Is this suitable for use on each of the articles it lists? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added the template near the top of each article listed on it, except for the links in the "people" section. I'm wondering if that section is a good idea or not. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so keen on kepping this portal out. It was accepted for 6 days until you reverted it again.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have already stated both above and in the previous edit summaries why I think adding that portal here is a bad idea. Additionally, I think you are confusing not being noticed with acceptance: I was busy in real life, or I would have reverted it immediately after you had added it back, and 6 days sets no precedence. The reason why I opened this dialog on this talk page was to gain consensus, and this should be established before your change is reinstated. As you appear to frequently switch between IP address with your German ISP, there was no way to be sure to notify you about this discussion, other than in the edit summary of the reverts.
It would also be possible to file a request for comment as per WP:RFC if there are insufficient comments without such. Speaking for myself, personally, I would oppose the inclusion of a link to the LDS portal for what may well be the reason that links to the other various portals for various Christian denominations or groupings are apparently not included in Template:Books of the New Testament, that there are numerous groups which value the Book of Mormon, and inclusion of any one would presumably mean that potentially inclusion of others would be required as well as they are created. That would be far too many on the NT books template. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)