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

Why is this up for deletion? Bhludzin 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It was up for deletion primarily on the grounds of being a collection of external links. Other points raised were copyright issues and a preference for category usage rather than a list. These arguments were responded to with the following:

• The chronological ordering and other information added to the table are unavailable in a category.
• A logical ordering of items is not copyrightable; creativity is required for copyright.
• The external links were removed and replaced with wikilinks where articles existed.

See the deletion page linked to above for more information. -- Jonel | Speak 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

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)

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)

Deletion vote notice

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)

• very sorry. My mistake. You should have removed it for me. -- RHaworth 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Location

I know this is a minor issue, but are we striving for exact political location in the Location column, or a descriptive location that people familiar with that area would use to describe the location. I support descriptive rather than politically exact locations. Trödel•talk 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, who defines what is "descriptive"? The names of the temples themselves are "descriptive" - look at Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple: that's describing something. However, as much as "Winter Quarters" describes a location or place in the minds of Latter-Day Saints, there is no city or town called Winter Quarters. In other words, there is no "political" location of Winter Quarters. And so, in a column of locations that is trying to bring consistency where there currently is a lack thereof, the location is indicated as "Omaha, Nebraska" - the "politically exact" location. Even when Dartmouth was still a city in Nova Scotia, I'm sure people familiar with the area referred to the temple's location as "in Halifax". Now that Dartmouth and Halifax have merged to form a consolidated city bearing the name of the latter, the temple's location can not only be casually attributed to Halifax, but also technically as well. Is it more "descriptive" to indicate the location as "Dartmouth"? Yes, in the sense that that refers to a smaller area. But it is inconsistent. I support a consistent approach that lists "apples with apples" - cities and towns, not their subentities - in the location column. This is why I have indicated "New York City" as the location of the Manhattan New York Temple. Yes, it might be more descriptive to list the temple's location as "Manhattan, New York", but Manhattan is a borough of New York City. Yes, some people in the area might say the temple is "in Manhattan". But "Manhattan" does not belong in a list of cities or towns - it would be an orange in a list of apples.

Denvoran 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What about including the latitude and longitude of the temple? Val42 20:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is too much. This came to my attention because of the Dartmouth issue. I served my mission there. In common conversation people referred to the area as Dartmouth. In fact I have been back to Halifax 3 times since the creation of the regional political authority; however, until this page brought it up I didn't realize they had been joined because members and non-members alike still referred to areas by their former town name: Dartmouth, Halifax, Beford, etc. And those that gave me directions when I went to the temple dedication there said, "It's next to the Dartmouth Stake Center ..." That is why I am asking - the temple name has to do with the general area, or a historical name with significance to Latter-day Saints, but I think location should refer to the location as accurately as possible thus Manhattan, New York should be the location for the New York temple. I don't think we have a list of cities, but a list of locations and should use the best term to describe that location. Of course if you take what people call things to far, the New York temple would probably be referred to as, "the temple is in The City," since very few people say Manhattan in colloquial conversation.

Summarizing We shouldn't have a general rule saying you must name it according to the political boundary, but have something a little more flexible and useful like - descriptive location, that people from that town/city would call the area. Trödel•talk 04:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What people say in casual conversation and what belongs in an encyclopedic article are often two different things. An encyclopedia should be more formal and systematic. People might say they are from "America", but an article on the country they are referring to should appear as "United States of America"; people might say they are going to "L.A.", but the corresponding article should be titled "Los Angeles, California".

Of course people continue to make the same references as they used to, even though Halifax and Dartmouth are now a single city. Old habits die hard. Over one hundred years after Brooklyn became part of New York City, people still refer to Brooklyn as if it were independent. But such colloquialisms don't change the fact that Brooklyn is part of New York City, and an encyclopedia should reflect this fact in the way it presents its information.

Again, who decides what is "an accurate as possible" reference, if a consistent standard isn't used? Who decides what is "best"? Should the Salt Lake Temple's location be given as "Downtown Salt Lake City, Utah"? As for the Manhattan New York Temple, "Manhattan" isn't as "accurate" as indicating the neighborhood where the temple is. Should its location be given as "Upper West Side, New York"?

Again, the whole point of the "location" column is to provide a consistent reference to locations, since the temple names do not offer this. This is befitting an encyclopedia, which should be more about facts than colloquialisms. The temple names themselves exhibit a "flexible", "useful", and "descriptive" approach that the LDS Church has used to name temples after how people "call the [various] area[s]". If the location column is also going to do this, then we don't need it in the first place, because the temple names themselves already give us a location.

In individual temple articles, the text can go on and on explaining in all manner of particular details where the temple is located, adding in local parlance and colloquialisms. In a listing like this, a concise, consistent location description is called for.

Denvoran 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree, there doesn't seem to be any support for the alternative I proposed - so lets leave it as it is. Trödel•talk 20:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a final comment to make this relative. The Halifax Regional Municipality is about 85 miles by 30 miles, and encompasses a number of communitites. If a similar municipality was created in Utah it would extend from the mountains on the east to the Great Salt Lake (or west mountain in Utah Valley)(less than 30 miles) and from Ogden to Springville (about 85 miles) and would easily encompass all of Utah Lake - so all 9 (current and proposed) wasatch front temples would be in the same municipality. So what is being proposed is that we link to an artificial political organization that is more analagous to a county than a city and that has no actual basis in geographical reality for the region. Trödel•talk 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of cities encompass a number of communities - Salt Lake City, itself relatively small, contains distinct areas such as The Avenues, Rose Park, and Sugar House. And then of course there is New York City, which literally has hundreds of distinct communities. If Halifax Regional Municipality is artificial, then so is the largest city in the U.S., one of the most recognized and iconic cities in the world - some would even call it the world's "capital". Yet it is "artificial"? But then again, any city is "artificial" - a creation of man - in contrast to places like lakes, mountains and other geographical features.

A comparison of Halifax and some sort of consolidated city-county along the Wasatch Front is problematic. First of all, the area Troedel describes has a population at least four times that of Halifax; the larger the population of a proposed city merger, the more difficult it would be politically to have so many people agree to the consolidated government. Second, the Wasatch Front is becoming a nearly continuous strip of development from one end of the other of the area Troedel describes, whereas Halifax has an urbanized center surrounded by a lot of undeveloped area.

There are many cities like Halifax that are analogous to counties - Anchorage, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Louisville, Nashville and New York City. Other cities simply cover a huge area, like Houston or Phoenix. If any one of these were overlaid on the Salt Lake Valley, at least 5 or 6 of the temples would be within the city's limits. Would it then be wrong, say, to have five temples with "Houston, Texas" as their location? And if the municipalities of Salt Lake County merged with the county into a consolidated city-county government and took the name "Salt Lake City" (very unlikely as the local politics are so balkanized), would it be wrong to list "Salt Lake City" as the location for the five temples within it?

