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

Ownership of Kirtland Temple

The Kirtland Temple has belonged to the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) since 1880. Also see Kirtland Temple Suit. MichaelBotts (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Also, listing the Kirtland Temple only as "Operated by others" is misleading. It implies that the Kirtland Temple belongs to the HLT church. "Owned and Operated by the Community of Christ" is not vague or misleading. MichaelBotts (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an article listing temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and not other denominations of the Latter-day Saint movement. This page also includes temples in common history of other Latter-day Saint movement sects. This includes temples/proposed temples in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Of these, Kirtland is the only one that's built and still run by another Latter-day Saint movement organization. Therefore, the concise phrase "operated by others" seems applicable. As for implying HLT church, I'm not sure what HLT church is or how it would imply. Other thoughts? Dmm1169 (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Replace Area Column with Open House dates for Dedication scheduled?

Just a thought, would open house dates serve better in place of Area column? I think open house dates for these temples is more pertinent than building size for these temples. To keep the table concise, I'd recommend that it's a replaced column rather than an added column. What are your thoughts? Dmm1169 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Trying to delete the portuguese page

I need to try solving a issue with portuguese version they are trying to delete page just because i added new references link to discussion here Joaosilva2000 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Joaosilva2000,

I've looked at the page though a translator and I also looked at the discussion. Bad news first, they are correct as the 300+ sources are strictly primary. The English version is a little better but still has its issues concerning primary sources. Good news! there's plenty of sources that are not primary. There's plenty of notability, but they're disputing it because there's no secondary or Tertiary sources.

Here's my personal recommendation to approach this. I unfortunately don't know portuguese and can help you with it.

1) Create a backup. Copy and paste the page edit data on a file. This way, you're not working from scratch if it does get removed. If it does get removed, follow the process that would allow you to reinstate a page. However, reinstating can be a difficult process.

2) Find some secondary sources for the article. Due to lack of time, Just start off with a few for the page. Web and news searches can help you with that.

3) Remove the 300+ primary sources in the main body that simply link the Church's webpage. Immediately add those few sources you've prepared.

4) Continue to find and secondary sources where sources are needed. This will take more time than the week.

It's going to take a lot of work but I've had deletion discussion reverse course after I showed concerted effort to comply to the policy.

FYI: The external wikileaks aren't working with my browser - I don't know why. I had to do a work around to get to the pages you linked. So here is the links you can copy and paste.

Article

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_templos_d%27A_Igreja_de_Jesus_Cristo_dos_Santos_dos_%C3%9Altimos_Dias

Removal Discussion Page

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Lista_de_templos_d%27A_Igreja_de_Jesus_Cristo_dos_Santos_dos_%C3%9Altimos_Dias Dmm1169 (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

hey, thanks for you feedback and helpful tips, i already have backup file, i have created in 15th august from this year (2023) and updating every single week in my computer and in my test page, you are saying they prefer Unofficial pages than Official?! Its weird to be honest. The 300+ fonts its temple page showing up the page, date and temple its not fake and magicaly pop out from nowhere, you are saying i need to remove more than 300+ fonts? That fonts already existed, i just updated beacuse all of them are going to page and dont have correct information and now they are contesting about that... Joaosilva2000 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know portuguese, but I placed a comment using a translator. I hope the translation came out ok.

Yes, Wikipedia prefers independent sources. It was something I had issues with when I started editing, as I believed the first party source was the best source, and that going to a chevy dealer to find out about a ford... However, that's not how Wikipedia works. Official pages could be referenced to address official statements, but these pages can't be totally dependent on these sources. Also the official page is manytimes referenced in external links or placed in infoboxes as "official website".

An example of appropriate use linking websites is the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Brazil Temple section. The official website is linked, but not as a reference. Referencing primary sources is acceptable for undisputable claims, just can't be reliant on these for its existence.

Again, mainly needs secondary and/or tertiary sources. In the removal comments, some of their secondary arguments (like propaganda, and notability) are weak at best if secondary sources are used. These type of lists are appropriate in Wikipedia and useful. Overall, I think the narrative is stating the facts and not being used as propaganda. Referencing is the main issue I see which is what they're using to push removal.

