Talk:List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 3

Consistency in announcements?

For the temples that have the date of the announcement in the notes, I think there should be consistency in the ones announced at General Conference. i.e. of the form: Announced by [[Thomas S. Monson]] at the 200th Semiannual General Conference (October 5, 2030)<ref>...</ref>

sounds fine to me - someone just needs to make the change and make sure it's consistent after every conference. --Trödel 16:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LDS Church Temple site information.

I found a great site with the latest in temple news. Though not officially endorsed or operated by the Church, it has up-to-the-minute information on temples. The site is as follows: LDS Temples Site. Information on the site can be easily verified by news stories in the Deseret News, the Church News, and the Church's website. It seems to me, though, that having one source would be simpler than the three, and the LDS Church Temples page combines all three sources. According to the site's chronological list, ground was broken for the Sapporo Japan Temple on October 22, 2011 by Gary E. Stevenson; and for the Fortaleza Brazil Temple on November 15, 2011 by David A. Bednar. Also, according to the webmaster of that site, Church officials, who feed him information for his site, state that the July "announcement" of the Paris France temple was more an acknowledgement of future plans to have a temple, and that the official announcement date for the temple was 1 October 2011, making a total of six temples announced on that date. The order of the announced temples, according to President Monson's opening address at the October General Conference, the order of temples on the site and consequently WP's order of these six should be as follows: Provo City Center Temple (working name that the Church prefers over any other name); Barranquilla Colombia Temple; Durban South Africa Temple; Kinshasa Democratic Republic of Congo Temple; Star Valley Wyoming Temple; and Paris France Temple. Making these changes myself is beyond my area of expertise, so I have posted this information, and someone else can take care of the actual fixing of the page. Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tried to perform the updates myself and failed miserably. There's something about the formatting of this page that I'm not used to, and I don't know how to get around it. HELP! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The LDS Temples Site is already included in the {{Infobox LDS Temple}} so it appears as the "News and information' link in the infobox.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We include information from ldschurchtemples.com on every temple with a link to their pages (which BTW, has significantly affected their google ranking and exposure). If you have talked with the webmaster of the site, it would be nice if he would ask people that upload pictures if they would license them under a free license. Some of our pictures have come from that site, and tracking down the owner and asking them for permission is time consuming, and all of them responded with something like, "sure you can use them, that's why I uploaded them - so people can use them wherever."

As to Order - traditionally, the order has always been, alphabetical by date they were announced (Thus Provo is 165 immediately before star valley). The order doesn't really matter and isn't set in stone until they are dedicated anyway, before then, the order changes as they are moved up once they are under construction, and then again when dedicated since construction time varies. We also don't follow the "official" order for these, but rather the date that it is documented in a reliable source. For example, Paris was obviously announced (I guess you could consider it informally) when it confirmed that the church had plans for a temple in France with this statement.

The temples that have had ground broken need to be moved, but we should also be able to find reliable sources on this and the articles should also be updated.

The formatting is so that you don't have to wade through all the table formatting codes to find the text. Just move the entire line for each temple to move it's location. To change numbering, click on edit to the right inside the box for each temple, there you can edit the details for that temple. Information is centralized this way and it saves time and inconsistencies by having the same information used on the 3 different lists of temples pages, as well as on the article page for the temple itself. --Trödel 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PS - thanks for bringing the order issue up re the temples announced in October 2010 - I don't know why they were ordered as they were, haven't been paying close attention I guess. --Trödel 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To ARTEST4ECHO: I was noticing that the content of this page doesn’t match latest information found on ldschurchtemples.com, and I was asking for help to make it more like that, since I didn’t understand the formatting.

To Trödel: I am pleased to learn how information for ldschurchtemples.com is being used here on WP. You told me many things about that which I didn’t know, so, thanks. My question was not about licensing. According to the webmaster of the site, any information on there can be used in any aspect as long as it is attributed, since his site is not officially endorsed or operated by the Church.

On the order question, I think we should list them in the order they were announced. For example, in October 2010, President Thomas S. Monson announced 5 new temples. The order he announced them was not alphabetical. Instead it was as follows: Lisbon, Portugal; Indianapolis, Indiana; Urdaneta, Philippines; Hartford, Connecticut; and Tijuana, Mexico. As We Meet Again Since that is verifiable, I feel that this is the order we should use on WP. It is illogical to list these temples in alphabetical order when the announced order was so different.