Denvoran 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually lived in Halifax - I have. Jacksonville is a county/city like the new Halifax; however, those that live in Jacksonville clearly describe thier locations as being other than Jacksonville unless they are in the central city region. The same is true of New York. No one in the bronx says they live in New York City. I have no experience with the others; so I can't speak for them. I just don't understand why you are insisting on this link when it defies, from my point of view, common usage and is contrary to a useful description of the area where the temple is located. Trödel•talk 04:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see actual surveys or polls that support Troedel's claims - but I don't know if they exist. I'm willing to bet there are people living on the "edge" of Jacksonville that do indeed say that they live "in Jacksonville" - and residents of The Bronx that say they live "in New York". But this is beside the point. As I suggested before, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should present factual information in a consistent fashion first, then elaborate with casual, colloquial or common explanations. If we list "Dartmouth" as the location, then why not "Upper West Side" for the temple in NYC? Who decides what is the most "useful description"? This is the problem if a consistent pattern is not used. Anyway, if "Dartmouth" is such a strong descriptor, why didn't the LDS Church name it the "Dartmouth Nova Scotia Temple" in the first place?

Denvoran 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really cares about this but you and me ;) - Anway - Here are my thoughts. The purpose of including a location column is to more closely pinpoint the exact location (versus the name the Church gives it which, usually, identifies a large city near the temple, or other name historically important within the Church). I think the idea to use the city as the location is generally a good one because, in most cases, cities are small in geographic area and are the smallest generally recognizable division of land. Unfortunately, IMO, in some case, cities have gotten too big and encompass areas that have generally been thought of (in the US) as counties. In those cases the city is no longer a good indicator of location because it is not specific enough. And for NYC, for example, there are even generally recognizable political subdivisions smaller than a city. In those cases, and in the case of countries for which there are not recognizable city boundaries, it seems reasonable to me to use the "borough" for NYC or a neighborhood or historical designation of an area. Having this flexibility would also assist in identifying the location for foriegn countries where the temple may not be located within a municipality. Trödel•talk 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Renewed (maybe) discussion

Denvoran and I seem to be at an impasse - is there anyone else who cares enough to make a comment about this issue - using municipalities vs using the smallest available geographical description? If not - I'll concede for now to leave it be to avoid an edit war over what I consider a trivial issue - but that does not mean we have found concensus on this issue. Trödel 07:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the listing is good as it stands; i.e., we've got the name of the Temple in the first column, and the city where it's actually located in the second column, whether that information is different or not from the first column. That is, the first column lists Logan Utah, Washington D.C., Chicago Illinois, Mt. Timpanogas Utah, Winter Quarters Nebraska and Columbia River Washington, while the second column lists Logan, Utah; Kensington, Maryland; Glenview, Illinois; American Fork, Utah; Omaha, Nebraska; and Richland, Washington. To get any more descriptive than that and still justify the inclusion of a 3rd column, we would need the Temple's address or GPS coordinates, and I really don't think that's necessary.

Ryan Reeder 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is the Halifax temple which is in Dartmouth - but is linked to the Halifax regional authority. This "city" is over 2000 square miles - i.e. it is aproximately 25 miles wide and 80 miles long. See this map. I contend that we use the municipality rather than county or state to identify location because it is, in general, the smallest political entity that is available to identify a location. However, with these mega cities (seriously NYC including all 5 boroughs is less than 500 sq miles), using the municipality no longer makes any kind of common sense. I think we should use the flexible title "Location" and use the most appropriate location available (which in most cases will be the municipality). Trödel 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The list links to Anchorage, Alaska - a "city" of 1,697 square miles - and Trödel seems to have no problem with that. I agree with Trödel that we should use the municipality - Halifax - to identify the temple's location (or disagree that using the municipality makes no common sense, depending on what Trödel is really trying to say). Dartmouth is a "former city" (see article title) and no longer a municipality or political entity. After all, we are not linking to Friedrichsdorf, West Germany or Freiberg, East Germany on the list, even though "West Germany" and "East Germany" are smaller political units. Though it ceased to exist 15 years ago, I still find instances of "East Germany" on Wikipedia referring to the eastern part of present-day Germany, which demonstrates that it is still very much a location in the minds of many people - as Dartmouth is. However, for consistency, we are not listing former countries, we are simply listing countries. By the same token, we should not list former cities or towns on the list. I realize that the reunification of Germany is much more momentous and important than the merging of Halifax and Dartmouth into one city, but really, for the purposes of this discussion, what is the difference?

Finally, here's a test for Trödel - if only the former cities of Halifax and Dartmouth had merged (and included nothing of their surroundings), resulting in a city of approximately 10 miles by 10 miles, and took the name "Halifax", I suspect that Trödel still would be insisting on using "Dartmouth". Thus, his argument that the new Halifax is "too big" doesn't hold water - it isn't about size, but more about keeping the city of Dartmouth "alive". Denvoran 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the straw man and keep to what I think - if they joined and the locals 10 years later called everything Halifax I would use that, if they still kept calling them by different names, and the post office continued to use different cities for mail, then I would go with Dartmouth. BUT in this case the city is humongous and it is ridiculous to pinpoint location by saying - well it is within 2000 sq miles of Halifax. Trödel 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I care about keeping the city of Darmouth "alive". I have only argued for common usage. You still have never answered if you have ever lived there - or addressed the issue of using the common venacular in the area. And you seem obsessed with the destruction of Dartmouth. I have tried to modify this a few times in the last few months to see if I could get the issue addressed, and EACH TIME you have reverted incredibly quickly (and accused me directly of being sneaky in the comments). While I have let it sit the way that I think is absolutely ridiculous for months. I feel I have tried to compromise and you have been completly intractible. And, frankly, I am not willing to just let it be anymore. You refuse to identify why you care. I have clearly identified why I care - I served a mission there - I have been there many times to visit - no one calls the area Halifax. They call it the Halifax Temple, but locally it is in Dartmouth. Trödel 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of good faith, I am responding to Trödel's comments, although he has yet to respond to my latest comments both here and on his discussion page.

1. Why would Trödel care about keeping the city of Dartmouth "alive"? My guess is because he lived there and obviously has some emotional attachment to it.

2. The crux of the dispute is whether a consistent pattern of referring to locations should be used, or a "flexible" one that may or may not incorporate "vernacular"/"common usage" should be instead. Whether or not one has lived in Nova Scotia does not make one more qualified to decide between the two.

3. I have addressed the issue of common vernacular at length - please see my January 16, 2006 entry above.

4. The City of Dartmouth has been dissolved for a decade - there is nothing I can do to "destroy" it. For the record, I don't appreciate the confrontational word choices "obsessed" and "destruction".

5. Trödel entered "lets leave it as it is" - then, with no further explanation, decides to "address the issue" weeks/months later. Trödel is free to change his mind, but shouldn't be surprised if I think it is "sneaky" when he, in effect, says one thing and then does another.

6. Trödel wants the location to read "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia". I want it to read Halifax. Trödel's compromise was to have "Dartmouth" listed, only to have it link to Halifax. How is this a compromise, when it appears on the list exactly how he wants it?

7. I have not refused to "identify why [I] care". It should be clear from all of my entries above that I care about having a consistent approach and reflecting the most current reality, because I feel that is the best way to present information in an encyclopedia.

