Talk:List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 5

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106081934/http://www.lds.org/temples/home/0,11273,1896-1,00.html to http://www.lds.org/temples/home/0,11273,1896-1,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of templates

Over the last few weeks, Broter initiated good faith efforts to begin including the information currently found in many LDS Church-related templates directly into articles. Primary reasons expressed for this significant change include that it's not only more typical of use across WP, but also from the view that all the extra space being taken for an additional template file is unnecessary. I have concerns about these changes due to the extensive use of templates in a number of articles and the impact it would have. As a couple of examples, the articles potentially impacted include the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), or listings such as the church's presidents, apostles, or temples. These use templates extensively, to provide efficiency of updates, along with ease of the listings and related updates. Based on a recent update to the temple status page by Jgstokes regarding temples closed for renovation, I tried the following as a test example. With the recent closing of the Oakland California Temple for renovation, if the template is updated to show "Closed for Renovation" it does not show up on the main article page. It does however show that status on the temple listing page I referred to above. The flip side is that if the main article page is updated where the infobox is now embedded in the article, those changes are not reflected on the temple listing. I have no idea what this does to the portal-related issues that Broter has worked so hard on, which seems to be why the changes were initially started, but it creates inconsistency across a number of issues - and would require people to know/remember to update for the same issues in multiple ways. I don't know how much traffic this page will get, but since it seems to warrant some discussion or awareness, I thought I'd note it here for comment and some consensus-building discussion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the infobox for Bryan D. Brown. The standard in wikipedia is to have the infobox within the article space. The User:ARTEST4ECHO who created this infobox-system for the LDS movement did it all wrong.--Broter (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that may be the case, as a standard or guideline, but that does not address the issues it creates that I tried to give an example of above. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My two cents on this matter: The templates do well to share an extensive amount of information in a concise and orderly way. If the information on the templates for such articles is pulled out into the main articles, there is greater likelihood for redundancies, and that, as observed above, some informational items may appear where they shouldn't and may not show up when they should. There has been a very good discussion about these templates in the past, and while I appreciate the efforts of all concerned in trying to regulate the flow of such information, unless the intent is to eventually replace all templates with in-article information (which would be a task of gargantuan proportions that would likely prove overwhelming for all concerned, especially those directly involved in such efforts), then the information that can be more easily presented in the template should not be duplicated in those articles. I am assuming good faith on the part of all concerned in this matter, but I am with ChristensenMJ on this one. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The topic hasn't generated much discussion. At the same time, while it's been noted that including the infobox in the article may typically be a standard WP approach, there have been no explanations or solutions provided to address the number of other challenges that the recent changes create. In the absence of those solutions, I am inclined to change those articles where such changes have been made back, but felt it appropriate to note that again here before doing so, in order to provide further discussion, or arrival at consensus driven by outcomes, rather than preferences or typical guidelines. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortaleza Temple

Help! I noticed that the location for the Fortaleza, Brazil Temple was missing the state, so I added it. Somehow this messed up the table and the citations. This is affecting several pages on Wikipedia and I don't know how to fix it.

I think @FyzixFighter: and I were editing the information at the same time I was. Maybe this caused a glitch. I reversed both our edits to the best of my ability, but it remains broken. Please help me fix this. I'm not sure what else to do at this point. Alexrebex (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

3 Temple Groundbreakings Held; The Names of Two Temples Clarified

Hello again, everyone! Although confirmation from official sources is pending, I was able to confirm that the groundbreakings have been held for the Yigo Guam, Praia Cabo Verde, and San Juan Puerto Rico Temples within the last 21 hours or less. As a result, I have moved the relevant templates from the "Announced" to the "Under Construction" section, and have updated those templates as well. I also wanted to mention that the Church will be utilizing the native language version of the names of two temples now under construction, namely the Abidjan Côte d'Ivoire Temple and the Praia Cabo Verde Temple. That is verified here through a non-offical website with some official information from the Church. That site has been used as verification for other articles here on Wikipedia, FWIW. With that in mind, I would suggest changing the names of the relevant articles for the Ivory Coast and Cape Verde Temples to match what the Church will be using in reference to them. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In the edit summary of another article, ChristensenMJ rightly observed that we'd need an official announcement from the Church to verify the names of these temples. For that reason, this article clarifies the name of the Ivory Coast Temple, and this article clarifies the name of the Cabo Verde temple. Hope this information is helpful to all who read it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Although the church's website hasn't been updated, that was the complete intent, to have something official, rather than specifically citing a non-official source. ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the update to the Ivory Coast Temple did not finish correctly. When I look at it on the list of temples, it says: 171. {{{display_name}}} (Under Construction) Can you check again what you were trying to add? Maybe with the name change, it messed up the list too. Glennfcowan (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, ChristensenMJ, thank you for clarifying your intent. Please let me know if something more official than the news release from the Ghana Newsroom is needed for verification, and I'll be happy to see what I can find. Glennfcowan, I know we have not interacted much here on Wikipedia. Although I have been an editor here for more than a decade, there are still some editing tools utlilized here which I do not have full or even partial mastery. Therefore, I can see the error to which you are referring, but I don't quite know how to fix it with the template in question. What I could do is revert my edit to it, then let someone else handle making the official change to the template correctly. Would that be a suitable solution here? My apologies for messing that up. Looks like I need to educate myself more on template syntax than I have. Thanks for bringing that up here. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, well, I was hoping you knew how to fix it. I guess rolling it back would be a start. Sorry I can't help more! You probably have the same thing that I do, a real life with plenty of outside demands, so learning the fine points of template syntax is lower priority... Glennfcowan (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

glennfcowan, I did go ahead and roll it back. We can probably worry about implementing the proper name change later, when someone with expertise on those templates is available to assist. As to having a "real life with plenty of outside demands", you could say I do in a way. In addition to being a Church member, I am a Latter-day Saint blogger. And at the moment, my Wikipedia invovlement has become somewhat sporadic (with my being absent for extended periods, then coming back for several days or weeks in a row to see what I missed and take care of other projects). But the foremost demand on my plate is wading through some ongoing challenges my wife and I are having with our health and general situation. That, more than anything, is responsible for my sporadic editing here, and is certainly contributing to my lack of expertise with most of the Wikipedia templates used in articles about the Church. So if anyone reading this comment knows how to fix the issue in question, please feel free to do so (in addition to perhaps enlightening us as to how to do so for future reference). Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

New name for the Yuba City California Temple

Hello again, everyone! Within the last 8 hours or so, two resources which this page commonly uses for temple information provided a new name for the Yuba City California Temple. The Church's official temple subpage, and particularly the "Announced Temples" section notes the name of this temple as "Feather River California", and that name is also confirmed on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples subpage. My question, then, is this: Given that the main websites from which this information has been pulled are either official or semi-official sources for accurate temple information, is that enough justification for us to change the name here to the Feather River California Temple? I could see a case for both making this change and for waiting for additional verification, if or whenever that might be provided. Does anyone have any thoughts about this, given the sources I mentioned herein? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ provided basically all the information that is already recorded for the temple, so it would be inconsistent to not use that same source now. I say go for it. As long as there is not a page for it yet, I would call this change pretty minor. And I think we don't need a standalone article until the temple is close to completion. I do suspect that if there is a change in name, that may be an indication that more announcements may be coming soon. Glennfcowan (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Glennfcowan. The sources don't get much more official than what we already have. Rollidan (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. I attempted to change the name according to this consensus, but had issues with the template. This is not the first time that has happened. Do either of you know anyone else here who might be able to figure out how to make this change? I certainly don't, but am of the opinion the change should be made. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Belem Brazil Temple Groundbreaking Announced by Letter

Hello again, everyone! In mid-June, the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site reported a letter sent out by the Brazil Area Presidency. The letter noted that the groundbreaking for the Belem Brazil Temple was scheduled to take place on Saturday August 17, 2019. There has been no subsequent confirmation from the Church on this through an official news release on either the main Newsroom website or the Brazilian edition thereof, but the latest report on that temple indicates that the site is being cleared, and that surveyors are staking it. At this point, there is no indication of the temple design specifics or the anticipated construction time-frame, but I wanted to note the information here. I believe the nature of this information to be enough confirmation for now, so I am going to be bold, and include this information on this page and the template for this temple. If any of you disagree with this action, feel free to let me know here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Postponement of the Alabang Philippines Temple Groundbreaking

Hello again, everyone! I received information a short while ago indicating that the groundbreaking for the Alabang Philippines Temple did not take place as scheduled after all, and had in fact been rescheduled to occur on Saturday June 6. That can be verified through information found here and in the comments section of this video. The relevant query was provided by a Mark Shelton roughly 6 hours prior to the time I am posting about it here, with a comment in reply from the Philippines Area President, Elder Evan A. Schmutz, that confirms that the groundbreaking has been delayed until Saturday June 6, pending governmnt approval. I wanted to post those sources here for anyone that would like to verify that information. I will have the templates for the Layton Utah and Alabang Philippines Temples updated shortly as a result of this new development. Please post any questions or comments here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Official name released for the Washington County Utah Temple

Hello again, everyone! New information of which I became aware today indicates that the official name for the Washington County Utah Temple will be the Red Cliffs Utah Temple. That is verified here and here. As a consequence, I think we should change the name of the temple on this page, the temple's template on its' official page (if one exists), and anywhere else it is mentioned. I will be setting those changes in motion as time and circumstances allow. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Jgstokes. Should the existing template have been renamed, rather than creating a new one....since there are now two out there for the same facility? ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I happened to catch the news not long after it happened. As far as the templates, the one way I knew to fix the problem was creating a new template with the new name. If someone else (like yourself) knows how to rename the existing template, we can delete the new one I created. That's not a problem. I just wanted to get the change onto this page sooner rather than later, so I picked the most convenient option available to me at the time. I'd be fine either way. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent Announcements About Temple Groundbreakings

