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

Archives Archive 1 (Jan - Jul 2006) Archive 2

Achieving Featured List status

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] 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)