Talk:List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 1

message: Gosh. What a splendid improvement since the first version. I have changed the first few lines, purely as a suggestion. I will not mind if you revert.
* Remove the [edit] link from each row - not very useful
* Re-instate the external links - why not - the objection is to articles which are nothing but external links. For precedent, I would quote the UK railway stations series which have two external links per row.
-- RHaworth 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finished removing the edit links from each row (section headings inside a table... ew...).  I've also removed the external links.  This is more for aesthetic reasons than policy ones--this table has 7 columns without the links and already takes up the width of the page pretty well.  If people want more information about each temple or want to visit its website, they can pretty easily go to the WP article.  The external link should definitely be there. -- Jonel | Speak 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Let's remove the "considered for deletion" notice. The vote ended and it was archived, with a keep result, and the article now addresses all original concerns. As far as precedence, and as far as I'm concerned this has been resolved. In addition, notices such as these inhibit readability. User:StoatBringer, any objections? -Visorstuff 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion vote notice

message: The way that footnote 5 reads, it is just the temple property that is being moved from Bluffdale to Herriman.  From what I know, it is a group of landowners, one of the properties is where the temple will be.  Would someone please find referenceable information about this and fix the wording. Val42 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bluffdale suit

message: I moved this back to 122 instead of listing it as 22 as on the lds.org website. My reasoning is that we don't have the other rebuilt temple, Nauvoo, #1 - but at #112 in the order it was dedicated after being rebuilt. Although lds.org lists Samoa as #22 - I don't think we have to match that numbering system and shouldn't if, editorially, we think a slightly different numbering makes sense. Trödel 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this logic - Trödel 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am flexible on this one - but the fact that pushed me to leaving it at 22 is the "landmark" temples which are referred to in LDS related literature and news and to have a different numbering system would be confusing. However, I can also see the similarity - and, at first, felt that was dispositive - a completely rebuilt temple which has burned to the ground is different than a remodel (which I did not find persuasive) - also - the spire of the St George temple burned and was rebuilt with different design - that too is distinguishable from a temple that is destroyed and needs to be completely rebuilt. Trödel 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: thx Trödel 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samoan Temple 

message: Where's this alleged policy on not linking redirects?  As I understand it, current thinking is that "fixing" redirects for its own sake is not worth the effort.  Alai 05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I don't really see any support for Gellerson's version. I came here from the Nauvoo Temple "what links here," and tried to add a non-interested, but informed, view but I can't tell if there is any real concensus on this. Abeo Paliurus 10:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: As I researched how many and which temples Pres. Hinckley had dedicated during his lifetime, I noticed that there is a lack of complete and up-to-date tables online.  It seem as though, the ones that have a column of who dedicated each temple, are not current.  The ones that are up-to-date, such as this list, do not have a "Who Dedicated" column.  Should this column be added to the list or would this make the table too crowded.  Is there a better solution.  I think the added info would be of value.  Perhaps the info in columns Temple and Location can be combined to keep the table width smaller. Leon7 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a great idea - I can format the table and leave a  where the name should go. Do you have the info already or is there a need to gather the info - I beleive ldstemples.com has it Trödel 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I found a complete and up-to-date list, including who dedicated each temple at , so I don't think I have an interest in changing this one any more.  It's up to you. But thanks anyway Trödel.  Leon7 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a 'Dedicated by Whom Column'? 

message: I have heard that a temple has been announced for somewhere in France. Has anyone else heard this? --Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: President Hinckley mentioned one in Paris a long time ago, but there were problems getting land. hopefully someday Paris will have one, but for now it is not on most lists--kind of like the 5th SL temple but older and w/o land aquired. jj 23:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France temple 

message: Would it be appropriate to add List of future temples(IE Far West, Paris, France, Independence) That will be built but are not yet announced.  The 5th SLC one could go there (a separate page) jj 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we build a list of future temple that have not been announced? How would we determine the accuracy that they will ever be built? --Kmsiever 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is an idea worth considering - as there have been comments made like the one GBH made about Paris having a temple some day (or other non-date committal comment). As long as we can verify it - i.e. find a news report about it or something then I think we could include those. any other thoughts. Navuoo could have been on the list before it was "announced" since GA's had said a temple would someday be built there. Some of these temples will probably be announced, ground-broken, built, and dedicated before some "announced" temples (like Harrison NY). Trödel 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's put a list of what we know below, and get sources.  If you disagree with the idea, just says so.jj 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned temples