Hello again, everyone! I wanted to open up a topic here to discuss recent announcements about temple milestones. Yesterday (August 12), a delay was announced in the groundbreaking arrangements for the Salta Argentina Temple. The original arrangements were to have that take place this updcoming Saturday, August 15, but that has been deferred until Friday October 9 due to COVID-19 restrictions in that area. Then today, the Church announced the groundbreakings for the Taylorsville Utah and Redd Cliffs (formerly Washington County) Utah Temples. In conjunction with that announcement, no exact dates were mentioned for either event. I imagine both will just be done whenever local conditions allow that to occur safely in Taylorsville and St. George. That being said, I know we have used the Church of Jesus Christ Temples page as a reference before for content on this page and templates/pages for individual temples. That site's construction status page has placed the Taylorsville Temple on the list of those for which a groundbreaking has been scheduled, and the position of that temple on that list is between the Brasilia Brazil Temple (set to have its' groundbreaking on Saturday September 26) and the revised Friday October 9 date for the Salta Argentina Temple groundbreaking, which may indicate that the goal of the Church is to break ground for the Taylorsville temple sometime between the beginning of October and the weekend of the October 2020 General Conference, or else between the weekend of General Conference and the rescheduled groundbreaking for the Salta Argentina Temple on October 9. And since no other temple groundbreakings have been set for any other time in November, the Red Cliffs Utah Temple is on the aforementioned page after the Salta Argentina Temple. At this point, with no specific date for the Taylorsville Utah Temple groundbreaking, it may be up for debate as to whether that temple's groundbreaking will occur prior to or after that of the Salta Argentina Temple. But since the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site has been used as a source many times here on Wikipedia, my feeling is to list the temples awaiting a groundbreaking in the same order that they appear on that site, and to make adjustments to the positions thereof if/when that becomes necessary once more is known. The specific dates for either or both temples could be announced closer to the day on which they occur, or the Church could acknoweldge the events and the dates thereof after they are held. If anyone has any objections about this page listing those temples in that order, please let me know. My thanks once again to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Individual articles about temples

Hi; this is a really great article and I think it is well-maintained and informative. My question is about the individual articles for temples. Are they really needed? I think for some temples, like the Salt Lake Temple, an article is justified, because it contains far more information than this page does. But for some of the newer temples, the articles for the temples contain nothing that this page does not contain: announcement date, groundbreaking date, dedication dates, size and design, architects, other misc notes. What is the plus of having individual articles for all 200-plus temples? Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a good question, and one that it might be time to ask. I think temples have historically been more scarce, so therefore more notable. With the gradual (and lately dramatic) increase in temples, it is worth considering. For example, I don't think a temple should have an article until it is well under construction. Full disclosure, I restored a temple article shortly before its dedication that was reviewed for deletion and retained. Readers may want to know about a temple once they see it under construction, so that is why I think an article is needed. Occasionally, temples are announced and not built, so waiting helps avoid having an article about something that has not happened yet. I think the heart of your question is notability. I think a temple is a notable building.

I think we could take cues from other religious buildings to see how other projects treat them. For example, List_of_Buddhist_temples has many temples listed and all appeared to have articles. I sampled a random group, and they ranged from start class to longer type articles. List_of_mosques is similar, but with 20% red links. Lists_of_cathedrals says that there are 3,391 cathedral level buildings in 2018, but a review of the associated articles shows diversity in the level of coverage. After seeing what is out there, I feel pretty good about the temples list. It is getting to be quite a list, so maybe someday it would be broken down by groupings as some of those articles I mentioned are. --Glennfcowan (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, at minimum, each of the Church's temples has a template article. The template articles are helpful for summary information. Some of the temples which have template articles with those summaries have individual articles with more details about the temples themselves. I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all approach with regard to articles about individual temples that could form a general rule about the future. Rather, I think that each temple would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If some articles don't have information beyond what is shown in the template, those would be easy to cut. If there are other teemples that are unique for any reason (first on a continent, in a nation, first of its' size, parameters, generation, etc.) those would be imprtant things to note. And if anything unique outside of whichever general parameters are set need to be listed, there might be a way to do that in templates rather than separate articles. At the same time, in other cases, with a ltitle work, the existing articles on the temples could be sufficiently fixed to a degree where they could be kept. I think that how best to handle that may be something that needs more discussion on the talk page for the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mendoza Argentina Temple Groundbreaking Timeframe Adjusted

Hello again, everyone! The Church had previously announced that the groundbreaking for the Mendoza Argentina Temple would take place at some point during the month of November. As I start the thread about this temple on this page, it is coming up on midnight in Mendoza, when Monday November 30 will become Tuesday December 1. Since there has been no official word from the Church indicating that the groundbreaking for the Mendoza temple did in fact occur prior to the end of November, I'm assuming, pending an official announcement, that something has delayed that process, and that the groundbreaking may insteead take place within the first three weeks of December, unless it is delayed into the New Year for any reason whatsoever. As a result, I have noted that particular conclusion on the template page for the Mendoza temple. I have looked everywhere I can think of for anything to indicate that the groudnbreaking for the Mendoza temple has occurred, but to no avail. So I decided to be bold, and just note that for now. Please let me know if any of you object to my having taken this action. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates of New Temples Need To Be Fixed

I looked at the list of the new temples announced yesterday. Some of them need to be fixed. The most common problem is that there is no space after the comma after the city. However, Eugene, Oregon has an additional problem with formatting. I would fix it myself, but I don't know to edit these templates. I tried the obvious LDS_Temple/Eugene,_Oregon but that didn't work. Would someone tell me how to edit these templates, and will someone please fix the templates? Val42 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC"")be

Val42, tempe templates can be edited by clicking the "edit" link on the top right side of the tempalte you want to edit. I'd also be happy to help you fix whatever you see that needs fixing, but just saying "some of them need to be fixed" does not give me any idea which templates you are seeing problems with. Could I have the specifics, please? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quickly adding 20 temples that were announced I'm sure had it's challenges. Most of the errors I saw early on, such as numbering, have been corrected. The glaring issue I see right now is with the Eugene Oregon Temple template. Something funky is going on whre the "edit" link is normally located and I don't know how to fix it.Dmm1169 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Val42 Dmm1169: Thanks for taking time to report the issue with the Eugene Oregon Temple template. I found a couple of problems that could be contributing to the errors. First, a big part of the prooblem was that the template included a link to a non-existent article on the Eugene Oregon Temple. No existing article leads to red text, which the template reads as an error. That was the biggest part of this problem. Other possible contributors appeared to be that the date was incorrectly formatted. On Wikipedia temple templates, for dates, we list the day, month, and year, without a comma in between. Normal date syntax for today would be to say it is April 5, 2021. But Wikipedia reads any comma out of place as an error. So we put that date into wikified language and say it is 5 April 2021 (note no commas). And the final problem I noticed was a slight stylistic issue with the cited source specifically on that template. I took time to resolve all of these issues, and as far as I can see, the template is working perfectly on my end. Let me know if there are any further problems, and thanks again to you both for providing the information about what the issue was. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning: A big thank you goes out on my end to ChristensenMJ for his additional assistance making furter corrections/improvements to the template in question. The template should definitely be in order now. Post here if there are any further problems. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

New Name for Russia Temple?

Hello again, everyone! I wanted to open another thread here today. In mid-April of this year, the Church updated the name of the Russia Temple on their official temple list. Coverages on this change had been provided by the Church temples site, through This Week in Mormons, and (with my apologies for tooting my own proverbial horn) my blog. At some point thereafter, although the information in the latter three sources (the Church Temples site, This Week in Mormons, and on my blog) remained intact, the Church reverted the name back to "Russia Temple". I don't know why that change was originally made, or what prompted the Church to switch it back on their official list, but it did raise a question as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I know that in the past, adjustments to temple names noted on the Church Temples site were sufficiently reliable enough to result in corresponding changes to the applicable mentions of that temple with the same name here on Wikipedia. Would the fact that the Church Temples site uses the "Russsia Administration Building" term be enough for us to rename the Russia Temple template to Russia Administration Building, or given the fact the only official Church site referencing that "new name" has been restored to the more generic version, would we want to defer making a change to the template name for the time being? I don't have a preference either way, just wanted to note the issue here for discussion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would wait until there is something a little more definitive and lasting. It's kind of weird that the new name appeared and then was reverted to "Russia Temple" on the official website. That said, Russia Administrative Building could be created as redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia#Temples just as Russia Temple is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory, thanks for your response on this issue. I was on the fence since no official confirmation had been provided on this change. It occurred to me to wonder if the Church was preparing to announce something more official on that in the near future but had to change any such plans for that announcement due to red tape issues. But I can see your point. It is difficult to know whether the "new name" in question was perhaps a placeholder. Based on your reasoning here, I'm fine with leaving things as they are. If "Russia Administration Building" is the way the Church terms a multi-purpose facility that will include temple worship spaces, I'm sure in due course an official announcement confirming the name and the details will come when the time is right. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgstokes (talk • contribs)

