Talk:LDS Conference Center

Adding a link
I was wondering what the group would think about my adding a link to an on-line tour of temple square to this article. The link is located at http://www.allaboutmormons.com/templesquare.php. I should disclose that I am the creator of the site, which is why I wanted to make sure it was alright with the group before posting the link myself. I hope I've proceeded appropriately, as I'm new to Wikipedia and don't understand all of its policies.


 * Because I was the first person to post to this discussion, and because no one has responded, I’m going to assume this page has no associated active discussion and that I may never get a response. I’ve gotten positive responses to my request to post a link to my on-line tour of temple square at Temple Square, so I’m going to assume it’s alright to proceed here as well. Please let me know if I’m mistaken.

Indeed. It looks relevent enough. You have a pretty site. Thanks for asking though! Cool Hand Luke 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of things to say about the website in question. (1) It is good that the traffic by WP editors is low enough that comments and discussions are not archived; I have always considered the auxiliary TALK pages an extension to the regular WP Articles. (2) I enjoyed visiting the referenced website, "AllAboutMormons.com" briefly. (3) I guess it didn't remain a viable addition. (4) I searched fairly diligently and don't currently find it in the Article; am I missing something? (5) I think "AllAboutMormons" would be more appropriate in Mormons or some relating Wikipedia article, rather than here in this article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Conference Center Theater
Per the guidelines at Notability, I don't think the theater is independantly notable from the conference center. Many large buildings have attached halls and theaters, and these are not typically given their own article. I propose that this be merged into a heading on this article. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged. Val42 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin American influence
Sesmith-> I find problems in the following paragraph: "While essentially Modernist in architecture, the Conference Center has a distinctly Pre-Columbian appearance. This reflects both the church's increasingly Latin American composition--from the mid-1990s onward, the majority of the church's membership has been from countries outside the United States, dominated by Mexico, Central America, and South America--and the now-prevalent belief that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Central America."

1. You stated that "from mid-1990s onward, the majority of the church's membership has been from countries outside the United States, dominated by Mexico, Central America, and South America." Based on the LDS statistics, " http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD " I don't find any evidence that supports your claim. Although the fact that members outside US are more than those in the US is true,it is inappropriate to call the former "majority". Also, I find the phrase "dominated by Mexico, Central America, and South America" to be extremely sensitive.

2. Also, the phrase "This reflects both the church's increasingly Latin American composition" is the most troublesome factor. The LDS Church's identity isn't determined by the 'majority'-which I'm confused with-of the members. I have talked with missionaries with this problem on-line and they totally disagreed with your content. Do you have an official statement of the Church that supports your claim? If so, please let me know. Religion's nature is to embrace pluralism and respect every kind of identity that defines an individual or group, not shaping its identity by the 'dominant' members. Most of all, your idea of Conference Center's architecture contradicts Church's doctrine and the officials opinion.

However, I agreed with the relativity between the architecture and background of Book of Mormon. That's why I edited as "This reflects the era that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in"

Despite of my opinion, if you still think that your idea is right and not based on your own prejudice and point of view, show me a credible source that I might agree.


 * I did not write the sentences you are concerned with and I don't know why you assume I did. I have simply reverted your wholesale deletions of information. When you edit, make it better, don't just do a massive delete. –SESmith 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then who wrote it? And if it is proved to be wrong, don't you have to edit it? Why do you keep restoring the content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.82.8 (talk) 07:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing. And I apologize about the other day-deleting the whole paragraph. I was upset then when I saw your edit summary, 'huh?', and the content restored even though I had edited it PARTIALLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.82.8 (talk) 07:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who wrote it. I probably would edit something if it was "proved to be wrong", but I had no evidence of that. This is not necessarily a black–white issue with a "wrong" and "right", as you have suggested. It depends on how one interprets the original sentences. You have interpreted them and read things into them in a way that I would not have. I merely interpreted them as saying that the LDS Church has had a lot of converts from Latin America in the past few decades, which is true. I don't think it's that big of a deal. –SESmith 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not up to other editors to prove something wrong. It is up to the editors who add (or re-add) comments (that are controversial) to provide references. &mdash; Val42 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why the statement has been changed since concerns about it were raised here. :) My point was when it was deleted I had assumed it was a vandalism-style wholesale deletion and not a deletion based on doubts as to the content. We were reading the meaning of the sentences differently. –SESmith 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge organ article
There is currently an article named Schoenstein Organ at the Conference Center which should be merged into this article. Additional discussion can be found Talk:Schoenstein Organ at the Conference Center.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Organ article should remain separate. There is a lot of technical detail in the Organ article that would be out of place in the Conference Center article.  I will say, however, that the  Organ section of the Conference Center article seems like more of an advertisement and promotion of Mr Longhurst's book than a discussion about the Organ.
 * --Trappist the monk (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Conference Center → LDS Conference Center — This article is about the LDS Conference Center only and not "conference centers" in general. It should have an appropriate title i.e. LDS Conference Center but I am equally happy for it to be relocated to Salt Lake Conference Center. I cannot think of any reason why the current title "Conference Center" should not be a redirect to Convention center which discusses such places generally. Green Giant (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support "Conference center" is a generic concept, and many of them are named with this generic name. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I agree and hope that a name is chosen which indicates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or LDS) to help distinguish the article. —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I am curious what prompted this name change? Is there a particular building that has a similar name that has prompted confusion or desire to start a new article on another building? If not, this article already appears to have changed from LDS Conference Center to Conference Center in 2007. If the article name is changed I would prefer LDS Conference Center over Salt Lake Conference Center. If title length is not an issue for Wikipedia (since I don't purport to know the depths of all policies) I would even consider Conference Center of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. :D —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 04:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no special impetus; I just happened to be reading about Temple Square in Salt Lake City, and when I clicked on the LDS Conference Center link, it struck me as odd that such a generic name should be the title of this article. If you then consider that the similarly named Conference Centre and Conference centre are redirects to Convention center, it seems odd that the American spelling should host this article or redirect here instead of pointing at "Convention center".
 * If you do a search within Wikipedia, you will see there several articles which specifically have the words "Conference Center" (as opposed to Centre), the most notable of which include the White House Conference Center, Pasadena Conference Center, Walt Disney World Conference Center and Kyoto International Conference Center. So as you can see the LDS building is not the sole claimant to this title, and it doesn't matter if its been here since 2007 because people probably just didn't notice it. Green Giant (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

