated, its only medium sized, objectively it is not large, so that doesn't see to be an argument that stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I am not against moving Son of perdition (Mormonism) to the "Brighamite" navbox. Adam–God doctrine should stay because its part of the common history of the movement, even if its only extent in some groups now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming the template