message: with Honduras, this is the 135th temple on our list.  The church maintains 1 of the ones we have is not announced.  Anybody know which one? jj 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Vancouver is on their list, but they did announce it on their website. --Kmsiever 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Cebu isn't either, but the same thing.  Are we 100% sure Daybreak is announced, or is someone at HQ making a miscount (not unlikely or important)?  jj 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess this is a PR error; Pres. H. definetly announced it jj 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  135--134 

message: Note that ldschurchtemples.com is reporting a Tuesday, July 11, 2006 rededication date - but they don't provide any reference for that - so I didn't include it. --Trödel 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to know that "      The Los Angeles California Temple will reopen after extensive renovation on Tuesday, July 11, 2006." as it says on the site." jj 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Rededication 

message: I noticed that several of the later listings have no links.  I assume it is because these pages do not yet exist in the wiki.  I suggest adding the links (even if the pages don't exist) to encourage their creation. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Links 

message: I don't like the phrase "Modern, single spire" as it is used on a ton of temples, but I will tell you, the Los Angeles temple does not look anything like the Provo temple, and yet they have the same description.  I recommend using a better phrase for each temple design to distinguish unique temples, and to clump together standard temple design.  So "Single forward spire" and "single central spire" make more sense.  Even having a little picture of the design would be nice. - Bytebear 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of temple 

message: I wanted to see how the page looked with a photo of each temple, so I grabbed the first few to see how it looks.  I won't be heartbroken if you think it is too much, but I prefer to see what the temple looks like as well as the textual description.  Also it solves my dilemma above with the description text.  If you like the idea, feel free to add more photos.  I wish we could get some images of inside the temple.  I know the church holds all copyrights to interior shots, but it would be great to have them on the wiki. - Bytebear 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the images being on the temple pages. --Kmsiever 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the pics - but don't really care either way - but I use my monitor at 1280x1024 - which shows alot of stuff at once. I do think if we include pics we should have a maximum width and/or height of 100px. --Trödel 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I think that the pictures make it look great!    I think that the addition of the pictures make this the best temple list available on the web.  When I first made this list, I looked at all of the temple lists on the web and added all of the architectural style descriptions to "add value" so that the list wouldn't be deleted.  It was extremely frustrating and time-consuming because architectural descriptions were only available for a portion of the temples on the list, and the rest I had to extrapolate by going back and forth and comparing pictures of temples to determine which style they "fit" the closest.  With all of the pictures in one place it will be easy to further clarify the architectural style.  --Bhludzin 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the thumbnail images on this page.  Why don't all of the temples have a picture?  Is it because you got the images from the page of the temple referenced?  I'll have to put up one of my photos of the Ogden Temple. Val42 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it up!  I linked to all of the temple images that I could currently find on Wikipedia.  We need people to upload some non-copyright violating images. --Bhludzin 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Images 