Next, on the Paris France Temple, the July 15 date WAS much more an acknowledgement date. The actual announcement came on October 1. Why else would the November 2011 ‘‘Ensign’’ cover claim “six new temples announced” if that were not the case? In the news of the Church section for that ‘‘Ensign’’, no mention was made about the earlier announcement of the Paris France Temple. So, 1 October 2011 is the acknowledged date when the Paris France Temple was officially announced, and that is how it should appear here on WP. Now, a word about the rebuilt Provo Tabernacle’s conversion to a temple: Many names have been suggested. On WP, it is listed as the “Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple.” But according to the webmaster of ldschurchtemples.com, the Church officially favors a name that makes no reference to the tabernacle from whence it came. The working title for that temple, according to Church headquarters, is the Provo City Center Temple. That information is verified by the LDS Church Temples site.

As to the order of the temples announced in November 2011, it makes sense to me to list them in the order that President Monson announced them. According to As We Meet Again, the order is as follows: Provo City Center Temple; Barranquilla Columbia Temple; Durban South Africa Temple; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple; Star Valley Wyoming Temple; and Paris France Temple. If that is the order favored by the Church, that is the order that should be used here on WP. Thoughts?

I tried to move the temples that have had ground broken, but with no success. The fact that ground has been broken for the Sapporo Japan and Fortaleza Brazil Temples is verified on the LDS Church Temples Site, and links are posted for the individual listings on that temple for verification from lds.org, ldschurchnews.com, and deseretnews.com. So we can use ldschurchtemples.com as a verifiable source for the groundbreakings that need to be added to WP. I still don’t understand the formatting, but I will let WP editors more knowledgeable than myself perform these changes. Thanks for the feedback and the help. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You did properly moved the Sapporo Japan and Fortaleza Brazil temples.

Did you notice that when you added the date of the dedication, the text changed to "scheduled for <date>" for the Groundbreaking. That was because the status of the temple was still "Announced". To change this, on the same page where you entered the date, change the status to "Under Construction". This is so that if you put a date in and it is still in the "Announced" status, it is presumed to be a scheduled groundbreaking date, since if the groundbreaking happened it should be "Under Construction"

Order has been discussed for a while - see the first section of this talk page, where you had chimed in a few years ago. I don't have a lot vested, alphabetical just seemed "fair" to me - though I think in the actual order announced in conference is equal or even better logically.

As to Paris - I guess you could best compare that to the temple that Pres Hinckley announced in the south east (presumed later to be Herriman) salt lake valley in conference. It was kind of a "pre announcement" and in that case nothing ended up happening. Both were notable in that they were unusual. Therefore, I think we should note the pre announcement, whether that is in the notes, or in the date in the announcement field doesn't really matter to me.

That is great that the webmaster is willing to share information. The problem we have as wikipedians is that policy only allows media to be posted (like pictures, videos, audio files, etc) if there is a clear license to do so from the artist/creator. While the webmaster has a direct license to use the photos, he doesn't currently AFAIK ask those posting a picture to grant a "free" license to the materials. With text it is easy, we either quote or paraphrase and reference the source. With pictures it's much more complicated since the webmaster doesn't own a license that allows him to grant a license to others.