Ordering of Temples on This List

Hello again, everyone! As some of you might have noticed, I split the list of temples under construction to separate those that are completed and awaiting the announcement of revised opening dates. That change was made earlier this week. But I also wanted to ask about the ordering of temples that are under construction or announced. I like that we have sections specifically for temples awaiting a dedication, those that are under construction, and those for which groundbreakings are scheduled. However, the construction status page of the Church Temples site has subdivided its' list of announced temples into separate sections. Aside from the section for scheduled groundbreakings, there is also a separate section for temples which have had sites announced and/or renderings released. Based on the way the Church has announced groundbreakings recently, those for which sites have been confirmed or renderings have been released overwhelmingly seem to have groundbreakings announced in advance of those temples which have not yet had sites confirmed or renderings released. Would the ordering of information on the aforementioned web page be a good rationale for us to change the ordering of announced temples on this page in a similar manner? Or is there a better way to organize those temples here? Would anyone reading and commenting on this thread be in favor of leaving the page as is for now? I look forward to hearing from anyone that would like to weigh in on any of this. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My observations are similar. Rendering/site location released temples get constructed sooner. Those that have been announced for some time without announced rendering/location have issues preventing it from going to that phase. Consequently, I'm supportive of a new temple status of "rendering released" or "site announced" (or similar term) and number accordingly. If I had a preference of naming the new status, I would use "site announced". Reason being is, I see renderings change more frequently than site locations. If a site location changes, the rendering usually changes with it, but sometimes the church will keep the location and redesign the temple to meet neighborhood zoning & requirements.--Dmm1169 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the distinction for "site announced" is usually of short duration and makes it harder to maintain the list. I'd prefer a simpler list that contains Operating, Under Construction, and Announced only. The temples that are completed but awaiting dedication are still not operating, so they are not complete in my mind. I don't mind them staying at the top of the list, however. I think when we add and drop sections regularly, it makes the page seem more chaotic. The Church of Jesus Christ's website only uses the categories of Announced and Construction, plus Renovation as applicable. [1] Perhaps the "site announced" designation could be part of the infobox. Some temples have had a site announcement and seen quite a few temples announced and construction started before them. -Glennfcowan (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This conversation is so we don't just add/drop sections regularly and establish a standard. I also don’t think the goal should be to match what churchofjesuschristtemples.org or the official church website determines, but what's best for this and related Wikipedia pages. There’s absolutely no guarantee a temple where the site location is announced will be built next (ie. the Phnom Penh Cambodia Temple}, but it does seem to come prerequisite for groundbreaking being scheduled. There is currently 44 announced temples, 47 if you include groundbreaking scheduled. This is a lot to go through if you're looking for a particular temple in the list which is the primary reason the redirects were moved from this page to state/country pages. I'm willing to go with whatever's concluded in this discussion, but personally think announced site is a significant enough milestone to have its own category on Wikipedia. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I like the addition of groundbreaking scheduled, but agree on the "site announced" that is usually a short duration and a lot of changes happen and would make the list harder to maintain. Since I am not on here as frequently as before I won't be available to help. I'd have no objection to moving ones up in the "announced list" and adding a note that the site was announced, but committing to maintaining a "site announced" section is a bigger commitment, and sometimes information like that is hard to find. --Trödel 15:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My preference would be to not unduly complicate it, along with potentially increasing the effort to maintain the list, as has been mentioned. Even though there are a large number of announced temples, moving in various stages toward the onset of construction, I don't know that it adds a lot of value to get too granular on all the current particulars of each. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking back a second time, I agree with some of these other comments. "Under Construction" is also a long list and I don't believe we should break up every detail of construction (concrete poured, windows installed, etc.) just because the list got too long. The thing about renderings released, is that one sees what the temple will look like, but that's not applicable in Wikipedia because few temples now have a photo on Wikipedia before completion let alone when renderings are released.Dmm1169 (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone! I am grateful for the robust discussion which is taking place on this matter. A few additional observations on my end: First, due to reports available to me on my end, I can confirm that both the Rio de Janeiro Brazil and the Winning Manitoba Temples had been transferred by the respective construction crews to the Church. That means that, above and beyond any personal definitions, as far as the Church is concerned, those templws are fully completed. The Church list focused on simplicity in the parameters of their temple list, which is the only reason why the Church still lists them as under construction. That's why I felt that the "Dedication Postponed" section should be split off on this page, though I don't have a problem with them being included in the general "Under construction" category on the status template.

That being said, on the temples for which a site has been announced and/or are under construction, only two of which I'm aware have had changes in the locations where they are now being constructed. The two are the Urdaneta Philippines Temple (for which the original site was deemed unsafe to build on) and the Deseret Peak Utah Temple, for which the originally-planned residential development attached to the project led to wide community opposition. I would also note that if only 2 of the 37 under construction have had a site location adjusted, that's a very low percentage (at just over half of 1 percent).

With that in mind, I disagree with the idea that a "site announced" category on this page might be too speculative. In the other 35 cases, the temple is being constructed at the location which was first identified. For that reason, I do think that adding a subsection for temples which have had a site announced would be helpful here. For the record as well, if we do add a "site announced" section to this page, I would be perfectly willing to take the primary or complete role of maintaining any new sections approved for the list. Maintaining that here would just be a slight extension of what I'm already doing on my end personally anyways. So it would be a walk in the park for me to create and maintain that section here, so that won't create work for any of the rest of you to worry about. Having said all of that, if the consensus strongly objects to any further splits to the information on this page, I will support that decision. Just wanted to put that out there, FWIW. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm supportive in either way, but lean in favor implementing the change to "Site Announced". To add onto Stokes's Comments, when a change is announced, they're implemented on Wikipedia quickly. Most all temple announcements and status changes were posted in Wikipedia within 24 hours of public announcement. When one didn't get to it immediately, others stepped in. With being a vast interest in keeping it updated, I don't think there's any issue whether the status will stay updated or frequency of update.

It appears suitable to have in Wikipedia and will provide more info to the reader. Temples that with announced site goes into construction sooner. -which is why I lean in favor implementation of "Site Announced" status. But it also doesn't really violate anything if it doesn't get implemented. -Dmm1169 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dmm1169, thanks for your additional thoughts here. One element I hadn't thought of in terms of this prospective change is that, as the template layouts currentlhy stand, there may or may not be a specific parameter on the temple templates to note the date on which a site has been announced, where applicable. If that information is already set up in the syntax of the temple templates, then the creation of this section would be able to show that information in the new section. Above and beyond that, however, to reiterate this again, I am in a postion to be able to maintain the new section of this page myself, including making all of the necessary updates as they happen. The information is not hard to find at all. Usually, the Church will officially confirm the site location through a verified release from the official Newsroom, which also applies to any subsequent changes in those locations. And even in the unlikely event that the Newsroom does not provided such information, the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site will typically note the change not loong after those adjustments are made. Therefore, since I'm regularly monitoring the status of temple consstruction anyways, it would be a relatively eay matter for me to update any information that might become outdated in any way. Having acknowledged that, I might go ahead and start working on thisw, making any chages that are necessary as I go. I will have a preliminary version of this new section up on this page ASAP, so that anyone with any further objections can note them here if/when the need arises. My thanks once again to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The only concern I have about your comment is if you were the only one willing to make the change. But I'm confident others will be willing to make the change if you don't due to past edits. Due to priorities, I stepped away from Wikipedia for about 10 years, other than an occasional visit, and came back regularly within the past year. I noticed some time sensitive data such as current leaders had not been updated - particularly on pages with low visibility. This page is different due to its high visibility, but I just wanted you to be aware of the issue, since this page may ultimately last longer than any of us. One thing I noticed, while status is being updated relatively quickly, other content are not. At least with the recent announcements, Floor Area and Site area are released at the time the site location are released. This is not being updated with many of the temples. I've been updating some when I've come across it, but many are still left updated.

Maps: For simplicity purposaes, no change will be made to temple status maps, even with the inclusion of the new status for lists and infoboxes. Announced, Site Announced, Groundbreaking Scheduled will be listed as "Announced". Destroyed, Efforts suspended, etc. are also listed as one category in maps. Operating, Under Construction, etc. will still be listed in maps under their status. -Dmm1169 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Dmm1169, I have also experienced extended absences from Wikipedia in recent years due to health related circumstances or times when my actions on Wikipedia have ruffled feathers to the point where my stepping away for a time has been necessary. And I've found that when trying to set up any new page content, or prepare updates in advance when they are known (such as for the area leadership assignments usually announced shortly after the April General Conference and implemented on the first day of August), if I do the bulk of the work on the updates, others can usually and more easily cover subsequent updates. I also know that in some cases, page content has become outdated until I myself have been able to overhaul it. That most recently happened last year, when I hadn't been in a position to update the area seventies list here, and there wasn't anyone else who know their way around the necessary tables and sections well enough to make the changes until I did. In such cases, I find that if I can put concentrated focus on the necessary overhauls myself, then subsequent updates after that are easy for others to make. I noticed on some of the temple templates that an editor (it could have been you yourself) updated the status of some of the temples to site announced, and moved them up to that section, but that the sourcing to verify it and update the numbering of the "Site Announced" and "Announced" temples listed neeeded to be done by me after the fact. That's not necessarily problematic, but it may be easier and better for the page if anyone making new chang es is also able to take responsibility for the other updates. I overhauled the lists yesterday myself, so further adjustments could be much easier in the future. If you have any further concerns, please let me know. THanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Link to information on temple templates