message: I wonder if we can add some notes or footnotes on the location column.  I would like info on things like, "First temple in South Pacific", or "First temple in a communist country" or "Second temple in Canada" to give the reader a better historical understanding of the chronology. Your thoughts?  68.4.192.239 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea. In my opinion, this page is quickly becoming convoluted and much of the information could be presented on the individual temple pages. --Kmsiever 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kmsiever. Sue Anne 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too jj 05:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: --Wikipedia:What is a featured list?
Please remember that not all information on this site is correct and that you should not judge the church by an non-official website
=== Suggestions from frequent participants in FL discussions ===
Some time back I requested feedback from frequent participants in the featured list discussion on what we could do to get this list up to featured status. I have summarized the responses that still need attention below:
==== Completed ==== 
Suggestion                                                                                                                                                                                                     	Action taken
Links need to formated in reference style and external link style.                                                                                                                                             	links now use citation templates
Is this list really comphrehensive? I.e. all temples are included? There seems to be a huge boom in 1999-2000.                                                                                                 	Yes
I think you need to link all temples. That will produce a ton of red links and one of FL criteria is no or very little red links, but that's the price for consistency.                                        	Done, with at least a stub article, but usually more thx to Amaranth22 and othersI added links to announced temples just now
Some better way to format location is needed. Because now it's inconsistent: some locations give city and state/district, others city and country.                                                             	Done - all are city, state if availabe, country
Some pictures/maps would be nice.                                                                                                                                                                              	Started adding pictures
The external links found throughout the table should be converted to footnotes as well                                                                                                                         	done
Create a suitable lead section from Temple (Mormonism) (suggestions: temple is a...; total of x, y under construction,...; First was built ...; As of August there are ...; explain what is an official temple;	Complete
Additional sources under References section                                                                                                                                                                    	added 2 additional sources - may still need others
Need to create stub articles for temples with red links                                                                                                                                                        	stub articles created for all articles except those under construction or announced
Need to explain/link style information because, say, "spire" means nothing to me. (Perhaps we could create an article explaining the different styles).                                                        	Updated style to be more descriptive - could still create style article.
=== Discussion ===
I think we are almost there - mostly without discussion - just the efforts of everyone to improve the list. I archived the prior discussions so we could focus on getting the list to featured status - any help - or additional suggestions, etc would be appreciated. --Trödel 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just got spanked on my talk page for thinking that Temples were churches. (I had done some categorization of some uncategorized pages). I think the entry should clearly spell out that they are not churches but rather "places of worship" since the casual reader might make the same assumption. --Chrispounds 04:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Location 

message: I think we are almost there - mostly without discussion - just the efforts of everyone to improve the list. I archived the prior discussions so we could focus on getting the list to featured status - any help - or additional suggestions, etc would be appreciated. --Trödel 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got spanked on my talk page for thinking that Temples were churches. (I had done some categorization of some uncategorized pages). I think the entry should clearly spell out that they are not churches but rather "places of worship" since the casual reader might make the same assumption. --Chrispounds 04:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I removed this link from the articles it was added to by Kevandcan as it is the only edit they made on all the articles. However the link could be useful if the pictures can be properly licensed. http://www.lds-images.com/search.asp?keyword=temple 
:Nevermind - the site doesn't have good license information - and the donated files have no indication from the author what kind of license is being gratned. The site claims the pictures can only be used for non-commercial use - so they can't be uploaded to wikipedia. --Trödel 03:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link with pictures 

message: If there are no objections, I'd like to put who it was dedicated by below the dedication date.  I think this is important. jj 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just put a note that the vast majority of temples were dedicated or rededicated by President Hinckley and leave it at that. There's no point having his name repeated 100 times on the page. --Kmsiever 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be ok either way - with the addition of the pictures it won't make the page any longer to include it :) --Trödel 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's go with the middle for now, add a lead, and mention the growth by President H.?  Trodel, you've done a lot, you want to do it? jj 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx for the offer, I think, anway - please copyedit and review - I am not sure it is concise enough - maybe bullet points would make a better presentation of certain information - but it is a first draft :) --Trödel 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I must recognize User:Bhludzin, who started the list, has done more work than me - especially the hard work of getting all the data together and putting it in the table --Trödel 18:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good... jj 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedicated by... 

message: The endowment house performed temple ordiances but was not a temple.  We have to add the red brick store if we add the endowment house as well as other places ordiances were performed.   Endowment House only refers to it as a "Temporary temple"  I have never seen it on other lists of temples.  This does not list every place these sacred ordiances have been performes.  If this is a temple, find a source, as there are no sources calling it a temple on this or its own site. jj 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will leave as is for now, suggest citing or removal from the history and the list.  Will remove sometime on the 23rd if there is no response jj 03:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed  it - I wasn't sure if it should be included or not - the mention in the history could be confusing to non-Mormons - so I am going to think about how to edit it. My intention was always to remove it immediately and discuss if anyone objected to its inclusion --Trödel 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment house 

message: Per one of the featured list suggestions - I have done some formatting based on year and status. If you object to the removal of the status column and using status to organize the sequential nature of the list - please indate here. 
Note
I will be putting any closing information for remodeling or rebuilding in the "Notes" column - so we will still capture that information. --Trödel 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per request from Bhludzin I have split the style/notes and made some other formating changes - it now seems to work on a 800px wide screen - and shows good on 1024 and higher resolutions. --Trödel 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list nomination suggestions 