Since the webmaster indicates that material can be used, he could make things much easier for us if he included something like, "Type CC-BY-SA below if you would like to grant a license not only to this website but to other websites and allow others to print your pictures and use them provided that they attribute the picture to you and that they also allow others to freely use and print what they produce. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for full details on what this license grants." and then have a field for them to type in - I'm not sure a check here to license the picture would meet the strict standards of the policy against copyright infringement on wikipedia and commons, but if the webmaster is open to the idea I would be happy to serve as a liason and help get the wording right. --Trödel 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just reread As We Meet Again, and Monson's wording for the Paris temple presupposes that it was already announced, "In addition, we are moving forward on our plans for a temple to be built in Paris, France." Therfore, I'm very much in favor of leaving it as announced in summer and not at the October conference. The Almanac and the LDS.org website will have to be our ultimate guide. However, I've reordered for now based on your request above. --Trödel 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I still don't understand the formatting, and I am perfectly happy to leave the updating of this page to those who do. Thanks for trying to help me. Thanks for reordering the temples. I think going in the order they were announced will be better. As far as the Almanac goes, the 2012 Church Almanac lists the Paris France Temple as being annnounced on October 1, as does the LDS temples site and the November 2011 Ensign. When the webmaster of LDS Church Temples originally listed Paris as being announced on October 1, I sent a query to him, asking why he didn't use the July 15 date. He responded that, according to Church headquarters, the July 15 date was more of an acknowledgement of information leaked in a Paris newspaper, and that a temple would be built there in the future. But October 1, according to headquarters, was the official date of announcement. Incidentally, the LDS Church Temples site also contains a list of "Proposed Temples." While this list is highly speculative based upon suggestions by various Church leaders, and as such should not be included in WP, it was interesting to note that the South Salt Lake Valley Temple still appears on the list. Remember, when Gordon B. Hinckley announced that the site had been procured, he said that it was not an official announcement, but would become such when the needs in the area warranted it. I feel confident that all the temples listed in the "Proposed Temples" section will be announced in due time. In the meantime, thanks for updating this page in accordance with the information I provided. I look forward to seeing what happens with temple progression this year. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looked over the list again. It looks great, but I have another question. The Almanac lists the 2nd Provo Temple as the "Provo Utah Tabernacle Temple," but that is because the name was not officially announced yet. According to the webmaster of the LDS Church Temples site, headquarters informed him that the Church wants to shy away from any reference to the tabernacle in the naming convention. Headquarters informed him that the "working name" of the temple is the "Provo City Center Temple." I have no verification for this, other than the webmaster's word that this is the case. I believe him, but I don't think that's enough to change it here, since it can't be verified as of yet. But I was wondering if a sentence should be added to this listing to include that information. Something like "The webmaster of the LDS Church Temples site claims that the new temple will be called the 'Provo City Center Temple.'" Such a sentence would, I believe, allow for the possibility of this name, but also not put WP's credibility at stake. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like something that should be added to the article text, and even there I'm not sure it will stay because it doesn't meet the reliable sources guideline. --Trödel 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just spent a few minutes researching on the internet and failed to find any references proving that the 2nd Provo Temple will indeed be named the "Provo City Center Temple." I have e-mailed the webmaster of the LDS Church Temples site to see if he can point me to any such resources. I know that smacks a bit of OR, but I didn't know what else to do. I'm sure if the source is out there, I'd stumble across it eventually, but I don't know how to find it on my own. So we'll have to see what he says. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view there is no problem leaving it as is and change it once they start reporting on it in the news (like near the groundbreaking). --Trödel 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Papeete Tahiti Temple.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Papeete Tahiti Temple.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes just made.

Posting here to mention three changes on this page: two made and one yet-to-be made. I reordered the announced temples because the temples announced in October 2010 were not listed in the order they were announced. I also reordered the under construction temples. In my opinion, if a temple is scheduled for dedication, it should be listed before those for which no dedication date has yet been announced. Which is why in the list you will see that the Kansas City Missouri Temple is listed prior to those with an earlier groundbreaking date. I am going to reword the opening paragraph so it is less redundant. Please comment here before reverting any or all of these changes. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

First. It is not a requirement of Wikipedia to "Please comment here before reverting any or all of these changes." Wikipedia policy of WP:bold make it OK to revert then discuss. However, I will disuses it fist as request in order to be polite.

I agree with most of the changes talk made, but I only disagree one thing. The "Hartford Connecticut Temple". You moved it down.

1. It was announced twice, we have should decided which take precedent before moving it.
2. Even if we whose to used the 2 October 2010 date, it should probably still be above "Indianapolis Indiana" since they were all announced the same day. So I think they should be alphabetical.
3. The current note in the "Under construction" need to be restructured, once we decided what to do, since it doesn't address the issue of same day announcements

--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that WP in general encourages boldness, but I have requested comment before revision in the past so as to avoid edit wars. Thank you for being polite.

Now, on the Hartford Connecticut Temple, it's true that it WAS announced twice, but the previous announcement was withdrawn based on opposition, so the earlier date should have no bearing on where it's listed now.

Secondly, I agree that, in general, the list should be chronologically alphabetized. However, in the case of temples announced in October 2010, Thomas S. Monson presented these new temples in the order they currently appear on this page. The Deseret News 2010 Church Almanac first makes mention of the then five newest temples on pg. 33. But the order there is neither alphabetical or chronological. There, they are listed as follows: Hartford Connecticut, Indianapolis Indiana, Tijuana Mexico, Urdaneta Philippines, and Lisbon Portugal. Then in the temples section on pg. 201, the new temples are listed alphabetically. In the October 2010 Ensign, the News of the Church section on pg. 127, the new temples are listed alphabetically. So we have three different official ways (one with two sources) in which the temples are listed. I tend to favor alphabetically, except in cases where they were announced in a different order. That's why I pushed for the temples announced in October 2011 to be in the order they currently appear on the WP page.

As a note of interest, the ordering there is inconsistent as well. In October 2011, President Monson announced that the new temples were in the order they appear on this page. But on page 35 in the Deseret News 2012 Church Almanac, they are listed in the following order: Provo Tabernacle, Paris France, Kinshasa DR of C, Durban South Africa, Barranquilla Colombia, and Star Valley Wyoming. Oddly enough, they are listed in that same order on pg. 214. Then in the October 2011 Ensign, the new temples are listed alphabetically. I think we should have input from other users before changing the order again. To me, it makes the most sense to list them alphabetically by date of announcement, except in cases where they were announced in a different order. But I want to know what others think. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, the open house and dedication dates have been announced for the Manaus Brazil Temple. I have implemented this change, and changed the status of this temple from "Under Construction" to "Dedication scheduled." It appears from the list on ldschurchtemples.com that the Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple, Calgary Alberta Temple, and Brigham City Utah Temples will be dedicated before the end of the year. So we'll keep an eye on things and see what happens. Exciting news! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Provo City Center Temple

According to this article, the official name for the second Provo Utah Temple is the "Provo City Center Temple." I think we should alter the relevant lists and articles to reflect this official information. All we were waiting for was verification, and we have it now, so it is my suggestion that we make this change official on WP. Thoughts? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this article, the groundbreaking date for the Provo City Center Temple has been set for 12 May 2012. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland will officiate. This information needs to be added to the article, and it would probably be wise to reorder the "announced" temples section to reflect this change, since other temple groundbreaking dates have yet to be announced. But I will let someone who understands the templates better take care of these changes. Exciting news! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! I knew I should have left well enough alone. I tried to make the change myself and failed miserably, and now the page is ruined! I need help getting it fixed, because I don't know what I did wrong, and I don't know how to reverse it. HELP!!!! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Your problem was when you added the link to the scheduled groundbreaking on the template (Template:LDS_Temple/Provo_City_Center_Temple) you had two opening square brackets ('[') instead of just the one used for external links. That confused the template. Ravendrop 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. You totally saved me. That makes sense. Don't know how I missed that. I owe you one. Now I can finish updating this page. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I finished reordering the temples. So as of now, this page is up-to-date with the latest information. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the information about the Provo City Center groundbreaking no longer visible? I feel it is pertinent to WP readers. Tried to fix it, but only succeeded in restoring the link to an article about the groundbreaking to the template. What can be done about this? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hartford Conneticut Announcement Date

When I was reordering the temples based on the recent announcement of the forthcoming groundbreaking for the Provo City Center Temple, I noticed that someone had listed an earlier annoucnement date for the Hartford Conneticut Temple. It makes sense to me that a reference to an earlier announcement date should be made in the specific article about the temple, but in my mind, that information is not relevant to this page, because here we are concerned with the latest information available about temples. But I wanted to get your opinion on this as well. Am I right, or did I do the wrong thing? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Brigham City Temple Dedication

According to this article, the open house and dedication dates have been announced for the Brigham City Utah temple. I have inserted this information into the page and reordered the under construction temples accordingly, but for some reason, I cannot change the status of this temple from "Under Construction" to "Dedication scheduled." Please help me with this. Thanks. Exciting news! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed the Brigham City Utah Temple template according to my above request. I couldn't fix this on my own. How was it done? Now to see what happens with temples the rest of the year. Thanks again! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

you're welcome - it is in the template. Change the "status" parameter. --Trödel 20:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Argentina Temple Rededication

According to ldschurchtemples.com, the rededication of the Buenos Aires Argentina temple has been scheduled for 9 September 2012. I have added this information to the template and changed the status of the temple to "Rededication scheduled." Any questions? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed status of this temple so it reads as being in operation and added information about the rededication. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made to this article.