Denvoran 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem with Anchorage - and any other monstruous municipalities that are very large - I was unaware - the problem is - Gellerson - you have had no intent to compromise at all on this issue. Even linking to your beloved HRM with a different word - you immediately revert. I just have lost patience with any kind of compromise. Trödel 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Anchorage is appropriate - the temple is located, from the best I can tell from the short amount of research, in the part of the city that was Anchorage before the unification in 1975. Now called the Anchorage Bowl. Trödel 19:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Following your logic, listing Anchorage is not appropriate - "Anchorage Bowl, Alaska" would pinpoint the location better within the "monstrosity" that is Anchorage. Denvoran 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a ways to go here - no consensus at all. Perhaps we should go on what the Church says. For example, the Mount Timpanogos temple sits on land jointly owned by Pleasant Grove, Highland and American Fork. Building permits from all three had to be obtained, if I recall correctly. Water and Sewer bill goes to American Fork, so the LDS church says it is located in American Fork, regardless of Pleasant Grove or Highland residents who say it is located in their cities. The Washington D.C. temple the church actually says is in Kensington, for more obvious reasons. In cases where there is dispute, let's standardize on what the Church says on it, as they have justifiable reasons and insight into why it is located where it is. Just my two cents. -Visorstuff 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mailing addresses often do not correspond to the actual city in which a building or home is located. The Church website gives "Littleton, Colorado" as the address of the Denver Colorado Temple, yet the temple is in the City of Centennial and is not and never was in the City of Littleton. As for the Mount Timpanogos Temple, the land may be owned by the three cities, but it can only lie within the limits of one city (unless the city boundaries actually cut across the property and under the building, which I highly doubt). As far as I know, it lies entirely within the American Fork city limits and its location can therefore only be rightfully attributed to that city and that city alone. Denvoran 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup - temple sits right in the middle of a tract of land that was annexed by all three cities. Parts of the temple and temple ground fit in multiple locales. Part of the reason for the road on the back side, as I understand it. -Visorstuff 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why we should be more flexible and not have a general rule to identify location, but use what they area is commonly called by those that lived there. Trödel 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment - I am willing to go with the Church's website - though I think we can have some differences - we shouldn't just parrot that site. We could also use the mailing address "city" because that is often different than the political municipality, and is a better estimate of the proximate location of something. Trödel 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the "attacks" in the form of the word choices "abomination" and "beloved" that have been directed at me. I have presented solid reasons for the original location designation that I inserted in the first place, which has since been contested by Troedel, without resorting to sarcasm. My suggestion for a compromise: listing the location as Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city), exactly as the corresponding article is titled, and linking to Halifax. This way, the "location" is pinpointed more closely to satisfy Troedel, yet the reader is alerted regarding the status of Darmouth and is directly linked to the actual city in which the temple is located. Denvoran 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you feel that you can now "compromise" when you rejected all efforts at compromise until today - I offered that exact compromise and you rejected it reverting within minutes, so no NO I don't think that is what it should be and I am not willing to bend. Additionally, and you have not addressed any of the issues I brought up either - just beat the mantra - it is the political municipality and that is it. However, it makes absolutely no sense to use a municipality that is in size 85% of the STATE OF DELEWARE. I apologize for calling it your "beloved;" that was uncalled for. However, I see no personal attack in thinking, which I do, that the monstrous regional municipalities are an abomination - they distort the entire purpose, IMHO, of local rule (or responsive and responsible local governments). The more I learn about them, since this dispute began, the more I don't even think that they are a good idea. Trödel 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I need more time to think about the latest edit - it is not consistent and I think most will say, why the difference? It doesn't make sense to do. Gellersen, you are getting close to your WP:3RR howver. I'm not sure why the mailing address cannot be used? Why don't we just change the City/Town to "Mailing location?" Trodel, I'm interested in hearing more about why you think we shouldn't take the church's web stated locations as the location? -Visorstuff 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with that - using the church's stated locations. Trödel 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Through the joy of wiki-links, I have linked directly to the (former city) web page and avoided the redirect. But, the former city tag doesn't show on the page. Sue Anne 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trödel/Gellersen Discussion

In the spirit of good faith, I am responding to Trödel's comments, although he has yet to respond to my latest comments both here and on his discussion page.

See my responses below - Trödel 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Why would Trödel care about keeping the city of Dartmouth "alive"? My guess is because he lived there and obviously has some emotional attachment to it.

I said:

"Have you actually lived in Halifax - I have." 04:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So no I have never lived in Dartmouth - only in Halifax.

2. The crux of the dispute is whether a consistent pattern of referring to locations should be used, or a "flexible" one that may or may not incorporate "vernacular"/"common usage" should be instead. Whether or not one has lived in Nova Scotia does not make one more qualified to decide between the two.

Not sure what the question is here ???

3. I have addressed the issue of common vernacular at length - please see my January 16, 2006 entry above.

That is true but you didn't address the fact that all the road signs still refer to it as a separate location, the post office considers it a location identifier, in fact Halifax Regional Municipality says:

"In fact, despite amalgamation, most residents of the municipality (and Canada Post) still refer to the names of the pre-amalgamation municipalities when describing geographic areas."

So it is more than common venacular to use the geographical descriptions.

4. The City of Dartmouth has been dissolved for a decade - there is nothing I can do to "destroy" it. For the record, I don't appreciate the confrontational word choices "obsessed" and "destruction".

Not sure what else to call it - you have reverted at least 4 different users - and always very quickly - ignore opinions contrary to yours - and now want to compromise to something no one but you has supported on the talk page

5. Trödel entered "lets leave it as it is" - then, with no further explanation, decides to "address the issue" weeks/months later. Trödel is free to change his mind, but shouldn't be surprised if I think it is "sneaky" when he, in effect, says one thing and then does another.

What you call sneaky is more accurately described as eventualism.

6. Trödel wants the location to read "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia". I want it to read Halifax. Trödel's compromise was to have "Dartmouth" listed, only to have it link to Halifax. How is this a compromise, when it appears on the list exactly how he wants it?

I guess it's not - and it is no longer sufficent to properly describe the location.

7. I have not refused to "identify why [I] care". It should be clear from all of my entries above that I care about having a consistent approach and reflecting the most current reality, because I feel that is the best way to present information in an encyclopedia.

Why do you care about consistency over accuracy?

Why do you care more about political boundaries over "reality"?

Other than by you, geographical areas within HRM are described by the pre-unification names, highway signs use common names, television advertising uses common names, people use the common names, Canada Post uses the common names, ... That is the reality of the HRM. Trödel 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Denvoran 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I just discovered - Canada Post doesn't even consider large areas of the HRM to be part of the Halifax urban area FSA - pdf of FSAs and RTAs Trödel 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bluffdale suit

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)

Southwestern Salt Lake Valley temple

Re: Trödel's recent edit to the article page: Such a temple has been announced, somewhere in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. I'm thinking that it was at the most-recent General Conference (October 2005). I'll try to find a reference. No name or city has been given, but the general location has been. Removing Bluffdale is appropriate, but the temple itself has been announced. Val42 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with moving it back if others feel the same as Val42. I was just reviewing all the news on the temples and couldn't find any thing other than Pres Hinckley's comments that another temple will likely soon be necessary in the SW SLC valley. President Hinckley's opening comments in GC October 2005:

We have previously announced a new temple in the southeast quadrant of the Salt Lake Valley. We have two other excellent sites in the west and southwest areas of the valley through the kindness of the developers of these properties. The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that. You may ask why we favor Utah so generously. It is because the degree of activity requires it. But we are also moving forward with new temples in Rexburg and Twin Falls, Idaho; in Sacramento, California; in Helsinki, Finland; in Panama City, Panama; in Curitiba, Brazil; and another which I had better not name at this time because it has not yet been announced but soon will be. There are yet others under consideration. On all of those I have named, we have the property, and work in various degrees of completion is going forward.[1]

Additionally, the news release from the Church (released the same day) only mentions one new temple:

During his opening remarks today at the first session of the 175th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that a new temple will be built in the western part of the Salt Lake Valley.