message: Footnotes need to be added to define the styles of the temples, possibly with references, size, footprint, etc.   I also think "Modern, single spire" is not descriptive enough.  Both the Los Angeles temple and the Provo temple are defined as such, and they are nothing alike. Bytebear 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - at one point somone suggested having an article Temple architecture, but that hasn't been created yet. The book first 100 temples should be a good reference for that, there are probably some articles in trade mags that would be even better. --Trödel 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple Styles 

message: I have been playing around with stuff - and have used a template  to store all the information about each temple - this way we can have whatever format we want - for example see: a reproduction of the entire list using a template to handle all the ugly table formatting.
I think this would be much easier for people to maintain - and you can change to other formats without having to make changes to the data - see the [Sandbox link no longer contains example] to see how the same data can be transformed using different templates. --Trödel 02:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  And much easier to maintain.  I think the headers (displaying the dates) should be outside of the table, but thats my only real complaint. Bytebear 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: seems to me it would look a lot better if we put a small extra space in between the date and who--a size 4-7 return jj 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More experimentation 

message: Can someone add a new version of the graph in the statistics section with a capitalized The for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? --Lethargy 03:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will get right on it.  Also, is there any other data we want to see?  I am not an artist or cartographer, but I would like to see a map of the world with dots where temples are.  I know there is a world map template in wikisource, but unfortunately there isnt one of the US with separate states. Bytebear 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done Bytebear 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics graph 

message: I have proposed a new WikiProject which would aim to maintain and improve all of the temple articles listed here. If there is any interest, you can leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Temples WikiProject. --Lethargy 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject proposed 

message: I care more that we reach some kind of concensus more than I favor one approach over the other — I can see advantages to both. Some comments:
# Having another list seems excessive since there are already 2 lists on temples. 
# The addition of images makes the list less useful, IMHO for comparison purposes because there are fewer entries on the screen at the same time. 
# I really like the images and want to see us get one on each temple.
# Could the geographic list be used for comparison purposes - leave without images and in columns?
I requested comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement but none were made about the different proposals. I guess is that most see this as "tomāto" - "tomăto" type of thing. 
This is the only issue holding up Featured Status for this list - since there should not be an on-going controversy to be featured. I'd like to see the list featured soon :) --Trödel 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the images are all right because they contribute a lot of information to the list (a picture is worth a thousand words) - they do make it so that you can see fewer items per page, but you can still compare information because it's in a tabular format.  Right now it's impossible to compare information - instead of 136 rows, it's 136 paragraphs.  On a separate note, I don't think that it's bad having an additional list, as long as it has a clear purpose.  I think that you are not critically examining what you are doing - you are taking an iterative/organic approach to changing the list with a different set of priorities.  Ask yourself - what are those priorities?  To make it a featured article, to make a visually appealing and attractive display of the temples, to give the article a classy feel?  It seems to me that if you acknowledge those priorities and embrace them, then you can make a separate article and increase the rate at which you innovate towards that goal.  This is more of a functional table of data - make another article that is more of a work of art.  You may find that you want different data listed in the table as well that match those priorities.  You might want to include construction materials / facade, the size of the temple district (square miles), the population served, the temple's height, etc. Bhludzin 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thx for the comments - my personal priority is to get this to be a featured list (which implies a classy feeling, visually attractive, and useful list with pictures preferred) - and it doesn't matter whether it is columns or the verticle format to reach featured status - so my only concern is that the dispute is resolved - whether through the creation of an additional list, reaching concensus here, etc - because a featured list can't have an ongoing dispute at the time of promotion. --Trödel 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add one note to the cons of columns.  If we use columns we have to pre-define what the attributes will be: Size, style, dedication date, etc.  but with the bullet list, we can add additional information easiliy like "# of sealing rooms", without using the notes section.  Additionally some temples have information that is unique like "Rebuilt date".  I can see the column format becoming more difficult to manage with these additions.  However, I do see the advantage to columns, but I am clearly biased which is why I am hoping to get more voices in the discussion. Can we use arbitration to come to a decision, since voting seems irrelevant with such few voters.  It's ironic that we are debating the look and not the content of an article.  Bytebear 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your comment on the "additional data" advantage of the vertical format is an excellent observation.  The column format gives you quick, concise, visually comparative access to a limited data set, whereas if you had another article in vertical format, you couldn't compare information as easily, but much more data could be displayed at once with each temple picture.  In that article, I also think that you could include more creative and interesting information as well - like a highlight or interesting fact about the temple (in a box to the right of the other data - something like: "Just off Interstate 5, this temple is a major landmark when traveling the highway toward or away from San Diego" or "Roughly 25,000 people worked on the Logan Temple." Bhludzin 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it.  It's a good compromise.  I agree there are advantages of both and since we can "have our cake and eat it too", we should take advantage of it.  I don't see anything wrong with having several articles complimenting each other.  And with the template thanks to Trodel they should be easy to alter. I also think since the goal is to make this a featured list, the vertical format lends itself better for astetics.Bytebear 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should info be in columns 