With the dedication of the Kansas City Missouri Temple last Sunday and the groundbreaking for the Provo City Center Temple that will be held on May 12, the template for current temple status needs to be changed so that it is clear that there are 137 operating temples (with 3 undergoing renovation), 15 under construction, and 14 announced. Tried to change that in the article myself but don't know how that template works. Thanks for your help with this important update. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that ground has been broken for the Provo City Center Temple, it is more important than ever to get this page up-to-date. I would gladly perform the updates myself, but I don't want to ruin the page like I have in the past. So if someone could please move the Provo City Center temple to the "Under Construction" page, and update the status of temples, since I don't understand the templates, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. With a little experimentation, I managed to perform the needed updates myself. The only thing I would do differently next time is that I performed the move of the Provo City Center Temple in two moves rather than the one I could do it in. Oh, well. As of today, this page is up-to-date. Thanks anyways. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jgstokes - sorry I didn't see you request sooner, but I'm glad that you were able to figure it out. --Trödel 15:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Manaus Brazil Temple

The Manaus Brazil temple was dedicated on June 10. I have added information about the dedication and moved it to the appropriate section. I have updated the status of LDS temples. As of now, this page is up-to-date. However, I was not able to find any specifications for this temple, so that information will have to be added. Thanks --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Gila Valley Arizona Temple

The correct name for this temple is The Gila Valley Arizona Temple, with deliberate capitalization of the word "The". That is the way it appears on this page. However, the article about it merely calls it "Gila Valley Arizona Temple," which is not correct. Citizens of The Gila Valley would no doubt be incensed to find "The" missing from this temple. The WP page for this temple needs to be fixed. For verification of this fact, I refer you to the following The Gila Valley, plain and simple. That article was run when the temple was dedicated two years ago. Since this is a verifiable fact, I urge a change in the WP page about this temple ASAP. Post here with questions or comments. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Tijuana Mexico Temple

It has been announced that ground will be broken for the Tijuana Mexico Temple on August 18. For verification of this information, see Tijuana Mexico Temple - LDS Church Temples. I have added this information to the appropriate template and have changed the status of this temple to "Groundbreaking scheduled." However, information about the groundbreaking is not visible. Could someone please help with this? Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of the small, cookie-cutter temples

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sure, the big temples like Salt Lake and L.A. are notable, but I'm wondering if the smaller, cookie-cutter ones from the '90s and early '00s like Medford really merit stand-alone articles. Consider the following:

1. Sourcing: Some of the smaller temple articles have no sourcing at all; the ones that do have sources either from LDS-related websites, or mentions in the local paper, which isn't significant enough to pass GNG.
2. Size/Scope of Articles: Like the temples themselves, the articles are short and cookie-cutter, generally containing the same information, some of which isn't really that encyclopedic; many of which is trivial (how many people showed up to the opening), obvious (that the temple serves people who live around it/in the state it's in) or just plan doesn't belong in an article (zoning arguments with the city). The truly encyclopedic information is already in tables like the one at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. Significance: The small cookie-cutter temples do not have individual architectural significance. The plan they are all built from might; but it is already covered in the "Temple architecture" article. They don't have historical significance either: none are listed, and since the cookie-cutter ones are only 10-15 years old, they aren't eligible to be.
4. Comparison to Other Structures: People have made the argument that LDS temples and tabernacles are analogous to Catholic cathedrals, and if Catholic cathedrals are kept, so must LDS temples. Setting aside that that's an other-stuff-exists argument, they are blatantly not analogous. Catholic cathedrals are older, more architecturally significant, and serve much larger congregations: most Catholic cathedrals serve hundreds of thousands of Catholics; the cookie-cutter LDS Temples usually serve 30-40 thousand...or less. For similar reasons, it's also wrong to say small LDS temples are notable because big ones are.

In summary: I think that we should consider merging the small temples articles to other articles. pbp 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC/Votes on Proposal/Discussion

Proposal that smaller LDS temples aren't notable. See above for proposal. When discussing, please remember to stay on-topic and consider relevant policy; and to not vote or assert blindly pbp 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not notable enough to warrant stand-alone articles, except in rare cases where such a temple has significant coverage from non-local, non-LDS third-party reliable sources. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If they pass the general notability guideline, then they should stay. This means coverage in two or more third party reliable publications. Pretty much any temple can meet this because pretty much every temple (and I can't think of any which don't) gets all kinds of local and regional (and sometimes national) coverage in print, radio, and television news media, especially while being built and even in the proposal stage. This issue here seems to be making sure that that coverage is documented so there's no question of notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because something passes the GNG (and I have my doubts that these do), doesn't mean it gets a whole article to itself. Even if some of the tiny temples get coverage that isn't local, routine, or LDS-related (and there isn't as much as you think), there's very little encyclopedic information about them (see my point above) pbp 20:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong on this issue. If something passes GNG, it can certainly have its own article as long as there are enough reliable sources which can be used to create the article, even if all you can do is create a stub- or start-class of an article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree; unsourced, cookie-cutter, stub-type articles should be merged rather than standing alone (assuming that such merges don't make the target article(s) too long). Miniapolis (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the key: unsourced articles on temples should not exist. If they have multiple reliable sources, then they pass GNG and can have their own articles. The problem with merging them is what do you call the resulting "article": Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for which the articles are really short so we merged them all into one big mash-up article instead? There's not really a good way to combine them in an effective way. If they can be reliably sourced, they should remain separate. If not, they should be deleted or userfied until such time as they can be reliably sourced. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't really proven that sources that aren't LDS related (LDS, BYU, Deseret News) provide significant, in-depth, non-routine coverage. When I did a search for reliable sources for the Medford Temple, I got zilcho from Google News, Google Scholar, or the first two pages of a Google search. The small cookie-cutter temple articles really don't have much encyclopedic information beyond what's in the table at this article, so you just redirect them here. pbp 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree; as per Miniapolis above on unsourced, cookie-cutter, stub-type articles - I have seen far too many similar pages for Churches in New Page Patrol which don't really serve any purpose.Whiteguru (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; First, after trying to get articles on even less notable buildings (I still don't think they are notable, but that's a different thread!) deleted and meeting opposition because there was *one* article in the local newspaper about their construction, I'd be really surprised to see any of these actually deleted. For mergers, I just don't see what they'd be merged to, unless some kind of new "Small temple" article is put together. Most of the small temples are in areas that were not near an existing temple, so they more than likely got enough coverage at the time of their construction to warrant even a small amount of notability. Plus, most of them are in larger metro areas, so coverage in the "local papers" is a regional thing. Be careful of just relying on online media because most of them were built in the 90s and early 2000s, when online news was just emerging, particularly at the local level. As such, finding the coverage would require going into newspaper archives not available online or without a subscription. Are many of them of low notability? I'd say so, but they still have notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight: you personally support the idea of getting rid of these non-notable articles, but you oppose the proposal because people who aren't you think they are notable? pbp 13:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I oppose this proposal because I think these temples, small as they are, have notability. The examples I used were of buildings I felt were non-notable (some commercial buildings in downtown Missoula, Montana), but the consensus disagreed based on *one* local article about one of the buildings, the regional nature of the newspaper that contained the article, and my putting all 4 buildings together in one AFD. In other words, the consensus generally had an even lower threshold to notability than I did. That said, I still think enough independent sources can be found on top of the fact that there are relatively few LDS temples in the world. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; A agree with JonRidinger. These building are notability. Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss multiple page deletions on a page that isn't going to be deleted. The proper way to discuss the deletion of these pages is to AFD each page, so that the person or persons who work on those pages can have a chance to address the concerns for each page. If the page is lacking sources, then it should be address on that page. You shouldn't "Lump" a number of pages into a single discussion. I know that the some "Small" temples have had ample coverage, as they were controversial when they were being built, so to delete all pages based on the lack of coverage for a different page is just wrong.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree, though conditionally: merge those, which have no verifiable content to be lost in merge. Eg. Tokyo Japan Temple is a solid candidate for merge, while St. George Utah Temple should stay as a standalone article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because the format of this question is beyond the scope of an RfC. If there are separate articles for temples that seem to fail WP:GNG, they should be speedied, prodded, or taken to AfD. It's impossible to make a blanket judgement about the notability of a group, as some may get more coverage than others. Again, just make deletion efforts on articles believed to be non-notable, and a merge or redirect to this list can be available as an option. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Include all in list. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is notable in itself (and it clearly is), then a list of its temples would include even non-notable ones. The Rolling Stones rock and roll band are notable; their single "What a Shame" (1964) is not. Yet it will be included in their discography list because its creators are notable. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Partly procedurally, and that's because of what Torchiest says: you can't make a blanket statement. Furthermore, many of these are likely to be notable; to take the first temple mentioned in this section, Medford appears to have substantial coverage in multiple sources that are neither church-affiliated nor local; see citations #1-3, which are from The Columbian, The Oregonian, and The Seattle Times respectively. The purpose of policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTNEWS is to exclude flash-in-the-pan subjects, not important buildings that (judging by past experiences with similar buildings) are extremely likely to remain in existence and remain important for many years. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boise Idaho Temple: I goofed!

The Boise Idaho Temple is scheduled for rededication on November 18, 2012 after an open house from October 13-November 10. I found out that the rededication done in 1987 by James E. Faust was only for the additions. In trying to add this information, I goofed somewhere, and now I can't fix it. HELP! Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This error has not been dealt with yet. Please help. I don't have the know-how to fix this myself. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a quick glance at it as you asked, but with limited time at the moment, not sure of how to fix it. If I get more time to explore it, I will come back & look at it if I can! Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have grown tired of waiting for someone else to fix my mistake. So I took care of it myself. I deleted the information about the rededication by Faust, as it was only a partial rededication, then simply moved the rededication information I wanted added to the appropriate places. Glad to get this fixed and hope it works for all of you. Since ChristensenMJ was the only one to comment on this problem after a month, I felt I had to take care of it my way. So if you disagree, feel free to fix it. However, if there are no future comments on this issue, the template should be left as is. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona and Arequipa, Peru Temples

It's in that order as announced 6 October 2012. Someone will need to update real fast over next few months because of other Temples being dedicated or rededicated. Buenos Aires and Boise are major changes in design and layout. Samuelsenwd (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think these temples have been added to the map yet. I am sure Arequipa has not been, and I can't see Tucson, but the world map have lots of dots in Arizona and northern Mexico, so maybe it is there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Precision of quoted coordinates

I notice that some of the coordinates are quoted to 10 decimal places of a degree (of latitude or longitude). I make it that a unit change in the last quoted digit corresponds to a movement of about 1/100 of a millimetre (more or less, depending on the latitude of the temple). As temples are quite substantial buildings, this level of (apparent) precision is meaningless and inappropriate. Five decimal places gives the position to within about a metre, and even with four decimal places (i.e. accurate to about 10 metres) you will still comfortably hit the building. 86.4.253.180 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple dedicated.

According to this article, the Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple was dedicated today by Dieter F. Uchtdorf. So I attempted to move it. It looks good, but there is a weird symbol of some sort where the status of under construction temples usually go. How do I get rid of that? Please help if you can. Thanks in advance. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cedar City Utah and Rio de Jainero Brazil Temples

This [1] April 6, 2013 article from the Deseret News is about the announcment of the Cedar City Utah and Rio de Jainero Brazil Temples. I tried to add them, but I think I did something wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected - the problem was a stray begin comment code "<!--" at the end of the reference in the Template:LDS Temple/Cedar City Utah Temple page that you created. Thanks! --Trödel 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paris France Temple

Someone unilaterally changed the announcement date of the Paris France temple to 15 July 2011. Since the consensus previously decided to use the 1 October date (as the November 2011 Ensign cover read "Six New Temples Announced"), I have reverted that date back to 1 October. Please discuss here before reverting again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hartford Connecticut Temple and Fort Collins Colorado Temple

According to ldschurchtemples.com, the two temples above will have their ground broken this month: Hartford on August 17 and Fort Collins on August 24. Accordingly, I will reorder the under construction temples and change their statuses to "Groundbreaking Scheduled." Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Included the information and updated the relevant templates, but now the scheduled groundbreaking dates aren't showing up in the template! HELP! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hartford had its ground broken on August 17 by President Monson. Fort Collins will have its ground broken next Saturday. These changes need to be implemented to the page and the relevant updates to the templates performed. I just don't have time to take care of it myself right now. If someone could help with these items, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fort Collins had its ground broken on August 24 by Ronald A. Rasband. Verification of this can be found on ldschurchtemples.com, lds.org, and by running a basic google search such as "Who broke ground for the Fort Collins Colorado Temple?" I suggest this information be included on this page and the appropriate templates be updated. I don't have time to take care of it myself, so I'd appreciate someone else taking care of it ASAP. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just took care of it myself. How does it look? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)