This new temple will be the fourth in the Salt Lake area and the thirteenth in Utah. The temple will be located in the Daybreak development, situated in western South Jordan, Utah. The exact site location will be announced at a later date.

President Hinckley also indicated that a fifth Salt-Lake-area temple site has been acquired in the southwest part of the valley for future use as Church growth continues.[2]

So it is really a matter of interpretation. A site has been acquired for a temple to be built there at some future time, but no official announcement that a temple will be built there has been made. I removed under the logic that the ambiguity in the remarks about the temple site could result in a different location/a long time before official announcement etc. Also since the list of temples at lds.org does not include the SW temple, it seemed reasonable to remove it.

However, I can see a valid argument that we should include it here since it is verifiable even though it is not on the Church's official list. In that case we should indicate a different status than announced (maybe with a footnote explanation. Trödel•talk 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the statement that I was thinking of. I had thought that it was closer to an actual announcement that it seems now that I read it again. I would like to see it listed though. What about, instead of putting it in the table, that it be listed in a separate section, with all of the above references. That way, other people won't think that it has been missed (as I had). Val42 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt. If we included it I think it should be in the table - too confusing otherwise. Edit at will. Trödel•talk 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Until a temple is announced there, other announced temples should go before it. Val42 02:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Samoan Temple

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)

I disagree. This changes the existing numbering system by causing all temples between #s 22 and 121 to be dropped one from the official listing. As such, "landmark" temples, which were noted at the time of their completion, such as #50 (St. Louis) and #100 (Boston) no longer have these numbers. Additionally, reconstruction of the Nauvoo Temple took nearly 150 years to get underway, while the Samoan Temple reconstruction was almost immediate. Besides, at least eighteen temples have been rededicated following extensive remodeling; should they also be renumbered according to their remodel date? I believe the Samoan Temple ought to be counted as similar to a remodel, given the brief time prior to its reconstruction, rather than as one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple. In light of this, and the additional advantages to having Wikipedia's numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's numbering system (besides those already mentioned, it will eliminate confusion pertaining to references such as "the Church's 82nd temple," as well as enable a more practical study of the list), I am reverting the numbering system consistent with the LDS Church's official list. Ryan Reeder 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this logic - Trödel 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. Please remember back to the debate about the Nauvoo Temple, and if we should have two separate articles for it? It was decided that it should have two separate articles as it was a rebuilt temple - it was merely a replica of the same size, but different in other ways. I contended that doctrinally, it was the same temple, or the church would be under condemnation for not completing it, it may have been different on the inside, but basically, architecturally, it was the same. This is why it was fought for for so long to be rebuilt. The doctrinal implications were huge. So if we count Samoa only once, and it is not even the same size or shape, and it is not a renovated temple, but a different structure on the same spot, then I see no reason why Nauvoo should be counted twice. Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate that archived discussion between Cogden and myself and I believe you were included to Trodel. Finally, the samoan temple was "one that was destroyed and rebuilt, as was the Nauvoo Temple." Whatever we do, we need to be consistent, regardless of time of rebuiling. There were other doctrinal and cultural reasons for the delay in the rebuilding of the Nauvoo temple that didn't seem to fit with the Samoan. Both were burned by arsonists, so they are much more similar than what a casual reader thinks. -Visorstuff 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I disagree with the conclusion reached regarding Doctrine and Covenants 124:31-35. The LDS Church has not been under condemnation from 1848-2002 because it did not have a Temple in Nauvoo. Ryan Reeder 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice compromise there, Trödel. (Referring to including the unnumbered 1983 Samoan Temple immediately preceding the 2005 #22 Samoan Temple).Ryan Reeder 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

thx Trödel 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, sorry for any confusion, but i wasn't saying the church was under condemnation, but that it had to be completed for the church to stand un-"rejected as a church" when the Lord comes. If you go back and research why president Hinckley's father was so adamant about it being rebuilt, and read president hinckley's own feelings on the matter, you'll get more insight into this. It had to be rebuilt according to the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith on the issue. Some felt D&C 128:49 would excuse them of this, but the consensus was held by many that all of the announced temples back in the mid-west would have to one-day be built. You'll also notice that president hinckley said that the rebuild came entirely through private donations - which is in accordance with specified revelation. Brigham wanted it burned (which ironically it was) and then rebuilt when the saints returned. Well, they returned and it has been rebuilt. There are other doctrinal implications as well. -Visorstuff 18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Daybreak Temple

A few days ago someone italicized the Daybreak Temple (I think when they inserted the Cebu Temple), reasoning that since it is not on the official list it should not be included as a numbered temple, and Cebu should be before it. I wasn't quite sure what to think of this, but left it alone. Having done a little looking into it this, the Daybreak Temple was announced at General Conf, and is still listed under Events and Notices on the main temple page and the announcement is treated as official (news item). Thus it can be distinguished from the SW temple for which only land was announced. Thus I think it should go back on the list in order of announcement until ground is broken, when we have traditionally changed the order on this page. As the offical list does not number the "Temples announced or under construction" at all - it is one of the useful differences that I think we have on this page. Trödel 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I made that change, and your assumptions are pretty much accurate as to my reasoning. The official temple list does not include the Daybreak temple, for some unknown reason. Additionally, however, the Cebu Temple Press release stated: "The newly announced temple is the 132nd temple of the Church that is operating, announced or under construction."

I don't know why this temple has been omitted from the official list, only that it has, and I felt it important to bring this listing into conformity with the LDS church's official listing.

I do agree with you, however, that President Hinckley's General Conference announcement certainly seemed like an official announcement ("The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that"[3]. If you feel that it ought to be placed ahead of Cebu since the announcement (for lack of any other term) preceded it, I will not oppose the move. After all, as you indicated, the numbering for announced temples is not official, and can change once the Temple is completed.

By the way, I linked the Cebu Phillippines Temple to Cebu City rather than the Cebu Island. I don't know if that's accurate.

On the topic of unnumbered announced temples, what about including others that may have been mentioned as a future site of a Temple, though no official announcement has been made? These could include the Far West and Independence Missouri Temple sites, as well as others that may have been made. For example, when President Hinckley visited Kenya in 1998, he said, "There isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that the time will come if you will walk in faith and patience that a temple will be built in this land to serve the needs of this people. Now, don’t count on it for a few years,. . . but it will be so." [4] Perhaps there have been other such announcements. Also, should abandoned temple sites be mentioned (such as Hartford, Connecticut--actually, that's the only one I know of), perhaps in a footnote somewhere?

