Talk:List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 2

Numbering Under Construction and Announced temples

With the use of the data template for temples under construction - I think we should discuss the numbering issue again. Typically we have numbered temples on this page using the following rules

1. Dedicated temples numbered as on lds.org
2. Under construction temples by date of groundbreaking
3. Announced temples by date of announcement

This means that temples that are announced but have difficulty getting started have a changing number as other temples have ground breakings and skip ahead. The same thing happens when a temple under construction is completed faster than ones started before it, since when it is dedicated its number changes to match the numbering on lds.org. Thus all temples numbered under 2 or 3 are tentative.

I think having the temple have a number on the temple's individual page that is tentative could be confusing - and at least one other person agrees as the data templates that have been created and used for Infoboxes sometimes say TBD for the number.

On the other hand the numbering doesn't really mean anything and we could continue the practice of italicizing them so that they are differentiated.

I plan to use the numbering that we have always used on this page unless there are substantive objections and consensus is reached on an alternative solution. --Trödel 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about this, but I think the numbering should be left off non-dedicated temples. I agree that it is confusing to have a number that changes. Since the official website doesn't number non-dedicated temples in the chronological list, I don't think we should here. On the other hand, not having a number for a temple could be confusing too, and it could add difficulties to lists that order by number... So as long as we're not causing worse problems, I say don't number them.

The reason I don't feel too strongly about either position is because I think the number probably looses relevancy as it increases. Certainly the numbers of first few temples are significant, and milestone numbers (like 100) could be relevant, but I don't think other numbers are particularly notable. – jaksmata 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are really basing the Wiki list on what is on the Church website, I feel that there should be no numbers for the under construction or announced section. On the official Church list, temples announced or under construction are unnumbered and are listed alphabetically. Therefore, to make this list more like the "official" Church list, I would propose combining the announced and under construction sections on this page, listing it alphabetically, and omitting the numbers, leaving the details as is unless they change. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It could reduce the number of times they have to be moved in the list. I definitely wouldn't combine the "Efforts suspended" section in with the rest (not that you were suggesting it) - that could offend the people who own the property. – jaksmata 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. So, I think that it's at least worth looking at and thinking about. On the efforts suspended issue, I agree with you. There's no point in combining the efforts suspended section. As a matter of fact, all we'd really need there were important dates on them and the reason suspended. But I would say that combining the announced and under construction lists and eliminating the numbers would make it more readable. I'd also list the announced/under construction temples alphabetically, as per the Church's official list. I may give it a shot straightening that out myself, but I'm not sure yet. The page will show my changes if I wind up making them. Otherwise, someone else can. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Combination just attempted. Cleanup will need to be done on this edit, but it's combined now as per consensus.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue over the weekend. And one of the things a list should do on Wikipedia is not just reproduce lists available elsewhere, which is why I see this list as a combination of the best of what is on lds.org and ldschurchtemples.com with some extra information thrown in when we can. Therefore I do not think we are tied to not numbering the temples simply because lds.org does not. Additionally, I think that numbering them provides a little something extra - not non lds.org in an approximate placement of the temple in the numbering scheme - and it makes it easy to see how many there are total including either under construction or UC and announced temples.

For similar reasons I am in favor of keeping the two lists separate - and not combining them like lds.org and ldschurchtemples.com do. I think it is nice to go to the list and know immediately which ones are under construction and which ones are announced, and I think providing them in separate sections adds some value above what is available on those lists.

Since I brought up the issue because it seems strange to have a number for the temple on the temple's infobox - I will edit the infobox template so it puts in TBD for the number on Under Construction and Announced temples, that way we can leave a number in the data page and on this list.

In the mean time I have implemented the combination per Jgstokes - since the mixture of old and new templates is complicated and something I hope to get rid of soon. However, I would be in favor of restoring it as two sections. PS - I'm not quite sure we have a consensus on these issues yet - I mean we are getting there amongst us 3. However, perhaps we should solicit opinions from the wikiproject to make sure we have a wide range of viewpoints. --Trödel 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I know we have traditionally kept the destroyed or operated by others first - because the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples are in that list and they were built first - but I think it makes more sense to have those listed at the end of the list. I would think before the Efforts Suspended list. My thinking is that it is kind of strange to have list of something and then list those that have been destroyed first - even though one has been rebuilt. --Trödel 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the layout looks pretty good as of right now–the destroyed/operated by others first, then operating, then efforts suspended. As far as the numbering, I'll lean towards not numbering those under construction to avoid the numbering changing; but I think having the TBD in the infobox is a good compromise. MeekMark (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Looks like a good option. The only issue I can see with keeping the numbers for announced/under construction temples is that the number by the temple would change as temples listed before/after one of them got dedicated. If there was a way around this issue without constant revision, I'd be in favor of some sort of numbering system for them. I've got an idea: What if we based a number system for this combined section on completion status and further order them by letter? Let me explain what I mean: If we have temples that are "expected to be dedicated" by the end of this year, they would be numbered before temples expected to be dedicated next year. Further, these would be subdivided to be listed alphabetically, unless temples further along in the alphabet were to be dedicated before temples early on in the alphabet. Of course, any system would work, really, as long as it's uniform. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think changing to expected to be dedicated is too speculative - and still oppose a combined section - just my 2 cents