One side thought (after sourcing issue is resolved) concerning the table in the portuguese list, since you don't have pages for most temples, you may want to remove "location column" since general location is typically given in the temple name and replace it with "official website" or just add "official website", and which will allow appropriate links to official website for each temple. This way it's off the reflist and readers will know it's the official website.

Sorry about the wordy explanation. I hope it helps! Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So basically i need to put like sources from Unofficial websites like news websites? thats it? They are trying to remove page because im "divulgating the church", but that not true at all. I only replaced old links to brandnew only thatJoaosilva2000 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

List of LDS temples by geographic page memory issue

List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region is nearing capacity when it comes to memory. With current rate of 35 temples announced each year, this will approach capacity in 2024. May need to consider splitting the page or changing/reducing content or functionality on the page. More information concerning the issue is in it's Talk page. Thoughts? - Dmm1169 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does it exist at all? How is having both List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region due? The obvious answer would be to break List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region up into lists for each region. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Temples Undergoing Extended Maintenance vs. Temples Closed for Renovation

Hello again, everyone! It is relatively common in the Church for temples to have extended closures for routine maintenance. Such a closure has been announced for the Toronto Ontario Temple, and a 4.5 month closure has also been noted for the Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple. Per a new update from the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site, "[r]ededications are not held for temples that undergo minor renovations during an extended maintenance period." This is because temple-worthy members of the Church perform that maintenance. Therefore, I would suggest that the Toronto Ontario and Winter Quarters Nebraska Temples should not be categorized as "renovation scheduled", nor should they be on the same list as such. Thoughts? Jgstokes (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that routine maintenance don't need renovation scheduled, as that's more towards renovations that may warrant rededication. However, for those that I catch that are closed for a few months, it's simple enough to change the status to "Closed for renovations" and change back to "Operating" when it's complete, as long as you would want to keep up with it. Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with that. But the question is, should we leave those closed for routine maintenance listed among those "closed for renovation", or should that status be reserved for those that will eventually be formally rededicated? Jgstokes (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it your call. I would say the status can change (which changes status label in templates as well as icon color in maps) but not on the list of "closed for renovation", unless it's expected to be closed for a year or so. Dmm1169 (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a year is more than a fair benchmark for that section. With that in mind, I will go ahead and remove Toronto Ontario, since it falls under that category. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes,

Sounds good. I noticed that the criteria stated under renovation states "extensive renovation". What should be the criteria for this? "extensive" is relative. For some, a renovation that takes nine months is extensive. As you mentioned, maybe it should be those being rededicated. It's extensive enough that the church made mention which they state as "extended closure". I've leaving the page as we talked about before. That being said, the status should change to closed for renovations since it is under the category of "temporarily closed". What's your thoughts? Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that any "extensive" renovation requires a multi-year closure, or a degree of work that, of necessity, needs to e done by a construction crew, which would require a dedication. Any "renovation" where no rededication is required (because the work is done by temple-worthy Church members) wouldn't qualify as "extensive". I would be fine with categorizing short-term closures that don't require a rededication "Closed for extended maintenance" or something similar. Does that answer your question? User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 01:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets not add categories. I'm looking at Toronto's announcement. Where do you see that it's just maintenance? Where does it say it won't be rededicated? It's doesn't provide much details other than "renovated during an extended closure for approximately nine months". I don't think a nine month closure is changing carpet and light bulbs. The Houston Texas Temple was rededicated in just under six months after it was announced it will be closed for renovations. Of course that was because of flooding. The Yigo Guam Temple also closed because of flooding from a tropical cyclone, but there was no rededication for it. In short, either the section headers need to be updated to state "extensive renovations and announced rededication", or "extensive renovation of one year or longer". Any suggestions? The Toronto announcement really left everything vague which is why I'm asking. Dmm1169 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who follows temple construction extensively, I got the information directly from the webmaster of the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site. I know that's technically original research, and that personal knowledge means nothing unless backed by reliable sources. But let's look at this another way: The Houston closure, when it was announced, specifically stated that that temple would be rededicated once repairs were complete.