LDS World Conferences
Since the spring of 2000, the LDS world conferences have been held in the LDS Conference Center. The latest conference is reported by the church at http://www.lds.org/general-conference with pictures and news of the church. Also, I have some notes at. Hope this helps. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see this is already reflected in the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on LDS Conference Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125223223/http://lds.org/placestovisit/location/0,10634,1867-1-1-1,00.html to http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0,10634,1867-1-1-1,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009094541/http://www.byutv.org:80/watch/839-100 to http://www.byutv.org/watch/839-100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LDS Conference Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0%2C10634%2C1867-1-1-1%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20101009094541/http%3A//www.byutv.org%3A80/watch/839-100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107174827/http://www.allaboutmormons.com/templesquare.php to http://www.allaboutmormons.com/templesquare.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LDS Conference Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050109105903/http://deseretnews.com/confer/cctour/ to http://deseretnews.com/confer/cctour/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Title Needs Changed, President Nelson, Prophet of Church, says to avoid using acronyms like "LDS"
Hi the Prophet of the Church, President Russell M. Nelson, instructed us Sunday morning that acronyms like "LDS" or "Mormon" should not be used anymore but that we should use the full name of the church to focus more on the Savior. Can you change the title of this page so that the acronym "LDS" is not used? JasonPhelps (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not under the control of the LDS church, and we have our own policy on article titles that instructs us to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Please don't attempt to remove "LDS" or "Mormon" from Wikipedia articles just because your church says so. Brad  v  05:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though Wikipedia is not owned by the church, the church still should have some say about what is advertised on social media about them, whether it be on wikipedia or some other internet source. If what is being put onto Wikipedia affects the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in some negative way, doesn't the church have a right to speak up to Wikipedia about that?  Shouldn't Wikipedia be careful about the way they affect entities and organizations, including churches?  If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wants their full name to be used on all social media sites, shouldn't social media sites, including Wikipedia, respect that? JasonPhelps (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can understand why you may think that, as social media sites usually allow contributors full control of information about them. However, Wikipedia is not a social media site, nor is it a place for advertising. Subjects of articles do not own or have any editorial control over the content. Instead, information in Wikipedia articles is governed by consensus among the community based on what is available in reliable sources. Brad  v  00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I second this desire to change the name of the page to Conference Center of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was walking past this edifice tonight, and the inscription on the building reads "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Conference Center". I understand that wikipedia has existing policy, but request that wikipedia use either the requested title of the building by the building owner, or the officially inscribed title on the building. When both are virtually identical, it seems somewhat disrespectful to purposely choose not to honor the good faith request of multiple individuals. I understand that disrespect may not be the intent, but would like to arrive at a point that feels less disrespectful to our desire to honor Jesus Christ.

Question 1: Would the community be willing to honor this request in good faith?

Question 2: I propose that the community, in order to show kindness and respect to leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, modify this policy. I believe that, unless the name of an organization promotes violence or is obscene, etc., that members of the organization should be given respect.

Members of this religion would be very comfortable calling ourselves The Church of Jesus Christ, the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, etc., which seems to make a direct claim that this is THE Church. Detractors seem happy to call it other names. Perhaps the official name, which includes the phrase "of Latter-day Saints" could be a happy medium where we are claiming our belief to some degree, but tempering it by avoiding the absolute statement of our belief.