Thanks MeekMark for updating all those links for ldschurchtemples.com - I hadn't noticed they changed the format. --Trödel 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I didn't do that; looks like someone from an anonymous IP did; I have been tweaking a few of the under construction templates though. And thanks for cleaning up some of the nit-picking details I left this morning :) MeekMark (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

YW and thanks to 69.92.18.224 - I just figured you forgot to login :) --Trödel 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Church has announced two new temples in Arizona. A user with only an IP address added that information, but undid it when he/she couldn't get the new temple listings to look like the others. I attempted a cleanup and was unsuccessful. Could someone with more WP knowledge than I have please fix this? Since they've been officially announced, they ought to be there. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Each temple requires an individual template. I believe I've fixed the problems. Best --Eustress (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Template for Announced and Under Construction temples

This has been fully implemented - I plan to do the same for all other statuses. Any thoughts-concerns before/as I get started. --Trödel 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Panama Temple was dedicated on Sunday.

The Panama Temple was dedicated on Sunday by President Thomas S. Monson. For verification of this, see President Monson dedicates LDS Church's 127th Temple, in Panama and LDS Church's 127th temple is dedicated in Panama. I would add Panama to the list of dedicated temples myself, but there is much about the used template that I don't understand, and I don't want to mess the list up. Could someone with more WP template knowledge than I have please fix this? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever took care of this (I believe it may have been Trodel). We will have to add one or two more temples to the WP list before the end of the year. :) --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Temple Locations

I'd like to see GPS location information for each temple. Is there a reason why this is not there at present? TimRiker (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates are shown on each individual temple's article page (top-right corner). They're not shown here because this page is just a list of temples, and is not intended to include all information. – jaksmata 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are updates on the locations of newly announced temples:

• Calgary: at the intersection of Rocky Ridge Road and Royal Oak Road
• Córdoba: on the Belgrano meetinghouse site, next to the present mission home of the Church
• Kansas City: within the limits of Kansas City, Missouri, in the Shoal Creek development
• Philadelphia: on North Broad Street between Hamilton Street and Noble Street
• Rome: on part of a 15-acre site near the ring road skirting the northeast section of Rome

See press release. Sorry not to oblige with the edit... attempt was unsuccessful. Jim (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - someone will need to get the coordinates for those locations and enter them in on the data templates - then they will show up on this page too. --Trödel 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Approximate coordinates for Philadelphia are 39°57'39"N, 75°9'41"W and for Córdoba are 31°21'31"S, 64°14'44"W. I tried adding them for Córdoba and it didn't work out. Jim (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:LDS Temple list#Coordinates

It would be a good idea to add a coordinates parameter, making use of {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is done at {{Infobox LDS Temple}} - as I have seen coord used it places the coordinates at the top right corner. I am guessing that the template has the ability to do inline coordinates as well, but I'm not sure it whether it is a useful feature to include in the list. I am cross posting this here to ask for additional feedback. --Trödel 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

adding coordinates - which can be displayed inline; see {{coord}} - to the "List" page would allow the whole set to be exported as KML and mapped on Google Maps, Google Earth, and other such tools. See the "Map of all coordinates" and related links, on Tame Valley Canal for an example. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endowment House

Why is the Endowment House listed here as if it were a temple? It never was considered a temple; it was only a temporary location to administer temple ordinances (limited to the living only) while the Salt Lake Temple was being constructed; precedents at other locations include the Salt Lake City Council House and the Red Brick Store. It does not belong on this list as if it were a temple, though it is useful as a see also. If it must be included included, it needs to be part of a separate section listing all of the other documented locations where temple ordinances were preformed outside of a temple. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a sound argument. I think I like the idea of moving it to a "see also" section, along with any other similar, temporary locations. – jaksmata 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no qualms about the creation of a section to deal specifically with non-dedicated temples being used as stand-ins, so to speak. I placed it where it is in the list so that our chronological list synched up with the timeline graphic (which shows the Endowment House). I'd also like to point out that the entry makes it abundantly clear that the house was not a temple, so I don't see it as that confusing. Still, I have no issues with segregating them. Shereth 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Endowment House is distinguishable from the Red Brick Store and the Salt Lake City Council House in that it was designed, built and used as a "temporary temple" rather than a location that was designed or built for another purpose that then was later used occasionally or for a short period of time for temple ceremonies because of exigent circumstances. The Endowment House was a dedicated separate structure in which all of the temple ordinances were performed for the living (the only difference between the endowment house and a full temple is proxy ordinance work). I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I think it is justified to include the endowment house - I mean we include the kirtland temple which had no ordinances as we know them now performed in it. --Trödel 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss the Endowment House in the intro paragraph, giving a brief history of temple building and explaining how the Endowment House fits into the history of temples. It is not a temple, and this is a list of temples, so I think it should not be in the list. Bytebear (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)