Ryan Reeder 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I didn't notice the 132nd comment in the Cebu press release. It is strange that they are treating the Daybreak temple so differently - but they have done something like that before. The Panama City temple was listed as only announced despite having a press release on LDS.org (see diff) that it had ground broken for it on 30 Oct 2005 - the groundbreaking date wasn't added to the temple's individual page until sometime in late March (see removal of that note. So I propose that we list it before Cebu - and even number Cebu 133 - but use a footnote to explain the discrepency. Trödel 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I have noticed that lds.org/temples seems to not be updated immediately, while the official temple list, available in the newsroom section of lds.org, does.Ryan Reeder 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that before too - that the newsroom is updated in a much more timely fashion. I guess they want to make sure that the news gets as accurate information as possible, since they seem to be able to make up stuff sometimes anyway ;) Trödel 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Halifax Nova Scotia Temple

Since there doesn't seem to be a way to get consensus on this any other way, here's a straw poll.

Please vote to support one of the following options. Sue Anne 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Halifax Nova Scotia temple location should be linked in the following manner:

1. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) showing in the location column.

2. Link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city) with the words (former city) "hiding" in the link, so it would look like this - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Isn't it Wikipedia policy not to have articles link to each other over redirect pages? And isn't Wikipedia about the transparency of information? Then there should be nothing to "hide". If something is deliberately hidden, then a neutral point of view is not being presented. Denvoran 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

These types of "hidden" links are very common on Wikipedia. Look at how disambiguations are handled. I've wiki-linked many people where you have something "hidden" via the link.

I agree that it shouldn't link to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia as that directly redirects to the (former city) page, but I don't think we should have the words "former city" in the location column as it clutters things up. Sue Anne 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this one makes the most sense - from what I can tell reading here and visorstuff's link - the postal system in Canada hasn't done away with the Dartmouth appelation, and it appears to be supported by a couple of the LDS editors I respect (visorstuff, Trodel) - though I hate votes Abeo Paliurus 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Trödel 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Link to Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia or Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The problem with any entry that links to the "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (former city)" article is that it is a self-described historical article. This is like linking to East Germany or West Germany, both of which are historical articles. If one is linking in reference to something in present-day western Germany or eastern Germany, one would link to Germany, not to either of the historical articles - just as the list does with regard to the two temples located there. An up-to-date encyclopedia would not link to a historical article (i.e. Dartmouth) with regard to something in the present (i.e. the temple).
In light of points Trödel has raised, listing the location as "Dartmouth, Nova Scotia" may be more appropriate, but the link should go to an article of a present-day entity, not to one that merely describes the past history of one that no longer exists. Denvoran 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an issue that I feel particularly strongly about, but I received a message from Trödel saying "can you help?", so I'll weigh in with my thoughts. Hopefully, they can be helpful in resolving this issue.

The purpose of having a "location" column following a "name" column, when the name is generally a location, is to more clearly distinguish and define the location beyond what the official name of the Temple may be. In most cases, this is a clear and easy process. The Washington D.C. Temple is located in Kensington, MD.

In this case, doubt has arisen because of the questionable formal existence of Dartmouth as a location. It's technically part of Halifax, though Halifax is a very large municipality, giving an advantage to using Dartmouth as a more precise term for the location, which is the purpose of the location column in the first place. However, Dartmouth being a disincorporated area makes it technically not a place that can be listed.

However, nobody said that the "location" column has to be an incorporated city. If a temple were built in an unincorporated area (and there may be some that are), we would generally use the name of the closest incorporated area, or a larger city that would be reasonably near. However, for the purpose of a location column, I think it would be fine to list the location of this hypothetical temple as "20 miles SW of Cityville, Countria." It becomes more precisely defined in this manner. I would recommend a policy of when in doubt, follow what the official list says. Currently, the Official Halifax Nova Scotia Temple Page lists the address as "44 Cumberland Dr Dartmouth, NS B2V 2C7 Canada." ldschurchtemples.com has followed that convention. I suggest we follow this idea and list the location as Dartmouth. If you want to petition the LDS Church to revise the address of the temple on that page, and they do, we can switch to Halifax. Unless and until that happens, my vote is for Dartmouth.

As for "(former city)," I really don't care. --Ryan Reeder 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada Post still uses Dartmouth, the local media still use Dartmouth, Dartmouth is still in common usage among local residents. The only difference is that it no longer has its own local government. This "Halifax Regional Municipality" thing is about as ridiculous as changing everything to Greater Sudbury, Ontario or Wood Buffalo, Alberta.Kirjtc2 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

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)

Reverts

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)

Warning

Guys - I'm thinking of protecting this page, until you both come to an agreement on the talk page first. Consider this the warning, 24 hours to fix your issues. This page doesn't draw enough attention to build consensus, so you'll both have to figure out a compromise. There have been a number suggested, be consistent on conventions, and work it out. -Visorstuff 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

When I have made an edit, I have provided a reason. I see that Trödel has posted around to a number of people asking for "help" in light of my "reverting", when he does the same thing himself - without providing reasons. I have been reverting to what I consider a compromise, but Trödel apparently will not accept this and replaces it with exactly what he has wanted all along. Indeed, he has written that he has "lost all patience" with compromises and will not "bend". My so-called compromise accommodates Trödel's concerns about "vernacular usage", but he has not addressed my concern about linking to a historical article. Denvoran 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is Gellersen, that you don't have the patience to see if anyone else supports your view - you revert immediately. While I stayed away at least 3 days and others also changed it - you reverted them also. My reasons have been given - I will address your view above when I have time - but I am not sure what good it will do.

The events as I see them (coming soon)

You were unwilling to compromise at all - just argue for your position. Others started reverting you then suddenly you found a reason to compromise, but it is too late. The (almost nonexistent but real) concensus from the straw poll is to link to the geographical location not the political subdivision. When Visorstuff proposed a compromise you rejected it. Now that the weight of support - and even the HRM page supports using Dartmouth to indicate Geographical location instead of political boundary, you continue to revert first, discuss later. As to the supposed name calling - I apologized for describing your behavior as obsessive; however, I have only used charged words in criticism of the whole idea of large regional municipalities. Additionally, you have called my behavior as sneaky - but I don't see it Trödel 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have patience - but you've said you've "lost patience". If it's "too late" for a compromise, then why are you even responding to me? and since when is it up to you to decide when it's "too late"? Just this morning you have reverted first, discussed later yourself. Sorry if you are still bothered by "sneaky" - I wrote it one time, 34 days ago, and it's in the edit summary so I can't cross it out or otherwise revise it. Please get over it! Denvoran 17:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by, "I don't have patience," but that may explain why you revert, revert, revert...