Is there a way to link temple status on Maps with the status in the temple infobox on Maps? Currently it requires someone to go into each map and change the color on each map when status changes and it would be preferable if it be done automatically for simplicity and to avoid inconsistencies. Thanks! -Dmm1169 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It might be able to be done - I haven't messed with templates for years, but here is the documentation that I wrote for the way the data templates work that are then used to automatically update the information in the infobox, and the three different list pages for the temples (rather than having to update any change to all 4 places). Template:LDS_Temple/doc --Trödel 19:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Trödel, I was able to produce a template that changes icon color according to temple status. I've only done it for Wyoming Temples Map. Ideally, I would like the template to control only color and location, with other formatting values left to the specific map. I do like the location map template as data for each map can be easily inputted and transferred to another map making it user friendly for future editors. The biggest concern is if the status and location are not linked to the individual temple template, it could become outdated.

it doesn't appear {{Template:Location map~}} will take any imported text outside the input value, and adding 3 template references for mark, lat, and long, I think would be a bit much. Considering from announcement, the location usually only changes once - announced city location (except Russia) to announced site location (with a few exceptions). The difference if the location isn't updated isn't significant for most maps, although there are a few such as metro areas and small states/countries where the difference can become noticeable. Temple status, on the other hand, will change several times thorough the temple life. For now, Wyoming map is the only temple map using this format. Everything else is being temporarily handled manually. I'm going to tinker with trying to incorporate coordinates some more before adding the template to other maps. All other formatting options are tailored to its' respective map and needs to be handled individually on each map.-Dmm1169 (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've created the Template Template:LDSmap. Template:LDSmap/doc explains the template and other pertinent information concerning inclusion in maps with temples. -Dmm1169 (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see if I can review this weekend. --Trödel 16:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Templo de Antofagasta, Chile.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Partial updates to templates on this page

Hello again, everyone! I have been reluctant to address a recurring issue on this page, but now feel a need to do so. This morning, the Church announced the revised opening arrangements for the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple. The updated information was first covered by the Newsroom, and also subsequently covered by the Church News. Although the information about the open house and dedication had been included on the template for the Winnipeg Manitoba Temple, whichever editor made the updates to that template did not move that temple from the Dedication Postponed to the Dedication Scheduled section of this page, and only partial updates were made to the template itself. Those updates did not include updating the numbering for Winnipeg and Pocatello, included typographical errors in the name of Gerrit W. Gong, which meant the wikilink wasn't working properly, the status of the Winnipeg temple was not adjusted to Dedication Scheduled, and the numbering for the Rio de Janeiro Brazil Temple was also not subsequently corrected. Additionally, no sources were cited to verify the reopening information. So I wanted to note here on the talk page for the list of temples that partial updates in response to major announcements actually wind up creating more work for someone else (usually myself personally). To prevent such issues in the future, I wanted to put a request out to anyone updating any templates on this page to either do the full updates in the future, or to put in a request on the talk page for the full updates to be done by someone who can take care of all applicable updates. And if any of you out there who have made partial updates to the templates on this page in the past, if you are not sure how to fully update tempaltes in the future, you can feel free to ask for assistance on that here. And if any of you opt to do partial updates, please take the extra time and effort to complete those updates. It does no good to partially update templates if someone else has to do the lion's share of the work in updating the placement, numbering, status and sourcing for the affected temples after the partial change is made. In conclusion, my thanks to you all for your consideration of and response to this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Dubai United Arab Emirates Temple

The church has announced this temple will be constructed at the Expo 2020 location after the expo is completed. I've left the status as "Announced" rather than "Site Announced" for the reason, at least from my knowledge, the exact location within the World Expo Site has not been announced. Any thoughts on this? Should it be moved or left where it is?--Dmm1169 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

GeoGroup

The {{GeoGroup}} template appears to not locate any temples. Is there an error causing it to not locate? If it can't map anything, should this template be removed instead? Is it only applicable on certain computers/software?--Dmm1169 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Casper Wyoming Temple Groundbreaking

Hello again, everyone! Just wanted to start a new topic here to note that ground was broken for the Casper Wyoming Temple as scheduled this morning. The reason I know that is because I had the privilege of watching the livestream of that event. However, I know that is not sufficient verification as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so I am keeping my eyes open for the Church to officially confirm the information. Once that happens, the appropriate updates can be made. My thanks once again to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you had the opportunity to see it. Info on the groundbreaking was of course publicly released shortly after you posted and it and was updated shortly after to Under Construction. --Dmm1169 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Temporarily Closed

The Kyiv Ukraine Temple status is listed as "Operations suspended". I've assigned the status color as "Black" which is also used for "Closed for renovations" and "Rededication scheduled". The church still owns the temple, it hasn't been destroyed/operated by others, and therefore I would have to assume that it will reopen once conditions warrant. Color schemes are handled by Template:LDSmap. Black would likely be used for future temporary closures due to political unrest, disease outbreaks, and renovations. Black refers to temporary closures and does not apply to temples permanently closed, destroyed, operated by others, or delayed/suspended before initial dedication. See Template:LDSmap for more info.-Dmm1169 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I became aware of the closure of this temple when the Church originally announced it, but forgot to mention that here or update the template to reflect that. So I appreciate you doing so now. Jgstokes (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Completed

The Quito Ecuador Temple status is "completed" which is a status not previously listed. I've added it to the color scheme as a blue icon rather than the default red since it's status is located between groundbreaking and dedication. Blue is already used for "under construction", "dedication scheduled", and "dedication postponed". Color schemes are handled by Template:LDSmap.-Dmm1169 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding on Quito is that Ecuador is not permitting entry from the United States at this time, which would explain the reason why the temple in that city is completed but not yet set for dedication. This might be a question for the LDS Temple status template talk page, but I am wondering if it would be a good idea to include the temples which are scheduled for and/or awaiting dedication in that count. Any thoughts on that? Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The definition set for "Blue Color" which represents a broader "Under Construction" definition that refers to the time between groundbreaking to dedication as stated in Template:LDSmap documentation. That definition if it is to be labeled anything else.
Blue = Under construction (from groundbreaking to dedication)-Dmm1169 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, does this data you mentioned above flow through to the map on the top of this article? I have no idea how to update it. It is pulling some temple information, just not all. For example, it is missing a dot for the temple in Dubai. Given the increasing number of temples and the small size of the map, it will soon become unusable for most of the map since the dots will all be on top of each other. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Glenn, a new template was created and is a smaller version of the one it's named after. All temples are represented on the map. Template:List LDS Temple World Map was not able to geocode and x,y coordinates had to be placed manually. So I created Template:LDS Temple Map World Small which is just a smaller version of the already existing template Template:LDS Temple Map World. The new format allows easier placement of temples, and instead of the clickable icon that the former map had, only the continent/region is clickable which will automatically redirect to a zoomed in map since as you mentioned, the icons were overlapping each other with placement of all current and new temples. You can see documentation on Template:LDSmap and Template:Location map~ for direction of placing points on a map and easy creation of a new map using already georeferenced maps. Template:LDSmap was created to autofill the "mark=" portion of Template:Location map~ which allows it to change the mark color with change of status on an individual temple template. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page or the template discussion page if you have any questions. Thank you for your willingness to update and improve the page.-Dmm1169 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the map, it looks good. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: I changed the status of the Quito Ecuador Temple back to "under construction" because "completed" is not a distinct status recognized by any of the sources that we routinely use. You directed me to look at the construction status page at ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org. I have looked at that page, and it supports what I am saying. Under the primary category "Temples Under Construction," there are subcategories for "Scheduled for Dedication," "Under Construction," and "Construction Pending." Where is the Quito Ecuador Temple listed? It's listed in the "Under Construction" subcategory; there is no subcategory for "Completed." The individual entry for the temple says "Construction completed" in the "Completion" line, in the same manner as the temples following it have "Estimated in early 2022," "Estimated in mid-2022," "Estimated in mid- to late 2022," "Estimated in late 2022," "Estimated in late 2022 to early 2023," and so on and so forth. I do not support having a separate category for any of these distinctions--and apparently neither does ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org.

A more broad discussion of this concept (how small of categories to break the as-yet undedicated temples into) took place previously on this page; see the Ordering of Temples on This List section. I am going to draw attention to a few things said in that discussion.

This conversation is so we don't just add/drop sections regularly and establish a standard.

Agreed. The categories/sections/statuses we use should be stable enough so that they generally don't have to be created and removed based on the status of a single temple.

My preference would be to not unduly complicate it, along with potentially increasing the effort to maintain the list, as has been mentioned.

I don't believe we should break up every detail of construction (concrete poured, windows installed, etc.)