The sources on Toronto don't say anything like that. If it's not mentioned as part of the renovation announcement, it's not very likely to be the case, is it? Absent an actual source saying either way, we can't automatically assume a rededication will follow until sources say that is the case. We don't have a source on this either way, so until we do, Wikipedia shouldn't make assumptions. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes, It states "renovated during an extended closure for approximately nine months" in newsroom. It fits the definition for "temporary closure" as defined in maps, and therefore status would still needs to be changed during renovation. However, does it meet "closed for extensive renovation" as the section paragraphs state? The table for each section needs to fit each header paragraph, or vice versa. Listing only ones in which we believe there will be rededication may violate WP:CRYSTAL policy. Do you think these sections need to be redefined? I personally believe those paragraphs need to be defined in accordance to how it states in the paragraph and according to wikipedia policy. Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, reliable sourcing on Toronto doesn't explicitly state there will or won't be a rededication. Assuming there will not be may violate WP:CRYSTAL, but assuming there will be one when that's not explicitly stated would technically violate WP:OR. So either assumption presents a policy quandary. What do we do about that? I say until we know for sure, it's best to go by the sources. The sources on Toronto don't say or even suggest either way. If it's not mentioned in the sources, it shouldn't be suggested here. By contrast, the announcements on Manti, Salt Lake, St. George, Kona, Stockholm, Provo, Anchorage, and Manhattan all do explicitly reference a rededication (though, as we know, the language on Anchorage is different since it is a relocation and resizing). To comply with policy discouraging even the appearance of OR, I would be unalterable opposed to categorizing Toronto in the same way as the other temples I mentioned. If you can find a reliable source stating Toronto will be rededicated, then we can talk about including it in that same category. But all sources I've seen on Toronto don't mention one, and in this case, OR and RS may trump CRYSTAL in this case, so I'd suggest we stick to what the sources actually say. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, after looking at it again, I went ahead and made the change to the paragraphs defining the table. Dmm1169 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "Closed for maintenance" could be used if the closure is short and isn't expected to meet the conditions for a rededication. We can always change it later to "Closed for renovations" if wrong, or if the maintenance discovers additional issues that require more work. --Trödel 15:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trödel, thank you for that. It sounds like a fair compromise. On a separate note, @Dmm1169 informed me on my talk page that his time on Wikipedia may be limited going forward, and he asked me to take over one of the projects he does regularly. I may not be able to do that. Could you look that discussion over and see if it's something you'd be able to handle if he can't? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 17:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can help when I see the need, but don't think I can be relied on to be systematic. I'll look at the coordinates when I am editing a data template or confirming one got updated when I see a temple announcement from cjc . org. I think what needs to be done is open the address in google maps, click close to the location and then grab the coordinates that google maps (or another mapping program) provides then update the coordinates to 4 decimal places. --Trödel 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ordering of Temples Announced in October 2023

I just reordered the temples announced in October 2023. The section heading for Announced temples notes that the temples are listed in the order in which they were announced. As is plainly evident from the Newsroom video accompanying the Newsroom release about this temple, the order in which the temples were announced is different from the order in which the Newsroom has listed them. The correct order is confirmed here, and also in the Newsroom video. I'd say that the video and the Church News article trump the way the temples are listed in the Newsroom release. If anyone disagrees with this action, feel free to note that here. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 00:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not that particular on numbering of undedicated temples, I agree with numbering in the order in which it was announced. Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Announced Temples for April 2024 Conference

Once again, I will not be able to add new temples in a timely manner this conference as I've got a much busier schedule than in the past. Feel free to Be Bold and add these in yourself.

The easiest way to do this is to copy-paste a temple template from a temple announced in the latest conference and update the content and references to this conference new temple template. Thanks! - Dmm1169 (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

New temples

Some new temples have been announced on that are not on the map such as Edinburgh and Birmingham Jonahp2011 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Jonahp2011, It's not necessary to place every temple on the world map - especially if the temples are clustered. However, if you click on the continent, it will show a map of temples within that continent/territory. I've not been able to add all temples announced earlier this month as I've been busy with work and kids. However, you're welcome to edit. Template:LDSmap provides the instructions on how to add/edit the maps. Thanks! - Dmm1169 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

👍 Jonahp2011 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)