Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 4

message: I didn't start the ward and stake articles, but I did major revisions on both of the articles.  In the ward article, I added information about branches.  In the stake article, I added information about districts.  Even while I was doing so, I was wondering if these should be renamed.  But since others have edited ward, I guess that there isn't a severe problem with what I did.  But what do the rest of you think about combining related subjects in the same article?  Val42 05:27, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Those articles read very nicely now.  I think it's good to discuss "Stakes" "branches" and the like in the "Ward" article, and vice-versa, so that readers can see how the different units relate to each other.  A good addition might be some more work on the names -- i.e., why individual congregations are called "wards".  --John Hamer 16:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Church Units

message: By the way, because John Whitmer Historical Association is on the to-do list, I finally decided to flesh it out.  Once somebody does that, what do we do?  Do we put it on a list of recently finished articles and/or just take it off the to-do list?  (I'm still new to the project procedures.) --John Hamer 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Peer Review section during my cleanup of the project page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#For_Peer_Review -Visorstuff 23:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Next question:  Should I put all the articles relating to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement that I expand and/or create on this peer-review list or just ones that were already on the to-do list? --John Hamer 02:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Ok, maybe I need to join this Wikiproject. I do alot of editing on SLC-related pages, and I've noticed on my watchlist, alot if LDS link changes and reverts and counter-reverts, and counter-counter reverts, between Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm about to go bonkers. Can someone please make up their minds! Thanks! --[jon] [talk] 19:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it changed as many as 4 times in some articles. sometimes with "the", other times without. I just wish people could decide. --[jon] [talk] 20:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think that's quite reasonable. I think we should let any links in that style be, and I'm adopting it as my personal style. At worst we would have to change them if the CoJCLDS article is ever moved. Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Thanks.  And to look on the bright side, changing them in the other direction only requires adding a "The" (or, deleting the link-dest in the majority of the cases, where the link-text is already "TCoJCoLDS"...) Alai 23:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: While you're at it, be careful not to water down the POV of those who are concerned about Authoritariasm and Mormonism.  We need to be sure to examine that somewhere in the project.  Tom Haws 21:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
So we have a series of decisions.  Firstly, how to characterise the topic
*Authority;  vs
*Authoritarianism;  vs
*Theocracy.
Then secondly, the scope:
*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (née the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as at present);  vs.
*Mormonism.
Any of these permutations worth putting up as a poll on the Project page proper?  Extra credit for suggesting a page move that we don't have to get voted down on the requests for moves page without reference to WikiPolicy...  Alai 16:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree Trödel|talk 02:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me too.  For the sakes of consistency, I'd prefer that as many articles as possible be put in the "Mormonism" 'namespace', rather than the "Latter-day Saint" one, unless the topic is strictly specific to the LdS church.  Even if there's little or no existing content or the CoC, etc, might as well still follow a consistent scheme.  Alai 17:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll excuse me following myself up, since there's no dissent so far I've proposed this as a move.  Alai 23:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.
Note: I am adding this notice here because I believe these two projects will overlap in some areas. --[jon] [talk] 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The'' Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

message: There are several articles with remaining "the", though:
*Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (existing redirect from "The")  (Done)
*Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (existing redirect from "The")  (Done)
*History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (existing redirect from "The")
*Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (no The page)  (Done)
*Category:Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (no The page)
*Category:Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (no The page)
Possibly some of these are also candidates for renaming/merger into (Mormonism) space.  If not, they probably should be renamed with the preferred/official capitalisation.  Alai 23:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, be careful not to water down the POV of those who are concerned about Authoritariasm and Mormonism.  We need to be sure to examine that somewhere in the project.  Tom Haws 21:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
So we have a series of decisions.  Firstly, how to characterise the topic
*Authority;  vs
*Authoritarianism;  vs
*Theocracy.
Then secondly, the scope:
*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (née the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as at present);  vs.
*Mormonism.
Any of these permutations worth putting up as a poll on the Project page proper?  Extra credit for suggesting a page move that we don't have to get voted down on the requests for moves page without reference to WikiPolicy...  Alai 16:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree Trödel|talk 02:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me too.  For the sakes of consistency, I'd prefer that as many articles as possible be put in the "Mormonism" 'namespace', rather than the "Latter-day Saint" one, unless the topic is strictly specific to the LdS church.  Even if there's little or no existing content or the CoC, etc, might as well still follow a consistent scheme.  Alai 17:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll excuse me following myself up, since there's no dissent so far I've proposed this as a move.  Alai 23:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.
Note: I am adding this notice here because I believe these two projects will overlap in some areas. --[jon] [talk] 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible pages moves

message: Here's another one:  Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- This article is mis-titled.  "Authority" is a Latter Day Saint doctrine, and this article is about perceived authoritarian excesses.  What we probably should have is an article called Theocracy (Mormonism) that includes the existing article, but also explains the evolving Latter Day Saint perspective.  --John Hamer 19:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, be careful not to water down the POV of those who are concerned about Authoritariasm and Mormonism.  We need to be sure to examine that somewhere in the project.  Tom Haws 21:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
So we have a series of decisions.  Firstly, how to characterise the topic
*Authority;  vs
*Authoritarianism;  vs
*Theocracy.
Then secondly, the scope:
*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (née the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as at present);  vs.
*Mormonism.
Any of these permutations worth putting up as a poll on the Project page proper?  Extra credit for suggesting a page move that we don't have to get voted down on the requests for moves page without reference to WikiPolicy...  Alai 16:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

message: I think Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be changed to Blacks and Mormonism or something like that.  The Bickertonites had a black apostle in the 1940s, if you can imagine!  That was progressive for the US in that era.  We could include a lot of that sort of thing. --John Hamer 02:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Trödel|talk 02:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me too.  For the sakes of consistency, I'd prefer that as many articles as possible be put in the "Mormonism" 'namespace', rather than the "Latter-day Saint" one, unless the topic is strictly specific to the LdS church.  Even if there's little or no existing content or the CoC, etc, might as well still follow a consistent scheme.  Alai 17:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll excuse me following myself up, since there's no dissent so far I've proposed this as a move.  Alai 23:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.
Note: I am adding this notice here because I believe these two projects will overlap in some areas. --[jon] [talk] 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

message: I noticed this post on creator god and thought it should be brought to the attention of the group:
seems to me the only things here that are unique to this page are the mormon and hindu models of creationism, and i think they would do better on the Creationism page. i'd like to propose a merge and redirect. thoughts? Ungtss 20:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal to merge [[Creator god]] into [[creationism]] 

message: I brought the project box in line with what has happened recently. I also am volunteering to keep this box up to date based on changes made to the Articles in Progress section of the Project page (or other changes I happen to notice :). That way there is a quick list of tasks to do at the top of the page - and you can include it on your own User page if you want to jump right in without reviewing the project page. If you want to include this on another page just copy and past the text below. Trödel|talk 03:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Box 

message: I just noticed that there is a #ARticles to do section on the talk page as well as on the main project page. I think these should be consolidated and placed on the main page (rather than this talk page). My only worry is that the project page may start to get too big to easily read and keep up with. Maybe we could keep current requests on the project page and as they are finished move them to an archive for future reference maybe something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Priesthood (Mormonism) so that if a major overhaul needs to be done we can quickly find all the relevant "project" comments related to it. However, I know that subpages are discouraged so I am looking for some comments. Trödel|talk 11:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The to do on the talk page was preliminary to archiving. It needs to be send to the archives. -Visorstuff 21:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't get interrupted by a power failure did you :) - sounds good - On the talk page would be great - I am volunteering to maintain the project box based on what people do here. Trödel|talk 22:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Just wondering if we should have any standard on moving articles off Peer Review - I would think that after about a month - if there  are no serious objections or ongoing discussions - it should be archived. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move off Peer Review 

message: I think we should move the polls to an archive location I propose - Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Polls and only reference results and the existence of a new poll on the main page. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

message: I am thinking of changing the intro to be something like - 
Welcome to the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject!
:Our purpose is ...
:You can help by jumping right in. ... [provide short description of stuff that needs work - link to lower down]
:List yourself as a contributor below to be contacted on new articles, etc. 
:If you see somthing that needs to be done...
Some standards:
:[a short comment on naming - link to below]
:[get peer review]
[continue with the format as now - minus the polls as described above]
Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Structure 

message: I have developed a short welcome template for Anons that edit LDS articles. If you revert an edit by an anon - particularly if it adds substance rather than "mormons are liars" type vandalism, we could use this to welcome to them. Those that revert can help by editing the anon's talk page and adding the following:  (assuming this idea is well received) which will add the following to their user page and hopefully we can have some of these people stay and help us contribute to making the LDS articles of the highest quality. 
	 	
:(note I made it so the Welcome heading won't show on this pages table of contents)
Please edit the above by going to User:Trödel/LDSAnon so the wording will be right. If this idea is well liked I will move the page to Template:LDSAnon or Template:LDSWelcome or something. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got several positive comments so I created the template at Template:LDSWelcome. Go there to edit - to use on a talk page - copy and paste:  
These are great ideas!  I love your welcome template!  I think I may even use it! Tom Haws 21:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Some of you have probably already noticed that a block of changes were made to Mormon related pages by some anonymous user.  I happened to notice that there were actually two blocks of changes by two different anonymous users (or the same one with a slightly different IP address.)  In a number of cases, several sets of changes were made, so if you didn't check the history, you might have only noticed the first change.  I noticed the two sets by looking at the history for First Vision.  The two anons that made the changes were: 24.8.85.104, and 24.9.82.101.  It might be a good idea to check some of the other pages as well to see if there were other changes made.  I fixed a few things, but don't have time to check out all of the changes.  I see that Tom already beat me to one of the First Vision changes. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 16:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proper care and feeding of anons