I understand the desire to govern the page by consensus, but feel that I and millions of other devoted members of the church are not being included in that consensus. Do you have any suggestions on things we could do to have our voices heard respectfully, rather than falling victim to a "consensus" that we have been excluded from?

At this point on this particular talk page, it seems there are 2-3 requesters of the Church's official name, and 2 requesters of the current abbreviation. Could we at least arrive at a consensus that is halfway?

Thanks for your patience in reading this. 128.187.112.29 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Michael Olson

Proposed Move
The Church in question has discouraged use of the phrase "LDS Church", should we move the official title somewhere else? If so, where? Are there other good examples of best practices on Wikipedia somewhere? McKay (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, in response to your question I'd refer you to MOS:LDS. This is a grammar guide for churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. Specifically, I'd say that because the commonplace of the Church in question remains the "LDS Church," the article ought to remain where it is. Wikipedia has its own style and grammar guide for issues like this. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Rollidan (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A user recently moved the article to Conference Center, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (It was moved back soon afterwards.) I think we can probably reach an agreement that this would not be an appropriate name for the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is the absolute best name for the article. It is 100% correct. This resistence to using the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by some editors makes no sense at all. Other institutions such as universities get to define what they are called, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is denied this same ability to define the discourse around it. There is no justification for this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not really a resistance to using the full name of the church for the sake of doing so. It's more about the policy on naming articles, specifically WP:CONCISE. It reads, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." "LDS Conference Center" is concise and provides sufficient information to identify the topic. "Conference Center, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" provides sufficient information to identify the topic, but it is not concise or brief. And in any case, good luck on finding any source that uses "Conference Center, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conciseness neverstops us from using the proper names of universities and colleges in articles on them. This is the proper name of the organization, and with organizations we give their proper name. Concise does not apply when a thing has a name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah, yes, but this is not an article about an organization. It is about a building owned by an organization. So we use the common name that is applied to that building, not a name that uses the full name of the owner. Your argument makes sense when applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, but not this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I am the one who restored it to this name, it's probably self-evident that I agree the current name makes sense. I would also agree that none/most of the things which happen across WP for church-related articles are an overt resistance to using the full name of the church....the issues of common name and being concise continue to arise and universities aren't good examples, since even if a full name is used on a first instance (now talking within an article more than the title, since this specific case is a building), there is typically an appropriate short name established and then used throughout....ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If users want to avoid the name of the church altogether, I suppose it could be Conference Center (Salt Lake City). But I think it's more commonly associated with the church than with the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * LDS Conference Center is the worst of all the choices above. I think it should go to Conference Center (LDS Church) or Conference Center (Salt Lake City). The use of LDS Conference Center also runs afoul of the article naming recommendations. It is not or consistent to call it the LDS Conference Center. It isn't the common usage to call it LDS Conference Center. In fact, if you compare the search in google of ["Conference Center" Salt Lake City -"LDS Conference Center"] and ["LDS Conference Center" Salt Lake City] the are at least one order of magnitude more uses of the name Conference Center rather than LDS Conference Center. I know that type of search is not conclusive but it should indicate a general preference. Finally, the use of LDS Conference Center is inconsistent with the naming conventions used for other articles related to the Mormon movement - those articles consistently use the "name of thing (LDS Church)" convention. I support is movement to either of the two options with the parenthetical. --Trödel 01:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, LDS Conference center is not ideal. I'd support Conference Center (Salt Lake City) as a compromise, and ideally recommend the title "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Conference Center", which is the actual title written in granite on the exterior of the building. No other building in the world goes by this appellation, meaning there would be no reasonable possibility of confusion with any other building names. ￼ 128.187.112.29 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article ought to be titled the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Conference Center. That is what the building is. 128.187.116.11 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Make sure everyone is aware of Wikipedia's policies for article titles, especially WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. This comes up for universities and many other buildings as well since many have much longer official names that are rarely used. An example is the University at Buffalo, which is officially named "The State University of New York at Buffalo" while the seal says "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York". The article is titled University at Buffalo because that's what most sources refer to it as (it also happens to be a preferred "short name" of the school). Being present on the building's facade or even a logo is not reason enough to change the article name. Why? Because it's never referred to as such in most sources, even primary sources (the Church's |own website just calls it "the Conference Center"). We use what a building is generally referred to in most sources, and for this building it's "the Conference Center". The full name of the church is almost never used in combination with the building. I definitely support either "Conference Center (Salt Lake City)" or even just "Conference Center (Utah)" since we often disambiguate titles using states or cities. I don't like "LDS Conference Center" mainly because "LDS" isn't clear to everyone, regardless of the church's current branding preferences. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * JonRidinger, I support that. 66.219.250.133 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)