Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive2

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

This list had good reviews and had probably reached concensus to be a Featured List in a prior nomination; however, because of some discussions to drastically reformat the list, I withdrew the nomination. Those discussions have concluded and this list is being submitted for featured list status again.

Improvements since last nomination (or as a result of comments from the last nomination):

Introduction is more concise
Addition of Image showing locations of all temples
Improved references
Use of templates to remove table formatting
- Allows editing of data on each temple to be entered by novices without effecting formatting
- Makes reviewing and finding individual temples in the edit screen easier
Addition of statistics chart
A stub or more exists for every temple that has been completed, and some that are under construction or announced
Images have been added (first 10 temples all have images)
No fair use images remain

Respectfully --Trödel 18:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ due to external links in body text, nine anonymous hyperlinks and I've got a query as to which references were actually used.
Thanks for the suggestions - see below (lines beginning with √ or ʘ) for status of resolution of listed comments/issues. --Trödel 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 temples under contruction have external links for their "Construction details". External links should be only found in the appropriate end sections.
√ Moved to references. Current status summarized from lds.org and ldschurchtemples.com
The (D&C 88:119-120) external link, I'm less sure about. If you moved this to the footnotes/references section, you could expand the citation (I didn't know what D&C was) and even supply a short quote using the cite book template.
√ moved quote - leaving quote in biblical "Book_name Chap:Verse(s)" format (
The nine anonymous hyperlinks can be found in the Footnotes section. These should be fully cited. Footnotes with inline-citations are awkward. You could consider using the ref/note system for lettered footnotes (see the Canadian election FLCs), which then appear above the References section and so can themselves be sourced.
√ I limited this to only those areas where readers tend to edit the data incorrectly. Since it really is a good reference, but people tend to change the information I want to leave the links in.
- I don't understand this. What are readers editing incorrectly? Why is this stopping you using a full citation? You don't need to do the notes/refs split, just put the citation in parenthesis if you want. But they should be full {{cite press release}} {{cite web}}, etc with dates, publisher, title, access dates, etc. Conditional support Colin°^Talk 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, I misunderstood - I thought you were suggesting to use the notes/ref split. Now the suggestion makes more sense to me. Major references should go in reference section like a normal article. And minor references should be in footnotes. I will use the full cites - I don't see why we shouldn't. --Trödel 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm What I meant originally was a style where comment-footnotes use letters, citation-footnotes use numbers and general references are a bullet-point list. This allows the comment-footnotes to have superscript numbered inline-citations of their own. It is just a style - if you want all footnotes (comments and sources) to be mixed together then that's ok, just a bit messy. To complicate things futher, some folk just use an abbreviated cite in the footnote (especially when making extensive use of a textbook) and put the full citation in the references at the end. In the end, it gets fully cited, which is what matters. Clear as mud? Colin°^Talk 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep - can you link me to an example of that - I have been using the <ref> type for the footnotes rather than the harvard style - which I like for references that are used more than once (bullet list at end - Author, year. for the inline or footnote cites) but would be interested in the a,b,c, and 1,2,3 used simultaneously - I looked at some of the current Canada election candidates for FL but couldn't find (or saw and didn't recognize) the example you referred me to previously. BTW, this is complete I believe. --Trödel 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean by editing incorrectly. For example the Southwest part of Salt Lake Valley temple: This was being changed by giving it a number, and putting in Bluffdale Temple or Herriman Temple - I wanted to leave the notes in so it is clear that the temple property was acquired but no announcement was made indicating that efforts towards construction had started. --Trödel 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how the mormon.org site served as a reference to this.
√ I think this was included in some references included from the Temple (Mormonism) page and information from that link is not being used so I removed it
The www.ldschurchtemples.com site seems to the source of much of the data (including area and style) as discussed on the talk page. The www.lds.org site is similar but doesn't have all the data (that I can find). So I think the former needs to be a reference.
√ For me the main source I used was the almanac (I referenced the one I own but also borrowed the 2006 edition (published in 2005)
Drop the ---- surname bit in the citation template, it looks odd.
√ implemented
Don't include external links that you've already got as references. Try to ruthlessly prune your external links – they must add a signifcant amount of info relevant to this list in particular (as opposed to all the other LDS articles).
√ cleaned up
Similary, prune your See also for the similar reasons. If you've already got wikilinks, don't add a see also.
√ removed those that are already referenced inteh article text
Note 6 (rededication date) is not required since your row heading already says "Rededication".
√ implemented
Some of the Notes concerning Rededication specifics could be just appended to the Rededication row. Number 25 could have a Rededication row. Alternatively, some Notes could be made footnotes.
√ resolved I believe
Number 10 mentions reopening but not when it closed (only mentioned in footnote). To be honest, this seems a somewhat trivial detail for this list.
√ moved this detail to the main article - was only of interest during the renovation really.
Don't know what "Smaller and remote area 1" means. Perhaps you could explain this in the lead or wiklink?
√ Updated to match styles given in references. Bytebear is working on Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints) using the Hawkins book and other references on getting these titles sourced and consistent.
Footnote 13 has rather too many references!
√ resolved
Re: wikilinking dedication person. Convention is to link just the first occurrence. How about a compromise of linking just the first occurence per section.
ʘ Would like to leave this as is for now, this will change with the implementation of the centralized data locaiton for each temple that will be used in the lists and the individual temple pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
The Jun-Dec 2000 section doesn't have lines between the temples.
√ This is a rendering issue that occasionally happens on my monitor too - but the table lines are in there and defined properly so try refreshing the screen.

Yes, that is an issue in long tables and those with a bit more complex layout. I believe the root of the problem lies in the "wikitable" CSS class. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it is a fine list! Note: many of the above points are just suggestions. My main concern is improving the references. Colin°^Talk 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with some caveats of the inclusion of info included below: -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Continuing on template talk page. --Trödel 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support alot of work went into that article; good job. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good list, though I think it would be even better if there was some recognition of temples that were designated, or their site dedicated, but not built (yet), as suggested by Visorstuff. COGDEN 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]