message: :"In 1998 when there were only 51 temples, Hinckley set a goal to have 100 temples before 2001."
The first mention of this goal I could find was in the 1997 October General Conference: 
:"We now have 50 operating temples. We need twice that number, and as I explained last evening, we have in place a program to reach that goal to accommodate the needs of the people."
The source was: Gordon B. Hinckley: Look to the Future. 167th Semiannual General Conference, October 1997.
The "program" he was talking about is here.
The LDS News mentions that the goal was made at the end of the 1998 conference, and also names a specific date for the goal to be completed ("...by the end of this year."), so obviously the goal must have been made official during the 1998 conference, but was originally mentioned in '97. Perhaps we could rephrase it with something like "this goal was first mentioned in the 1997 General Conference..."? I'll need to look through the 1998 conference report online to find the goal.
:"The effort succeeded with 102 before 2001."
The aforementioned LDS News article states that this goal was accomplished in 2000 with the Boston Temple, but both statements might be correct. The difference is that this one is unsourced, so I don't know if 102 were completed before 2001. :) --Lethargy 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here is the announcement of the goal: Gordon B. Hinckley: New Temples to Provide "Crowning Blessings" of the Gospel. 168th Annual General Conference, April 1998. --Lethargy 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another request: Is there a source we can use that states that the temples have more than doubled since Hinckley became President of the Church? I'm aware that this is simple math, but I'd like a source so I can add it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' article, which has a citation needed tag. This might be easy to find, but my poor search skills haven't found a source yet. --Lethargy 04:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would simple math be considered "original research"? Val42 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Val42 here - simple math that does not require one to evaluate the substance of the thing counted is not OR. Original research is more like: "Nine of ten Jones lawsuits were found to not have merit," when given a list of dismissals - however, this would be OR because in order to determine that they were dismissed for cause, or "to not have merit" would be a legal conclusion made from reading - not a simple counting of the dismissals. "Nine of ten Jones lawsuits were dismissed by the courts for various reasons" would not be OR but simple counting. Just to give one example --Trödel 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider it OR either, I just like to make it as easy as possible to verify the information, and a link to a web page would be the best way to do that. In any event, Masamage added a footnote with "Gordon B. Hinckley became President of the Church in March 1995, when there were 46 temples. As of 2006 October 22, there are 124 in operation. See List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)", which is fine. --Lethargy 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I misunderstood - I like the compromise. --Trödel 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinckley's temple goal 

message: I have created an infobox template for the temple pages.  It probably has too much information, like cafeteria and clothing rental availability and possibly address and phone number.  But I do think it is important to have visitor center info in the infobox as well as any other info we find that is useful (all fields are optional).  You can see an example of it at San Diego California Temple.  Anyone want to help tackle rest of the temple pages? Bytebear 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox LDS Temple 

message: I setup a page to outline the standards for the data going into the temple here: 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
It will effect this page in the following way:
* The data on this page will no longer be needed but will be a subpage of the talk page of each temple.
* The LDSTemple template will need to be edited to reflect the new format. 
Please comment on the standardization WikiProject talk page, and please edit the proposed standars where appropriate. --Trödel 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards for Temple Data 

message: I think the additional style information could go directly into the Style field rather than in a footnote. It is not too long and thre is room with the verticle list style. --Trödel 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  I am still working on the categorization of all the temples om the architecture page.  I don't have a whole lot of references, other than visual image, size and number of rooms.  I think it's pretty well defined, though.  The problem is that the temple sites describe nearly every temple as "modern single-spire" which is just not useful.  Bytebear 04:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional style info 