If the change in status of a temple is not significant enough to warrant any type of announcement from the Church, then it is not significant enough to maintain the distinction here. Someone could be monitoring ever single press release from the Church, along with every single article in Deseret News, Church News, or any other Church-following publication--which is already an awful lot to expect--and not have any clue as to the progress of construction of a temple (between the time of groundbreaking and the announcement of an open house). Maintaining this list should not require that someone is monitoring the status page at ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org and repeatedly clicking "refresh" on their browser to look for any slight change (in this case, a change so slight that even the page itself does not break it out into a separate category). That's just way more high-maintenance than this list needs to be. Jdaloner (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, aside from my work here on Wikipedia, I am also a Latter-day Saint blogger. Even outside of those umbrellas, I am extensively tracking these kinds of developments. As a result, I become aware of such updates not long after they are reported, at any given time of the day. And that's been second-nature to me for at least as long as I've been a Wikipedia editor (15 years). That's how I managed to update the page for the Tokyo Japan Temple with the rededication information so soon after it was announced. So that point in your comment is moot. That said, I will concede that the Church Temples site doesn't have a specific subsection for completed temples, and looking at the list again, the same is true for the Hamilton New Zealand and Hong Kong China Temples, for which the renovation processes have wrapped, but neither of them have opening dates announced. So I will concede that point. That being said, the fact remains that the Quito Ecuador Temple is listed at the top of the section for temples under construction, so I stand by my opinion that it would be disingenuous to put Ecuador's newest temple in groundbreaking order. For that matter, if we are going by what the construction status page for the Church Temples site shows, then listing the under construction temples in the order of their groundbreaking doesn't make a lot of sense. The way I see it, there's no two ways about it. If your rationale about the Quito Ecuador status holds water and should be the key consideration here, then it's likewise pointless to list temples in groundbreaking order, since it is almost certain that groundbreaking dates have no bearing whatsoever on the completion order. We can't use the construction status page to justify moving a temple down without acknowledging that the temples on that page are not in groundbreaking order, and reflecting that somehow here. Either what is in sourced information is valid and relevant, or it isn't. Simple as that. Jgstokes (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

One other thought: "Construction completed" may not be a current status, but through previous discussions, the statuses of "Groundbreaking scheduled" and "Site announced" were added, and they have been maintained (and expanded, as necessary) whenever new announcements warrant that. Yes, I agree that having too many statuses would be too cumbersome to maintain, but since it was relatively straightforward to add the two newest statuses, it would not be cumbersome to add just one more. Alongside the Quito Ecuador Temple, the Belem Brazil Temple is noted to be awaiting the announcement of the public open house and dedication. When the Yigo Guam and Praia Cape Verde Temple were awaiting those announcements, that status applied to each of them, per the Church Temples site. As a result, in the same way we added the "Groundbreaking scheduled" and "Site announced" parameters, it would be easy to add a status for temples whose opening dates are to be announced. Something like "Opening dates TBD" would do the trick. Barring anything unexpected, the Quito and Belem temples will almost certainly be the next new temples to have opening dates announced, so that should be acknowledged here somehow. We can certainly keep the temples in the "Under construction" category in their current order, but I think creating a single category for the status of the next temples most likely to have opening arrangements announced would be simple and straightforward, while also being easy to maintain. And again, I will be happy to take on the task of adding that section to the template parameter, and to have primary responsibility for keeping that up-to-date. It would just be an extension of what I do personally anyways, so no problem there. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The point in my comment (presumably the one about needing to have a browser open clicking "refresh") is not moot; basing the structure of this list upon that idea is bad. Period. The fact that you may already be doing that is irrelevant. Just like the structure of this list should not be based upon that idea, the structure of this list should also not be based upon one person's willingness to go way beyond what is necessary (or even reasonable) to maintain Wikipedia. The fact that you are "happy to take on the task" or to have "primary responsibility" is irrelevant. The page does not belong to you, me, or anyone else; responsibility is simultaneously shared by no one and by everyone. If you get struck by lightning tomorrow, the structure of the page should not have to change because it was dependent upon the habits of a single person.

You say it would be "disingenuous to put Ecuador's newest temple in groundbreaking order." No it wouldn't. The "Under construction" section of this list has a very simple and clear note at the beginning, indicating "Numbering of temples announced or under construction is tentative...and based upon the groundbreaking date" and that "Permanent numbering may change depending upon the date of dedication." There is no implication that [for example] #181 is further along than #182. It just means ground was broken on #181 first.

I cannot state this emphatically enough: There is no need (or even a compelling reason) to repeatedly re-order the temples that are somewhere between groundbreaking and having their dedication announced. If you do not like having the temples in this phase listed in groundbreaking order, perhaps they should just be listed alphabetically. Or perhaps numbers shouldn't even be assigned at all until dedication dates have been announced. But they should not be broken up into even more categories (especially considering the fact that doing so would require the bad idea I already addressed).

You also say "if we are going by what the construction status page for the Church Temples site shows, then listing the under construction temples in the order of their groundbreaking doesn't make a lot of sense." Perhaps this is why we seem to be talking past each other: we are not going by what that page says, or the order it uses within its sections. When a change in status is scheduled or has occurred, it is publicized, and those sources (that are published on a specific day and don't have to be repeatedly re-checked every day for the next 2-3 years) are what is used to update the information here. When a groundbreaking date is announced, then that temple is re-ordered based on that date (as opposed to its earlier date of site announcement). The temple's entry can then be left alone while construction is completed, until the time a dedication is announced. If someone wants more details on its progress (up-to-the-minute status or whatever), that information is readily available at ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org. This is Wikipedia; duplicating everything found at another website (especially content subject to continuous updating) is not the goal here. It's like trying to create an article on the climate/weather in Salt Lake City, and using the National Weather Service website as a source (nothing wrong with that), but then insisting the Wikipedia article needs to reflect the current (up-to-the-minute) content of the NWS site. It does not. Using another site as a source does not mean that site needs to be mirrored on Wikipedia. Even if you have both the time and interest to do so, it is not desirable in the first place.

You additionally say "We can't use the construction status page to justify moving a temple down without acknowledging that the temples on that page are not in groundbreaking order, and reflecting that somehow here." First, I'm not using that page to justify moving the Quito Ecuador Temple down; you were using that page to justify moving it up. I'm returning it to where it was. Second, we don't need to state here on Wikipedia that the temples on a page on an external website are not in groundbreaking order. Again, this is Wikipedia. ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org is an external website. We should not be trying to duplicate their content here, and we certainly shouldn't be trying to explain the structure of--or offer disclaimers about--a page on an external website that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for a change here. I am advocating for the status quo that existed before you made this change. To quote a section from WP:STATUSQUO, "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up". I reverted your good-faith edit, returning to the status quo. But you reinstated your edit anyway. This is contrary to the generally-accepted BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, which is encouraged. You were then reverted. But rather than discuss--as I just pointed out--you reinstated your edit anyway (and then called for discussion). Quoting again from WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum". This means the status quo prior to your change is what should be in place right now, until/unless a consensus supporting your change is established. --Jdaloner (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My point, Jdaloner, is that the last time status changes were approved, particularly with the addition of "Groundbreaking scheduled" and "Site announced", that approval only came when I mentioned I was tracking that information anyways, so keeping up with those changes is second nature, something I enjoy, and something I will continue to share as part of my contributions to this page as a Wikipedia editor. I'd be foolish indeed if I ever laid claim to or took credit for most of this page, and that's not what's happening here. As I said, I understand and accept the prior determination that matching the construction status page rather than listing them in groundbreaking order would be original research, despite the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site has been determined sufficiently independent from the Church, so no further argument there. That being said, I have had the privilege of somewhat regular communication with the Church member who owns and operates the Church Temples site, and from what he's told me, while he does wait for official announcements from the Church before asserting information about the dedication, once a temple is completed and awaiting the announcement of opening arrangements, it has been handed over to the Church for that opening and is no longer in the custody of the construction team. And that is the precise difference between a "completed" or "nearly completed" temple and the others under construction. That is precisely why the Quito temple does not belong in the "under construction" category, because the construction is finished. And that is the kind of information is further emphasized by the fact that just this morning, the Church News (which has been used as a cited source in this article) noted that the first leaders had been called for the Quito Ecuador Temple. The Church has also announced the first presidents for Belem Brazil, Helena Montana, Saratoga Springs Utah, Feather River California, and Richmond Virginia, and usually (when the pandemic has not impacted this) newly-announced temple presidents begin serving a few months after they are announced. The first presidents wouldn't have been called if that was not the case. Obviously the Church is getting closer to opening these temples to the public and wants the leaders thereof to be prepared to hit the ground running when that happens. With construction completed and the Church now having full custody of that temple, the fact that Quito now has had a president announced further suggests the dedication of that temple is imminent. But here's something else I've noticed: You and I are the only ones involved in this discussion at this time. As a result, to generate more feedback, I an tagging in Dmm1169, Glennfcowan, FormalDude, and ChristensenMJ to generate broader discussion of this matter, and would invite them to invite anyone else they think might be interested so that we can expand the net of replies and opinions. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo version per WP:BRD, but am not interested in getting involved further at this time. ––FormalDude talk 21:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because of the ambiguity knowing of when this occurs and lack of knowing what that status means when I first saw it, I would vote to recommend keep status quo and not add "Completed" category, list construction completed in notes. I do see added value in knowing that it's completed, but think this would be better suited and significant enough to placed in "notes" line of its temple template.

When I first saw this status, I was confused what this meant until Jgstokes explained in the comment, and how I found out about the status is that a map icon went back to default () since "completed" was not assigned a status symbol. I since added the "completed" status as an option. When groundbreaking occurs, construction crews could be on standby, ready to start that day, or it can be many months before construction crews arrive, but in all of these cases it's considered "Under Construction", regardless of what's actually actually happening on the ground.

Recommend removing this and any other newly requested category until consensus states otherwise.

This conversation (Referring to Ordering of Temples on This List conversation) is so we don't just add/drop sections regularly and establish a standard.

This was recommended and applied then and should be applied now. Any new category will need a consensus.

Many comments use the church website or ldschurchtemples.com does. Wikipedia is independent of those websites. Just because it's done there, does not mean it has to be done in Wikipedia.

Temple Numbering - even though we've been traditionally numbering every single temple, the issue was brought up and I believe it needs discussion as well, but believe it needs to be a separate discussion section. Dmm1169 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If category is to be added, parameters for that category also needs to be added to Template:LDS Temple list. If parameters for a category is not defined in Template:LDS Temple list, it will will default to display parameters of an "announced" temple and will not display the groundbreaking date. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a list of temple status that Template:LDS Temple list currently recognizes:

• Groundbreaking Scheduled
• Groundbreaking scheduled
• Announced
• Awaiting dedication
• Dedication scheduled
• Dedication Scheduled
• Open for tours
• Under Construction
• Under construction

- Dmm1169 (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169, thanks for weighing in here. I wanted to clarify a point here: Above, you stated that "Awating dedication" was a recognized status. Would that status go into effect after the open house ends, or is it shorthand for "Awating announcement of dedication"? If it is the former, the space between the end of an open house and a dedication/rededication is short enough that the status in question may not be needed. If it is the latter, that would accomplish what I was hoping for with the "Construction completed" status. And if it is the latter, based on the current status of the Quito Ecuador and Belem Brazil Temples (as reflected on their respective pages of the Church Temples site), that status would seem to apply to both of them. Any clarification you could provide on this would be welcome and appreciated. Thank you. Jgstokes (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Jgstokes,

Good question. I was just relaying what the author(s) of this template placed as pre-operating status options. We have not been using "Open for Tours" or "Awaiting dedication" as temple status. I think using "dedication scheduled" is good enough. Having "Open for Tours" and "awaiting dedication" as sections would add a layer of complexity. Lately, the "awaiting dedication" timeframe appears to be a eight days long for temples currently in "dedication scheduled" status. At that rate, we can then justify "Closed for Renovations" for every annual 2-week renovation closure. Consequently, just because it's written as an optional status, doesn't mean it needs to be used.

Whoever authored the template apparently (whether through consensus or individually) did not see the importance of having "Groundbreaking" date listed for completed temples. What's interesting is all categories above including "Announced" will show its groundbreaking date if a date is put into that field. Of course if nothing is placed in the field, nothing will show for the category of that temple in Template:LDS Temple list.

That being said, I would like to have an expanded version of this template to show additional details, such as weblinks, in state/country pages. This would be especially helpful to show info for temples without their own page (announced temples, site announced, and some temples after groundbreaking). Temples (and maybe buildings in general), with few exceptions, cannot have their own page in Wikipedia. I quickly realized this after adding a few temples that were "announced" and seeing those pages removed. The extended version would have Official website link, News & images link, and any other pertinent information that may exist in its infobox prior to a temple's dedication. So far, my editing skills aren't at the level to create such template, although I don't think it's far off. Dmm1169 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction to above comment: Groundbreaking will automatically show for the above categories (if there's a groundbreaking date), but not show for other temples (including completed). Dmm1169 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It currently appears the consensus wants to remove/not include addition of Completed Section. I'm leaving that the comment period open till a few days after general conference due to an increased audience that views page during general conference. What about the Templates? Is this status in templates needed? If so, is there better wording that can be used? If I hear the words "completed temple", the first thing that comes to my mind is all the dedicated temples we have which is not what the status is talking about. Or is the wording completed suitable and just need explanation in header? There are several status options for temples in dedicated temple sections (operating, closed for renovations, etc.).-Dmm1169 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue are still the same as when there was a discussion last year. I think the only necessary categories are Dedicated, Under Construction, and Announced. The Completed section is a little confusing to the casual reader, so I am a definite no on that one. Reading back to last year, I am not sure there was a lot of consensus to add the new categories, but also not a lot of resistance to Stokes doing some bold editing. I'm appreciative of the detailed work on the page, but also think simpler is easier to understand for the broader audience. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, as far as the statuses in the template, I am supportive of eliminating "Open for Tours" and "awaiting dedication" since they are not used and are of short duration. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove Temple Numbering

Proposal: Remove numbering of temples without a dedication date with numbering being given when status changes to "dedication scheduled". Feel free to reply and please include in your comment a vote Keep (referring to keep numbering temples without a dedication date), Remove(remove numbers for temples without a dedication date), or Other (if you propose another solution) along with your reasoning.

Are there templates or anything else that require use of the numbering (where numbering must be used for template to function)? I could not find anything if there are. It would make it easier adding temples after they're announced and moving them to different status sections if numbering wasn't used. In addition there's not much meaning to the number since it's prone to change until at least dedication is scheduled.

Easier without numbering

Renumbering every time a temple announced or changes status adds a layer of complexity that seems unnecessary.

No significant value in number

Unless someone can point out the value in these numbers, I don't see any value with these numbers. If there is value, please reply and point out the value of having uncompleted temples numbered.

The Managua Nicaragua Temple was announced on 1 April 2018. It is currently numbered 236, but is not the 236th temple announced. 26 temples announced after this temple announcement have moved on to a different status putting their numbering ahead of Managua's. Distribution of status of these 26 temples (announced after Managua Nicaragua Temple, but moved to a different status):

• 11 "Site Announced"
• All 8 currently scheduled for groundbreaking
• 5 "Under Construction"
• 2 "Dedication Scheduled". The Yigo Guam Temple and the Praia Cape Verde Temple now announced for dedication were initially announced from the pulpit after the Managua Nicaragua Temple's announcement on April 1, 2018.

I'm tagging Jgstokes, ChristensenMJ, Glennfcowan, Good Olfactory, Jdaloner, FormalDude, Val42, FormalDude, Johnpacklambert, TheOtter, Rachel Helps (BYU) who has made contributions to discussions on this and MOS:LDS and anyone else who wants to contribute for broader discussion. Thanks -Dmm1169 (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169, you've made some very fair observations. Numbering prior to an announced dedication can get murky. I would be in favor of your proposal here, since the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site doesn't use numbering at all. And that will eliminate the need to constantly update the numbering as new announcements move other temples from lower on the list to a higher position. It will save a lot of work. Great thinking! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I just have time for a quick comment, I will look more closely this weekend. I am always supportive of simpler organization (fewer categories, fewer changes to orders of incomplete temples, easier to maintain) but I have one observation about temple numbering. I believe numbering is not a super important detail in terms of order. The only thing that does get lost if the numbers are dropped is the total, which is sometimes nice to be able to find.Glennfcowan (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as it's updated regularly, {{LDS Temple status}} - gives current number of temples completed, under construction and announced. This template is hidden in the header. In addition to the header, I think it could also be used to start the "List of Temples" Section, and done as stand-alone text, so to not get lost in the text. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I have several thoughts on this, which I will break out below.

1. I only threw this idea out there as a possible solution to a hypothetical problem ("If you do not like having the temples in this phase listed in groundbreaking order") that I suspect wasn't even the real issue in the first place.
2. Removing the numbering for not-yet dedicated temples would cause serious issues at Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (at least with the sortability of the table). The individual temple templates (where the numbering is actually maintained) are called upon by so many other templates and pages that removing the numbering is likely to cause many issues elsewhere as well. Although those issues could probably be addressed (with a great deal of work, restructuring, reformatting, etc.), the ensuing changes are likely to cause additional controversy at every step along the way that I see no point in bringing upon ourselves. Pretty much everything is already functional and working properly as-is.
3. As long as the number of sections/categories/statuses we break the list into is not expanded further, I don't think renumbering is too complicated. (I contend that we are currently at the maximum number that is reasonable; no additional categories should be created. Some could possibly be eliminated, but I favor the status quo.) Keep in mind that not every change in category results in re-numbering. For example, moving a temple into "Dedication scheduled" or "Groundbreaking scheduled" causes re-numbering, but then when the dedication or groundbreaking actually occurs--prompting another change in status--no re-numbering is necessary.
4. I think that with the changes Dmm1169 recently made to this list (specifically clarifying what the numbers in each section represent) that any ambiguity as to what those numbers might mean has been eliminated.
5. To me, the value in having these temples numbered is that it helps give a sense (even if not exact/precise) of where the temples fit in (or are likely to eventually fit in) to the overall numbering. I find it helpful to know, for example, that "#171 through #173 are about to be dedicated, #174 through #216 are currently under construction, #217 through #235 have definite sites but have not yet had ground broken, and "#236 through #265 have only been announced and don't even have a specific site yet." I find this to be more helpful than "in addition to the 170 dedicated temples, 3 more have dedications scheduled, another 43 are under construction, another 19 have definite sites, and another 30 have been announced but do not have specific sites yet." While the Managua Nicaragua Temple may have been announced much earlier than #236, the permanent numbering will ultimately be decided when the temple is dedicated (meaning the current numbering is more realistic than it would be if it had never been updated), and seeing other temples leapfrog it (as well as the Cagayan de Oro Philippines and Russia temples announced the same day) is helpful to me because it serves as an interesting reminder of just how far 'behind' those temples are. (Anyone wanna guess how the Russia Temple is coming along? Anyone think we'll even have a city announced any time soon, let alone a specific site? Sorry, I digress.) Again, for me, I find it helpful to have the individually-assigned numbers, and not just the totals as found in the LDS Temple status template (which serves a good purpose--but it's a different purpose). I could go on and on here, but suffice to say I definitely find having all the temples numbered to be quite helpful.
6. A previous comment was made, "I would be in favor of your proposal here, since the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site doesn't use numbering at all". I just want to point out that first of all, it does use numbering, and secondly, what that website does or does not do has no relevance to this discussion. It's a fantastic website that I regularly visit, consult, and read. But that doesn't make it relevant to anything being discussed here.
7. If a consensus is reached that having a single numerical list (#1 through #265) is not the way to go (I personally think it is the way to go), then I suggest separate numerical lists. Numbering would remain as-is for all dedicated temples. All temples between dedication and groundbreaking (currently #171 through #216) could be numbered as "Construction #1" through "Construction #46", all site-announced temples could be "Site announced #1" through "Site announced #19", and so on and so forth. (That's not a precise proposal, I'm just throwing it out there as an example of a system that uses multiple sets of numbering. It could be "#C-1" through "#C-46" or anything else that works. But just to be clear, I am not suggesting this; I actually kinda hate it. But it would address some of the problems that, as I see it, would be caused by eliminating the numbering on these temples entirely.)
8. Key point: Some people seem to believe in more categories, more work, etc., and some seem to believe in fewer and less. I think the status quo as it exists right now is a happy balance between those two sides. Jdaloner (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

   Jdaloner, Thank you for your thoughts.

   1. I believe the issue needs to be addressed for reasons stated above.

   2. I'm going to reply separately on this one. I'll look through the transclusions and see if there's any other issues. Thank you for bringing it up!

   3. Adding status fields is a different topic currently going through discussion. But for numbering purposes, even if it was just 3 fields (Announced, Under Construction, and dedicated), the complexity of renumbering everything still exists. Fewer fields = longer lists = likely more numbers to change when status of a temple does change. Status is a separate topic, but 2 times the number of statuses does not equal 2 times the work.

   4. I started placing headers, explaining each of the pre-dedication section order. Prior to that, the order description was only in the "Under construction" section that had some explanation. "Numbering of temples announced or under construction is tentative (indicated by the italicized numbers) and based upon the groundbreaking date, or the date of announcement if no groundbreaking has taken place. Permanent numbering may change depending upon the date of dedication." This text could be readded, if necessary, but essentially states ambiguity of the numbers.

   5. You can figure out "how far behind the temple is" as well as other questions about as easy without the numbers. Plus the example you gave is not that easy with numbering. Every pre-dedication category was represented in temples that were announced after Managua Nicaragua which means you'd have to subtract the difference in every category.

   6. I see this as irrelevant. churchofjesuschrist.org/churchofjesuschristtemples.org are not Wikipedia. If one of these pages decide to number in reverse order, doesn't mean this page in Wikipedia should follow suit.

   7. I don't see this in any way resolving the issues presented, but thank you for bringing it up.

   8. I've advocated for some things I thought was a happy balance, but consensus decided otherwise. This was a real problem for me when I first started but was able to adjust. There was about a decade where I got too busy other than occasional edits. People must be able to follow you and finding out what works for most helps. After all, this is Wikipedia. Dmm1169 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   2. I looked and tested all mainspace pages that use temple numbering. Only Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had issues when numbering was removed, but the issues were only in the first column. Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a number of issues, not just with temple numbering, but lack of memory, inability to display navboxes, etc. I was able to develop a nearly identical table that contains all the info, minus cafeteria info since they're being closed. Further discussion concerning this potential replacement can be found in Talk:Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Recommend use of new table. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169, I realize that this is your opinion (the issue needs to be addressed; there's no value in the numbering, etc.). I am of the opposite opinion. You asked for a vote, so I provided my vote and explained my reasoning. You may disagree with it, but it's still my opinion. I find the numbering to be very useful. That's not to say there's no other way to do the things I find the numbering to be helpful for; we could delete the entire list and I could still find the information elsewhere online. But I find it helpful to have it here, and I find the numbering to be helpful as well. As to your comment in #8 ("I've advocated for some things I thought was a happy balance, but consensus decided otherwise. This was a real problem for me when I first started but was able to adjust."), I'm happy for you. But since I'm the only vote so far, there's certainly no consensus [at this point] for making a change as dramatic as removing the numbering at issue here. I will continue monitoring this page (as I'm sure you will) to see if further votes/opinions are expressed. Jdaloner (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. As I noted in a discussion above, I generally think there are probably already too many categories, with those added last summer. I would keep the numbering, but not have it be so cumbersome or reliant on someone needing to check "daily" to maintain it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, per the soud arguments presented above by Jdaloner and ChristensenMJ. But an additional comment in relation to the latter editor's opinion: ChristensenMJ, this list never has been reliant on someone having to check "daily" to maintain it. When official announcements are made, the lists can be updated. My point was more that, since I have the time and availability to do so, I am running numerous checks on various Church websites several times a day as a Latter-day Saint blogger and Wikipedia editor to ensure I don't miss anything. And I'd be doing that whether or not I'd need to update the ordering of temples as reflected here. I have the time and ability to do that, so it's not a concern for me on that front. That being said, with the recent groundbreakings that have been announced by the Church this year, with the exception of the Bahia Blanaca Argentina Temple, which had a site confirmed, a rendering released, and a groundbreaking scheduled through a single announcement, all other temples scheduled for groundbreaking had sites confirmed and renderings released at separate times. That is why there needs to be distinct subsections in those cases. Temples scheduled for groundbreaking are further along than temples for which sites and/or renderings have been released, and the temples with confirmed sites and/or renderings are generally more likely to have groundbreakings announced than temples for which no official information has been released yet. So it would be a bad idea, IMHO, to categorize all of these temples as "Announced" when official Church announcements have put them further ahead in the queue than their announced counterparts. That's why there needs to be a distinction there. That aside, given the excellent arguments in favor of keeping the templates, I'm officially voting for keep now. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, pretty sure I get how the various announcements reflect different stages of progress. I think it's a presumption to say they "need" to be reflected in different categories, or subcategories, of those cases. It's something that "can" be done, but doesn't "have" to be. I'm not saying that it isn't a reasonable idea to include, as part of the efforts to keep it relatively simple, just that it not be framed as essential. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is a 'want' not a 'need'. This list does not need blog-level detail since Wikipedia is a summary of the data that exists elsewhere. I am supportive of the numbering being kept as long as updating it doesn't drive anyone too crazy. I am sure I messed it up at some point since I don't remember renumbering a bunch when moving temples around. Sorry to Stokes/Christensen/Dmm if you had to fix my errors! Glennfcowan (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The numbering for temples that are not yet dedicated has been an issue for years. The nice thing about numbering is that you can immediately see where things stand based on the "status" organization on this page, and when looking at the temple wiki page, you can get a good idea where it is in the order. However, updating all the numbers can be time consuming when they are changing due to announced dedications and groundbreaking that are not close to the announcement order (which because multiple temples are now frequently announced together, gives an initial alphabetical list that we know will be wrong). If numbers are removed for some on the list, we should keep those for dedication scheduled. I'd also like to see them kept for those under construction, the numbers (when I was active in the project) were usually not far off from the final number. However, I can envision that more changes are happening now since the temples under construction vary in size considerably (instead of having many temples all of the same basic size all under construction at the same time). So I guess I am of two minds on this. It's so rewarding to see these pages continue to be valuable and used. The number is less accurate and IMHO less useful for Announced and Site Announced statuses. --Trödel 00:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I appreciate all those who have commented on this. It appears this is headed towards Keep. I'd like to keep this open at least through general conference (April 2-3) to allow others to give their input. Also, I'd like to thank all of you for keeping this updated.-Dmm1169 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

List of status sections

Pre-Dedication Status Options: The following list are sections and template status options for temples not yet dedicated. Not included are temples not

• Dedication Scheduled
• Dedication Postponed
• Under Construction=ButtonBlue.svg
• Groundbreaking Scheduled
• Site Announced
• Announced

Post-Dedication Status Options. Sections of these temples are listed by dedication timeframe and not by status.

• Operating
• Closed
• Closed for Renovation
• Closed for Renovations
• Operations Suspended
• Rededication Scheduled
• Temporarily Closed

Other Sections in page. While I didn't list them, I don't see any potential need for change for status listed in these sections, but feel free to comment if any needs to be removed/changed/added

• Destroyed or operated by others
• Efforts suspended

I'm not giving the list of status for these sections but assume they're "grandfathered in" and wont need to change.

Please reply if there is anything I missed or if you have any other comments you would like to make concerning this. Whatever is decided on, the various templates that use temple status will need to be updated to reflect this.

Any of the above need to be removed from list? Any section and/or status need to be added? If so, a comment section needs to be created for each section/status under dispute.

A proposed "Completed" section has an active comment section. Also, a comment section is still open for Remove Temple Numbering. Due to a spike in views typically seen during general conference, I believe it's best to leave these comment sections active at least through general conference.

Once a consensus is gathered, is there a location where a list of these results/recommendations could be listed for future reference? Thanks.-Dmm1169 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue are still the same as when there was a discussion last year. I think the only necessary categories are Dedicated, Under Construction, and Announced. The Completed section is a little confusing to the casual reader, so I am a definite no on that one. Reading back to last year, I am not sure there was a lot of consensus to add the new categories, but also not a lot of resistance to Stokes doing some bold editing. I'm appreciative of the detailed work on the page, but also think simpler is easier to understand for the broader audience. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, as far as the statuses in the template, I am supportive of eliminating "Open for Tours" and "awaiting dedication" since they are not used and are of short duration. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Glennfcowan, I agree "Open for Tours" and "awaiting dedication" and any other status's currently listed in templates that I did not list above should be removed, or at least not used. I only listed status's that have been used in the past nine months or so.

If anyone feels any statuses I failed to mention above should be kept/available for future use, please reply or make a separate discussion page for the statuses you want to keep. The same is true for any status listed in my above comment you believe should be removed. (FYI: statuses currently listed for temples in "Destroyed or operated by others" and "Efforts suspended" sections are being kept unless discussion warrants otherwise). There are separate open discussions regarding Inclusion of Site Announced, Inclusion of Completed section, and Temple Numbering. Dmm1169 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Subtopic change

Since the list of temples is getting quite long (282), shouldn’t there be multiple subtopics for all of the temples? It gets quite annoying to constantly scroll down to the bottom of the page to add a new temple in. For an example of how this would work:

History

Destroyed/Owned and Operated by Others

Dedicated Temples

Temples Under Construction

Groundbreaking Scheduled

Site Announced

Announced

I believe this will allow this page to have easier accessibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeOnTheInternet (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

LifeOnTheInternetI'm a little confused what you're asking. This list is already divided up in these sections (plus a few). Are you talking about subdividing the "Announced" section by announced date similar to how dedicated temples are subdivided by dedication date?

You can click "Announced" on contents box to not have to scroll all the way to the bottom, or sometimes what I do is click "Efforts suspended", then scroll up to see the latest announced. - Dmm1169 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

LifeOnTheInternet used a mobile browser to make those edits. In the mobile version, the links are not there so it is indeed a lot of scrolling, so I suspect that is something LOTI is experiencing. I'll let LOTI answer, but it seems like the suggestion is to break the list into several lists, each with its own page. If that is the issue, the list could be compressed by only showing some of the data and not showing pictures. I have no idea how to do that, but I have seen lists that look more like data tables that might work. At some point, we will need to address the size of the list. I think we can all try to keep an eye out for other large lists to see what works well. Glennfcowan (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I get what is being asked here: You have to scroll down to the bottom of the list to see announced temples, but after the announced temples are listed, then Destroyed/Operated by others is at the bottom, as are withdrawn and suspended announcements. Since the Destroyed/Operated by others" section is at the bottom, the current page is not in correct chronological order, as it features temples announced and/or attempted to be built by the church in the 1830s. So the suggestion is to move the Destroyed/Operated by Others section up to now sit between the sections entitled "History" and "Dedicated Temples". That improves the chronological order and the accurate presentation of data. I would be in favor of this suggestion, because on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples site official list, it has the early Latter-day Saint Temples listed before those currently operated by the Church were built beginnning in the 1870s. Hope that clarification helps. ––Jgstokes (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia pages (including many LDS Listing pages) was designed when desktops and similar sized screens ruled. While it appears Wikipedia has made strides to accommodate the growing mobile use, I seems as though it's done as an afterthought. It seems so much more challenging to view, edit, etc. throughout wikipedia using a mobile device with Wikipedia. I really like how this page and temples by geographic region page is designed for the desktop. I like seeing the image with the temple profile. Could there be a mobile friendly version and a standard of the page?

In the meantime, I agree the "Efforts suspended" should be moved up. Should it be before or after the Destroyed/Operated by Others section? Dmm1169 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I for one hate all the push toward replacing well-designed informational websites with ones that use large fonts, huge pictures, mobile-friendly design that reduces the informational value of the site (amctheatres for example) . It is so hard to find what you need when one must scroll to read more than one sentence. So although I think it would be great to have a temple list mobile-friendly page, I don't think we should do so at the sacrifice of this nice view with comprehensive well organized information viewable together we have now.

As to destroyed/operated by others section. That should stay before Dedicated, in my view I don't remember what reasoning was used to move it to the bottom. - User:Trödel 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Trödel for some reason your name got cut from your signature. The only times I use mobile is when I'm away from a laptop/desktop. I like this format and agree that I don't want to change it to satisfy mobile users. Another option is to have a second, mobile friendly page, but not sure how that would work. Fortunately, temple content is sourced in one location, but it still would mean that when a temple moves sections or wording changes in one page, it would also have to be done on the other. I'm personally against this option, it would be too redundant, requiring extra work, but wanted to see what other's thoughts on this was.

One other thing that may help the situation is that Wikipedia auto-collapses tables on mobile devices. A table could be made with similar format. My personal recommendation at this time is to leave the format alone. I am looking at creating a new template to better suit the LDS in Country/State pages; a little more content from infobox (helpful for temples without their own page) and had a request for it to not cover 100% width all the time.-Dmm1169 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

agreed --Trödel 02:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Add "Announced by..." field?

Suggest adding "Announced by..." field in templates. This proposal would make "Announced:" line similar in format to the existing "Groudbreaking by" and "Dedication by" lines.

• Removes redundancies. We're saying that its announced in both "Announced" and "Notes" line of the same template.
• Shorten length of temple list. This removes a line for most temples that are announced and under construction that says "Announced by individual on date." This is the only note for most of these templates. I believe the "announced by..." is significant enough to place in template.
• Improve adding of new temples. By simply filling the "announced by" line and adding the reference there,

This would involve changing a number of templates. I'm not sure if there is a simple way to do that other than manually editing each template, but I'd think would benefit the page if adjustment was done. -Dmm1169 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "Location" and "Style" from list

I removed "Location" and "Style" fields from this temple list page only. This is due to the excessive length of the current list.

"Location" and "Style" are included in other pages including:

• Individual Wikipedia Temple Page
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in [Country/State]
• Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Location is also shown in List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region

Reasons for removing "Location":

• With exception of a few Utah temples, The general location is already given in the name. Specific locations can still be found in the list of pages above.
• reduction in page size. This reduces the visual page length on a midsize laptop screen and larger by a little under 15%.
• reduction in page data. Page is nearing a data-size threshold that would have prevented some templates such as navboxes from functioning.

Reasons for removing "Style":

• Lack of significance for inclusion. When choosing fields to drop, this field appeared the most insignificant. Image of detail is still included (although will see some size reduction). Field values are still shown in the list above.
• reduction in page size. This reduces the visual page length by a little under 10%.
• reduction in page data. Page is nearing a data-size threshold that would have prevented some templates such as navboxes from functioning.

Removing both fields would reduce the page length by 20% (plus or minus). Maximum image height and width will be also reduced slightly to account for text reduction.

Fields to remain:

• Temple #, image, and name
• Announced:
• Groundbreaking: (undedicated temples only)
• Dedicated:
• Rededicated:
• Size:
• Notes:

-Dmm1169 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yigo Guam Temple Dedication

Hello again, everyone! The Yigo Guam Temple was scheduled to be dedicated today (Sunday May 22) by David A. Bednar. Currently, neither the Church News or the Newsroom has officially reported that the dedication took place as scheduled. The Guam/Micronesia Newsroom page does have a few articles that reference that the dedication was supposed to take place today (see this report on a cultural celebration, another describing the blessings and benefits for Latter-day Saints and their friends of other faiths in Guam, and one additional report on how to schedule ordinance work there. The Church of Jesus Christ Temples site has indicated the temple was dedicated as scheduled, but there is nothing specific on the Yigo Guam Temple page to confirm that has occurred as scheduled. Without official confirmation, we'd probably be venturing into policy issues if we moved the Yigo temple without a source for verification, so I'm assuming there's no rush to change the template currently. It did occur to me to wonder if inclement weather led to a postponement of the dedicatory sessions, but we won't know that without an official report either. Any thoughts on this? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen it in any of the newsroom sites, but the church (as well as the third-party page below) already lists today as being dedicated.

Official News and Images Dmm1169 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Not quite correct. On the Yigo Guam page through the Church's official website, under the name, it clearly says: "Temple closed during construction." It also says further down "The temple will be dedicated on May 22, 2022, and open for patrons on May 26, 2022." The temple will be dedicated. Not the temple has been dedicated. Since that temple is still listed as under construction, the note on the Yigo Guam Temple page shuoldn't be used as a source to support the fact that the dedication did occur today, because that's not at all what it says.

Also, while the Church Temples site has been used as a good secondary source of sufficient independence from the Church, if you look at the very same news page you cited, aside from the status update showing that Elder Bednar dedicated the temple as scheduled, there is no corresponding link to anything that would officially confirm that information. And through the Newsroom, both on the main page and on the page specific to Guam/Micronesia, there is no confirming report either, which is also true for the Church News. I am not disputing the fact that the Church Temples site is likely accurate in saying the temple was dedicated today as scheduled. I have never once had reason to doubt the accuracy of that source.

The problem is that until we have official sources from either the Church News or the Newsroom which confirm the information about the dedication, on its' own, the Church Temples site blurb on that would not be sufficient evidence, since it is an unofficial secondary source. That is why I suggest we wait to update the temple status template, the Yigo Guam Temple template, and the List of temples page until there is such proof. Hopefully that clarifies what I was trying to say. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The official website appeared to provide mixed messages. It left the messages up that you mentioned, but at the bottom under milestones it stated "22 May 2022: Dedicated — dedicatory prayer" with a link for dedicatory prayer, although an error message popped up when I had tried to click on the link. After you mentioned I decided to look at the Praia Cape Verde Temple, and it also states "19 June 2022-Dedicated", but doesn't state "dedicatory prayer". Also, last night it allowed me in to schedule ordinances which I haven't seen available for undedicated temples. Nothing changed with the official website since we last commented, but the Guam Newsroom now talks about the dedication. It had appeared to me that the Church left the scheduling messages up by mistake and add Last night the Church Temples site showed its temple district and other info showing its dedication, but as you mentioned had not shown references. So I understand your wanting to wait for further confirmation.-Dmm1169 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169: Yesterdy after my last comment to you, the Guam/Micronesia Newsroom page shared coverage on the dedication, and later that same day, the main Newsroom page and the Church News page both shared information on the temple dedication. I included that information in the template for that temple and subsequetly moved it, which I'm sure you saw. I apologize if I was unnecessarily difficult about this. But when it comes to changes that could violate policy, I'd prefer to take the cautious approach. Thanks for your continued good faith efforts in improving pages about Church topics. It is greatly appreciated. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Jgstokes Understand. I've seen users add things over less validation. I agree about validating from sources that it did occur. I've seen retractions from pages that I thought was reliable. What I saw appeared to show that it had occurred. If it came out the other way, I would have had to retract my own work.-Dmm1169 (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)