"I just have lost patience with any kind of compromise." Trödel 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really felt that your argument had merit - you would allow someone else to change it back to your version. Unfortunately, there is not support, and you need to revert multiple users in order to keep the article to the version you prefer. I know my behavior has been less than steller in this situation; resulting in my first ever block - for that I apologize. However, since the block I think my behavior has been reasonable and well measured. While you continue to revert everyone who makes an edit. Trödel 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons have been provided for my edits, while the edits of others do not explain why a change is needed or why my edit is wrong. You and others have not addressed why it is more appropriate to link to a historical article than to a current one in reference to something in the present. Denvoran 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the irony in having a heated debate like this in an article about Temples? --Ryan Reeder 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - this gives a bad impression. I plan to edit to link to Dartmouth per the straw poll unless anyone other than Trodel or Gellersen objects here Abeo Paliurus 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done Abeo Paliurus 21:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Add a 'Dedicated by Whom Column'?

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)

I think that sounds like a great idea - I can format the table and leave a <!--comment--> 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)

I found a complete and up-to-date list, including who dedicated each temple at [5], 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)

Vancouver temple

I can't verify this on lds.org nor using Google - I am removing it pending verification that this announcement (probably made at a local conference) has a citable reference. Trödel 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the original poster, but [6] is a source. jj 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See here for the transcription of an email that was sent to local stake presidents announcing it. See here as well. --Kmsiever 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the source of both of these links is the email to the local stake president (and the forwarding it around) - I would say we still need a verifiable source - the blog and the email transcript aren't good enough imho; however, ldschurchtemples.com is usually accurate - but since Rick Satterfield (the owner of the website) is relying on the same emails - I think there needs to be a better source. Given the debate about including the SW SLC valley temple (even though the land acquisition was announced in conference and reported on in several newspapers) I think we are better off waiting until at least a newspaper or something reports it first.

However, if others feel differently I won't take it out again. Trödel 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The announcement is included in today's LDS Church News. [7] It's official. Ryan Reeder 16:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great - I was searching all over the place this morning - but I guess too early for google to pick up the information on desnews.com. Trödel 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the official church press release. --Kmsiever 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

France temple

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)

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)

Planned temples

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)?

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)

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)

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)

• Paris, France-GBH, member meeting
• Independence, MO "Temple Lot"
• Far West, MO
• Adam-Ondi-Ohman, MO
• 5th SL County
• Jeurusalem (built by Jews, per Revelation)

135--134

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)

I don't believe Vancouver is on their list, but they did announce it on their website. --Kmsiever 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Just as another fact that doesn't match - the June "News from the Church" item says, "As of June 13, 2006, 133 temples are announced, under construction, or operating across the world." Which I am guessing refers to the 131 temples on this page plus the Vancover and the Cebu temples - which would make 134 for the recently announced Honduras temple (although the letter left SLC on June 9th - see news item on reaction in Honduras here prior to the "As of June 13 date." For some reason the Church has not been counting the daybreak temple. Maybe we should move after Honduras. --Trödel 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Los Angeles Rededication

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)

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)

Lack of Links

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)

Description of temple

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)

Addition of Images

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)

I'd prefer the images being on the temple pages. --Kmsiever 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notes on Location

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)

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)

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

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

Standards

1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
2. Be useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised.
   • Useful: Covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic (See Wikipedia:List). A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links).
   • Comprehensive: Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.
   • Accurate: Support facts where appropriate with specifics and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Includes references where appropriate, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).
   • Stable: Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day.
   • Well-constructed: Easy to navigate and find articles on. Annotated with additional information as appropriate.
3. Be uncontroversial (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles) and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).
4. Comply with the standards set in the style manual, as well as relevant WikiProjects. This includes having a lead section where appropriate, which is brief but sufficient to summarize the nature of the list, and, where appropriate, headings and a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
5. Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, a list does not have to have a picture to be featured.

--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 others I 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)

I notice on many of the featured lists, there are maps and charts. I am going to see if I can find a world map of the location of each temple. I doubt something exists, so I may end up creating it myself, although I welcome anyone else who is more artistic to volunteer. I suggest a green dot for existing temples, yellow for under construction or announced. I think for Kirkland we need a special marker (blue?) denoting a temple not owned by the LDS church. I dont know how to denote the old and new Nauvoo Temple though (blue and green?). Also, I wonder if we should mark temples that were never built but were planned like Far West or Independence. Any ideas? Bytebear 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a lead section - it may be to long - I am not sure - but am going to review other Featured Lists to get an idea. Please review and copyedit --Trödel 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Link with pictures

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)

Dedicated by...

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks good... jj 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Endowment house

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)

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)

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)

Featured list nomination suggestions

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)

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)

Temple Styles

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)

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)

New Format

I have been a bit bold in attempting a new format for the page. I have altered the first two temples in a simpler two column format (picture, and details) where the details are listed with breaks. If you think it is a good change, I will continue with the rest of the page, but want outside opinions first (I will assume silence is an afirmative agreement). I also am thinking of moving the number to the left of the name as opposed to a separate column. so it would be:

1. St. George Temple

My reasoning is because now that we have added the photo the rows are quite tall, and can accomodate the format easier than before, and also, we have quite a few footnotes that may be better suited for the Notes: area, which in this format can be incorporated more easily. I do think that footnotes are appropriate when the same information is repeatable, such as Dedicated by Hinkley (as discussed earlier). Bytebear 07:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: This all started because it was hard to edit sub-sections with the table information mucking up the preview. Bytebear 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth - I kinda like it. I have created a temp page Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/New Format with some of the current temples in the new format so we can discuss - I think that would work better than all of us changing this page - I should have done that before I started the million edits a day earlier this week ;). That wasy we can see how it will work with some of the various issues we have on the temples and documenting them. It would be nice to have the footnotes available directly with the temple information. Any other thoughts?? --Trödel 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I have finished the page with some example formats. I personally like this one best

25. Papeete Tahiti Location: Papeete, French Polynesia Dedication: 27 October 1983 by Rededication: by Size: 9,936 ft² (923 m²) Style: Sloping roof, single spire

Notes: Closed for renovations, rededication scheduled 2006-11-12. Picture to left for demonstration purposes only :)

Not bad. And a great idea to do a test page. I was so afraid of just changing two of the entries, but this way, I cam muck with it all I want.

I think I like the two column format, Rather than the three colums, but mainly because there is a lot of white space when you add the Notes column, and the bullet list gets wrapped too much. Also the height of the row grows which will stretch the page. I will do some experiments and we can discuss further. We should also label each example explicitely so we all know what we are talking about. Bytebear 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote against the vertical format. I like the column format.
Bhludzin 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

After seeing Trödel's latest concept on the Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/New Format page, I think I like it best of all. I will let others mull over it for a few more days, but since only three people have discussed it thus far, I suspect that we won't get a lot of backlash. Bytebear 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I played with the layout a bit, and still think Trödel's layout looks the best. I did have to modify each entry as a row to keep wrapping looking correct. This brings me to my point: It looks good, but is harder to maintain than just a simple
list. How much do we care about maintainability? Should we sacrifice style for ease in editing? Bytebear 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think editability is important - see my comments here. I think use of templates might solve this issue for us and then it could be as complicated as needed ;). I do think we need to understand and consider Bhludzin's concerns about the vertical format - as he began this list and has nursed it and populated it with information. See also the featured list candidacy comments re incompleteness of the list - etc. --Trödel 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think with the nowrap setting it makes the <br /> technique doable, so I am ok with your preferred layout. I will also wait until we get more concensus. Bytebear 05:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

More experimentation

I have been playing around with stuff - and have used a template {{LDSTemple}} 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)

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)

I added who dedicated each temple - to see how that would look --Trödel 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Additional infomation

Salt_Lake_Temple_spires.jpg Salt Lake Temple

I noticed that on the ldschurchtemples.com it lists the following details that we might want to consider adding now that we have more room than the column format.

• Location: 5-8-10 Minami Azabu, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
• Site: 0.46 acres.
• Exterior Finish: Structural steel and reinforced concrete faced with 289 panels of precast * stone, having the appearance of light gray granite.
• Temple Design: Modern, single-spire design.
• Number of Rooms: Two ordinance rooms and five sealing.
• Total Floor Area: 52,590 square feet.
• ANNOUNCEMENT: 9 August 1975
• GROUNDBREAKING AND SITE DEDICATION: No ceremony held
• PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE: 15 September–18 October 1980
• DEDICATION: 27–29 October 1980, by Spencer W. Kimball

I don't want to plagerize the information, but I think we should incorporate some information, like number of rooms and maybe announcement, groundbreaking, and open house. Too much? Bytebear 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the verticle format allows for more info - but I think we need to consider 3 things before we just run with it :)

1. I don't think we have full concensus on not using columns yet
2. I think we should try not to have so much information that it gets taller than the about 100px of the temple pictures
3. we need to be careful about completely duplicating information from ldschurchtemples.com as the requirements for a list on wikipedia are that it provide a place where something is gather in such a way that doesn't exist elsewhere.

I notice User:Bhludzin hasn't been on in a little while - I would like to hear from him before we implement anything, and others too - I'll contact some of the regular LDS article contributors to see if they have a view on things. Thanks for the feedback - sometimes it feels like no one is out there :) --Trödel 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's try to get more input that just us. All of your points are my exact concerns. The only info I think is important are things that are good on comparison, such as temple size, number of rooms, etc. Obviously dedication date is important, but less so for groundbreaking, address location, open house dates. Basically things that can be found on the specific temple pages. Bytebear 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - we should probably add that information to the individual articles for each temple ;) --Trödel 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a right side bar template that can have all that information, similar to a movie template with all the info. Since you are familiar with templates, I will leave that part to you, but I am willing to edit temple pages when needed. Bytebear 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I really like that idea - I'll base it off {{LDSInfobox}} that I created ... (over a year ago now I guess). Anyway - I'll work on it tonight. It would be really cool if we could gather up all those Temple infoboxes and automatically generate the list - a guy can dream :) --Trödel 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics graph

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)

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)

Done Bytebear 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New format proposal

There are two proposals for a new format for the temples. One is a verticle list of the attributes of each temple to the left of the picture (see #Vertical list), the second is a change to the current column list combining the style and notes section into one column (see #Style/Notes together). Please review these proposals and comment below. Both styles make use of a templates so that the temple information can be formatted and edited more easily without the editors updating this list having to understand table formatting.

Also - please comment on whether the person dedicating/rededicating the temple should be mentioned.

<<examples removed since the underlying templates changed formats and they no longer reflect the former and proposed formats>>

• original format and columns
• original format removed status column
• proposed (and now implemented format)

Original

Or we could return to the original form and replace notes with Status - and just put notes in the status column :)

New WikiProject proposed

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)

um...

Dedicated is the heading for temples that have not yet been dedicated in the date column jj 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - thx - now that it seems stable - I need to document how the templates work :) --Trödel 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

b== New Style ==

Ok, I changed the style of the page. If you like it, we can leave it, if not, let's discuss why not. Thanks to Trodel for both templates. If we agree this is the wayt to go we should revert back and change the template from User talk:Trödel/Sandbox4 back to Temple and change the Temple template. Bytebear 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

your welcome - I updated the LDSTemple template so that we can avoid transclusion of something from user space - as that is discouraged. We can just revert the template if we need to go back. --Trödel 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! Trödel comes through again! Bytebear 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx - I took a look at the verticle alignment problem. There are two ways to solve it - I elected the first which is implemented - basicaly it assumes that only the notes will wrap and vertically aligns the headings to the top so the notes line wraps properly. The other way is to make the "headings/information" cells into a subtable:

top alignment (implmented)	use of subtable
picture here title here headings Location ... information place etc but wrapping	picture here title here heading information Location place ... etc but wrapping

I dislike the subtable one because it unnecessarily (and in my view unaesthetically) increases the amount of white space for each temple. The implemented style has the disadvantage that the alignment of the items gets slightly askew when there is a footnote (the superscript number creates uses more space than the standard line). I'll see if I can manipulate it so to rid the subtable of the spacing issues, or make the spacing consistent on the top alignment solution. --Trödel 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as it doesnt make the overall page look funny, go with the simpler solution. One idea on vertical spacing is to see if you can change the padding or margins on the cells to 0 so things lock up tighter. Bytebear 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the new style. I think that lists are useful for comparison, and table columns enable comparison. By placing the information in this vertical format, the purpose of the list is defeated - you can't compare information easily. The list is now more of a discursive composition than an efficient way to compare information. I think that the table columns are essential and make the list digestable. In this format it's too much to understand. Before I could just look at a single column and quickly make comparisons. I'm not sure what you're after by making it into almost paragraph format, but maybe that ought to be examined, and another list could be made in that style. Maybe one list that is for comparison and another list that is more of a boutique style discourse (like the book The Mission).

Bhludzin 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one like the new format, but that's what dialog is all about. Since it is now in a template, it is easy to change back and forth, so maybe we can send it up for review. Unfortunately, it has been open for discussion for a while and there hasn't been much discussion other than Trodel and myself. I think we are both open to suggestions. It's just a matter of getting consensus from more than three people. Bytebear 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did voice my opinion back on September 23rd (see above). And I will repeat my opinion - this page was meant to enable comparison. The format that you have changed it to makes the page unusable for comparison. When I first compiled the list, it took me a long time of looking at every temple page individually to compile the data into a single list. After it was compiled, I could quickly glance down the list to compare architectural styles, size, or dates. You've now changed the format so that I can no longer do that. I now feel that even though it is still in one page, I have to go to an individual 'article' on the list, and look in that article to find the information that I want. The information is not visually accessible. I think that if you want a more discursive list like you are making this into, then make another article. Then you can even put a quick text blurb with each temple as well. Your response to my comment did not address any of these issues - I think that these changes are more than aesthetics, you are effectively removing information from the article by taking away the ability to compare the data. It is like taking a graph and changing the relative heights of the bars to make it more pleasing to the eye. Bhludzin 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So far we have only 3 or 4 people in on this discussion, which I think is too small a group to form any kind of consensus. I agree that if we want comparative data vs. a general list, which is what we have, they should be separate articles. How about a sub-page called "Comparative data of LDS temples"? Then we can strip out any extrenuous information like pictures? Or how about creating a comparitive chart grouping commonalities together (styles, size, dedication prez). Is there a way to dynamically change a template on the same page? using url data perhaps? We really are just talking about changing a template and not the data, so it doesn't seem the effort is difficult, it's just a matter of deciding how we want to organize it. Maybe we can get some outside help from a neutral source. Bytebear 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Should info be in columns

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:

1. Having another list seems excessive since there are already 2 lists on temples.
2. 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.
3. I really like the images and want to see us get one on each temple.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let me know what you guys think of Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the column format - we could add # of Ordinance Rooms, # of Sealing Rooms, include groundbreaking and announcement dates for all the temples - use a different date format like mm/dd/yyyy so that we could fit more stuff and make comparing easier, etc. --Trödel 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hinckley's temple goal

"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)

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)

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)

Why would simple math be considered "original research"? Val42 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I misunderstood - I like the compromise. --Trödel 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox LDS Temple

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)

Announced Temples

I noticed we have recently announced temples included, but should we also include historically announced temples? IE, Far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Jackson County 24 and others? I don't want to get into prophecied temples, but the church owns land for most of the above. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We have generally only included announced temples which are also on the CJC website as announced. The only exception was the Bluffdale temple - which I think we should include because many people think that it was officially announced, but it wasn't as we have indicated in the footnotes.

I personally like the idea of having other announced temples (we should have some standard on whether they should be included or not - but I think that would be pretty easy - if it is verifiable to an reliable source then included it). That could be one of the things that makes the list unique. I'm looking for comments on Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - would love thoughts from you or anyone. --Trödel 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a slippery slope. What about temples that were started but never completed? Some like the Temple Lot are not owned by the LDS Church, and you will get backlash from other Latter Day Saint groups for including their temple on an LDS article. Bytebear 01:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be slippery - but sticking to attributable sources will keep things good. And if the property is owned by other LDS movement denominations we could note that like we do on the Kirtland Temple. --Trödel 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[copied from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive2] The original Apia Samoa should be listed under "temples destroyed" section. No number as in the text below. But it seems odd to be numbered below. let's move it up.

• Far West (announced by smtih on the eighth day of July, 1831, discourses of Brigham young 471; cornerstones dedicated april 26, 1839 - discources of wilford woodruff pvi, also d&c 115 7-8)
• Adam-ondi-Ahman/Spring Hill (announced april 26, 1838, and site selected in may 1838 and dedicated by JS jr - see Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Stevens and Wallis, 1945), pp. 208-9.)
• "Independence Temple complex" in Jackson County Missouri (ie independence - site dedicated aug 1 1831 - see bh roberts, outlines of ecclesiastical history page 343.) wtc. -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving Apia Samoa under Nauvoo. Not sure where we would put "Abandoned" temples (under Announced maybe?) - of course Harrison NY is looking pretty abandoned ;) - We may also want to included Hartford Connecticut. It was announced and abandoned as well. --Trödel 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just joking about Harrison - but when I went to the official list - it is now missing .... --Trödel 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we list them under a section titled: "Announced but no current plans" rather than abandoned. LDS theology would typically say that once a temple site as been designated by revelation, it will be built there, just a matter of timing either before or after Jesus returns, or even "in heaven." I think a new section is warranted for this. -Visorstuff 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming it may be tough - as the Abandoned kind of describes it but we need temporarily abandoned. "Announced but forsaken" - jk. Here are some from the thesaurus. Announced but tabled; Announced but shelved; Announced and now deferred; Announced but suspended; Announced but interrupted; Announced, efforts suspended...

I like Announced, efforts suspended; or Announced and now deferred. I would also say that in order to qualify, the exact spot (real estate) needs to have been selected and either dedicated or purchased by CJC. That would keep speculation out - those that have been dedicated or purchased will be verifiable; thus we would steer clear of a slippery slope. --Trödel 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like efforts suspended. -Visorstuff 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the original Apia Samoa temple should be listed similar to the Nauvoo temple, even with a photo, if one exists. The rebuilt temple was a totally different style, and the list should reflect this. I think announced/groundbroken temples that were never built should not be in the list, but mentioned in the intro paragraphs. Bytebear 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious on your rationale? If we include Kirtland, why not Far West? Cornerstones were laid, a basement portion was dug. Yet. we don't even own or have a right to claim anything about kirtland - even its original ownership we can't claim due to the court ruling. And why the one in southwest utah valley, when all we know is that land has been seucred for the building of a temple at some futre date when church growth warrants it. Sounds a lot like Jackson county to me. We will build a temple there, have land for it (although not the full complex), we just lack the direction to move forward with it. Just curious on your rationale... -Visorstuff 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison List vs. This List

(Copied from User_talk:Bhludzin)
As a contributor to the different lists of temples, I was wondering if you could give some feedback concerning the addition several columns to the Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page. thx --Trödel 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it looks great. I don't think I mentioned anything since you did it, but I am very happy with the breakout of the Comparison list and the regular list. Now there is no confusion of priorities. The comparison list is serving it's purpose better than ever, and the original list is a great overview of Temples - visually, geographically and discursively and it's not bogged down with the other data. And the person that did the graphics on the Geographic List did an incredible job as well. Now that I'm on the subject though, I do think that the pictures should be put back in the Comparative list (leaving them in the regular list as well), and that the Style data item might be removed from the regular list. I see the regular list almost as "an introduction to temples" list. Simplify it and make it more understandable, approachable and interesting to the person looking at it for the first time. The comparison list is like the "everything" bagel for the person who knows about temples and is looking up something. The pictures are very helpful for that.

Bhludzin 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I will toot my own horn as the creator of the geographical maps. I have been told that some of the dots are not accurately placed, and any help editing them is appreciated. I don't have time to verify every dot, but I am willing to share my knowledge on how I created them. I think with the two lists, one a detailed table, and another an overview (plus the geographical list). Trodel is working on a way to use the same data set with multiple templates which is going to save a lot of time and effort in these lists (as well as the info boxes of each temple article). Bytebear 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Standards for Temple Data

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)

Notice

The standards that are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples have been implemented for the first 10 temples and the new templates are used on this page.

The are also used for the Infoboxes on the individual article pages for the first 10 temples (see Salt Lake Temple for example). Please register any bugs/concerns on the talk page. Thank you --Trödel 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional style info

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)

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)

A suggestion from a non-Mormon

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)

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)

I wouldn't even begin to know where to look, hence why I suggested it here! 1995hoo 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. let's see if anyone can find it jj 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No Berlin?

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)

Cardston Addition

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)

Status of the White Plains (Harrison) Temple

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)

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)

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)

Use of "reference"

Because the bug that makes it so that templates which include the <ref> and </ref> tags not work correctly is still not fixed - I have implemented a work around. The <ref> and </ref> tags must be on the calling page for the footnotes to properly link to the section where the <references /> code is inserted. Therefore; on temples which have footnotes please add after the | format = Talk:Temple name/data the following: "|reference=<ref>your citation (citation templates are ok here)</ref>. Additionally add the line

   | reference           = {{{reference|}}} <!-- please include references on the List of Temples of CJC of LDS page -->

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)

Heading structure (TOC)

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cebu City Philippines Temple at Night.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ogden Temple Summer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Manila, 2009).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seoul Korea Temple.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)