message: Might I suggest that you include a footnote with a reference to the naming convention? I understand that the LDS church hierarchy decreed that temples should be referred to by geographic name without commas (such as "Villahermosa Mexico Temple"), but to someone who isn't aware of this the names probably look a bit odd. A citation might help those of us who are not Mormon but who are interested in reading about such things to understand why it is done the way it is. 1995hoo 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A most excellent idea, but I can't find a source.  let those who can(including 1995hoo), add it. jj 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't even begin to know where to look, hence why I suggested it here! 1995hoo 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  let's see if anyone can find it jj 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion from a non-Mormon

message: I noticed that on the map of all the temples, there is no dot for the Berlin Temple.  I do not know how to add pictures to Wikipedia, so I am saying this so someone else can do it.
:There is no temple in Berlin, just Frieberg & Frankfurt.  Not certain if those have dots or not. jj 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Berlin?

message: I would do these myself, but I don't have the sources handy: the Cardston (Alberta) Temple had an addition built on and was redidicated in the early 90's. If someone finds the source before me, please add! Mr Minchin  16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardston Addition 

message: Can anyone verify that efforts really are suspended on the White Plains temple? If so, a note about what happened should probably appear in the article, otherwise perhaps it deserves its own section ("Status Unknown"). Trödel noted in the Announced Temple section above that it's no longer listed on the official list, but does that really mean that efforts have been abandoned? I've searched for any statement indicating such, but wasn't able to find anything. The best information I found was in a 2004 Deseret News article (whose main topic was the spire of the Manhattan Temple) that indicated that efforts were reportedly still underway, although slowed by lawsuits and zoning issues. For now I'm adding a note regarding the status in 2004 and the fact that it's no longer listed on the church's website.
Also, wasn't White Plains the official name of the temple? In my searching, I didn't see any reliable source that called it the Harrison Temple, but only mentioned Harrison as the city where it was located, but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm changing it to White Plains in the article. If someone can verify Harrison as a "more" official name for the temple itself, they can change it back. Xsadar 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in attendance when when Pres Hinckley announced the Manhattan temple and indicated that the temple to be located in Harrison (he didn't use the name White Plains) was still moving forward but probably wouldn't be needed as quickly. Therefore I was surprised when it just disappeared off the church's official list. I think "Suspended" is the best word to describe that we just don't know if it has been abandoned permanently, postponed or what. --Trödel 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point was that I don't know if they're really not working on it right now or if they are (behind the scenes) but chose to remove it from the list because things are going so slow or for some other reason. If it's the latter case than it's not really suspended, but it's probably not a big deal anyway. I was just hoping that maybe someone actually knew what's going on with it right now and what the Church's plans are. Xsadar 07:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the White Plains (Harrison) Temple 

message: Because the bug that makes it so that templates which include the  and  tags not work correctly is still not fixed - I have implemented a work around. The  and  tags must be on the calling page for the footnotes to properly link to the section where the  code is inserted. Therefore; on temples which have footnotes please add after the  | format = Talk:Temple name/data the following: "|reference=your citation (citation templates are ok here). Additionally add the line
   | reference           =  
 as the last line on the Talk:Temple name/data page so that the reference information will be passed on from the data page to the formatting template. (This line should be added to all data pages - help me if you have time :). 
You may have noticed that the references that were included on the data pages were numbered after the Announced (so instead of starting at like 7 they started at 39) and that when you clicked on them the link didn't work and the information in the reference footnote was not included at the bottom of the page. This work around will ensure that the footnotes are included and the links work.
I know this kind of defeats the purpose of having the data template - since we now have data in two places; however this is the only page that the format template uses the footnote information, and since the bug means that this page is not properly referenced, I thought a work around would be appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions. --Trödel 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "reference" 

message: I have implemented a proposed new heading structure as a result of feedback from the List of the Day nomination proposal that is being put forward. Please let me know what you think of the new structure - or propose a different structure --Trödel 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me.  I don't think it's that important, but I would have left the fourth-level headings as regular text rather than headings, and maybe added some explicatory notes.  I think it clutters the TOC a bit. – jaksmata 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading structure (TOC) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion