Talk:List of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed reformatting of page and content

Would this page look better under this format? After reviewing full temple listings in other websites, I've realized how much easier it is to view if it's simplified to one line. The format is probably similar to the Chronological list page on the Temples webpage (News and images), except with images and additional info. You may already know, I'm not one to advocate matching format to other webpages (without reason). In this case, the simpler list makes it easier to scroll through.

Because it's simplified to one row per temple, the images are smaller (roughly 2 lines tall for max height). One can simply click on the temple name to see larger size and additional content. Images are not found in comprehensive lists on other of the major websites (partly making this Wikipedia page unique).

In simplifying the list, I've completely or conditionally removed the following fields:

• Location (recently removed) - General location already implied in temple name for most temples.
• Rededication - the original dedication tends to be more referenced.
• Groundbreaking - Still exists for temples without dedication date
• Groundbreaking by - Still exists for temples without dedication date
• Announcement - Still exists for temples without groundbreaking date
• Announced by - Still exists for temples without groundbreaking date
• Open House - not shown much on current template since it was placed only on temples around the time of the open house
• Temple Height - less available and probably less significant as floor and site area
• Style (recently removed) - not used for most newer temples nor significant enough for simplified list
• Notes - not used on most temples and would require significant space when placed in a column.

Fields that still remain,

• Image (though smaller) - picture says a thousand words and make this list still unique from complete lists on other pages (ie. official website and temples site).
• Sequence number
• Name - probably the most important field
• Status
• Floor Area
• Site Area
• Dedication - probably the most referenced date for completed temples
• Dedicated by
• Groundbreaking - If no dedication date
• Groundbreaking by - If no dedication date
• Announcement - If no dedication or groundbreaking date
• Announced by - If no dedication or groundbreaking date
• edit link

Other changes and befits include

• Merger of dedicated temples as less scrolling is needed.
• Merger of announced temples as less scrolling is needed. There's still a separate status for Site Announced, but not it's own section. Because of the announced temples maybe merging back together, should order and numbering be changed?
• Table was made sortable since the table was simplified to unified columns.
• Significant reduction of page memory. Having enough memory to display navboxes and other templates was an issue with the former template. It also made it longer for page loading which may have been an issue for those with slower internet speeds.
• Significant reduction of scrolling to see content.

There are no planned changes to the list in the temple lists on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in [Country/State]" pages, which uses the current template format and includes a larger image and additional information. This adds features similar, but does not replace Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as only a few of the fields are shown.

Due to the significance of the change, I didn't want to make it without leaving it for comment. Unless there's overwhelming consensus ahead of time, I don't think it should be implemented any earlier than June 30, 2022 (since we're away from general conference when this page sees a greater audience). Is the current format better or is the proposed format the better option? Does the proposed page need to be changed in any way (ie. add/remove columns, formatting...)? Thoughts? Again, here's the link to the proposed page: sandbox/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Even though it's in my userspace, you're welcome to edit that page.

Thanks--Dmm1169 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169, once again, you have developed a great way to show information on all temples in a much more consolidated and neat set of tables. I have no problem with most of the revisions in general, but have a few comments to offer on some of these elements. On both the Church's official temple page and on the Church of Jesus Christ Temples page, rededication dates are prominently noted. Take a look at the Chronology page on the Church Temples site. That list shows the dedication date for each temple.

But there is also a collapsable list which, when selected, can show rededication dates which are applicable. I am not a great expert on Wikipedia temples and templates, but I disagree that the information about temple rededications is not as important or is not referenced as much. The Church Temples site pages for those temples lists rededication information in with the other information about the OG dedications and open house(s). To eliminate that information would not be a good idea. So I would suggest keeping that, and if that could be done with a collapsable list, at least the readers will have the option to view that information without having to go directly to a temple page or temple template page.

The information about open houses shouldn't be eliminated either. That being said, I believe that the removal of the site announcement and groundbreaking dates for temples under construction would be a good idea, as long as that information is retained in the inddividul templates and temple articles in some form. That's my main feedback on this. Thanks for putting this draft together. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Jgstokes, Thank you for your comments. I didn't see the "Show Rededication" feature on the Church Temples site until you pointed it out, but I don't see that feature on the Church website. It is possible to do on this table using collapsible tables within a table, but very complex. My thoughts is to keep it simple to make it easier for the next editor.

I don't see rededications being significant enough for this page. I noticed it was excluded from the Comparison page as well. I went ahead and added it to that page when splitting the table. That brought up another point 2nd rededications (and future 3rd rededications) are not an option in the temple templates. I've started a discussion concerning the potential need to add them on the template page.

"Open House" is now added on to the Template:LDS Temple list2 which is what the LDS in [Country/State] uses. "Open House" only applies to the first open house. This could be added for rededications when adding rededication fields if this is determined necessary. The largest Open House right now is for the Washington D.C. Temple which far eclipses what's going on at the Praia temple, but the Praia Temple is the only one that the current template displays. --Dmm1169 (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to review, comment, and/or edit the draft proposal and its corresponding draft template. We're looking for input and thoughts. Thanks. --13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty great. I love the table aspect, especially the ability to sort. A table like this does help with the running debate about reordering temples whenever a site or a groundbreaking is announced. We could simply retain the original numbering and it will be easy to look down the column (or sort if desired) to see that data. We could go back to just the three lists: dedicated, under construction, and announced. I agree that we could skip the rededication dates. Excellent work on the tables. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmm1169, I appreciate the work you've done on these drafts. I have taken the liberty of tweaking at least one of the subsection titles (since the Announced section includes those for which sites have been announced, Site Announced should be part of that section heading), and h have made some revisions to the section explanations for "Groundbreaking scheduled" and "Site Announced/Announced". I attempted to clarify the descriptions and to remove wording that seemed unnecessarily repetitious or redundant. If you (or anyone else reading this comment) have a problem with any of the edits I made, further tweaks are always appropriate. Great work. Thanks! --Jgstokes (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Jgstokes, Thank you for your contributions. I'm still ok with the status of "site announced", but my suggestion is that the order and numbering in "Announced" section be reverted back to announcement order once this draft is implemented so the "Announced" section wording will probably change accordingly. --Dmm1169 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about the change. I like the use of tables but the current format allows for much bigger images (which I very very much like). So I guess if I was forced to choose - I'd keep the current format. Comment about history. The current format (and the change from a table to the current format) was a result of working to have the list receive featured list status for this article in 2006 - see these discussions New Format, featured list nomination 1, & featured list nomination 2. (Note that it was later delisted because of a lack of references (and the use of the template format) see delist discussion. Although we fixed this issue with the reference, we never renominated the list for featured status. Final suggestion - In making changes with the new format, I think we should do something that will make it more likely that this list could be a featured list again. --Trödel 02:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Trödel, At year-end 2006, there was 124 dedicated temples. Now, there's 172 dedicated temples with many more announced and under construction (282 total). Russell M. Nelson has announced 100 temples and counting since he's been president. There is now 172 temples dedicated, under construction, and/or announced, with anticipation of hearing many more from the pulpit. This has created an extremely lengthy list and it seems that the list needs to be simplified and consolidated. I also realized the page data size had grown so large with the template, that navboxes and possibly other features were going to fail within the next year if announcements kept pace.

I love the format of the temple list that was developed back then and still in use. An expanded version (Template:LDS Temple list2) is used for the temples section in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in [country/state]" pages and modeled after the original format. This has more information and larger images than the original, and is capable of being expanded further. Every country and state that has a temple or that may get a temple in the relative near future has a page. The work you've done has not been in vain. It served the main temple list for several years and its influence will serve these other mentioned pages for years to come.

As I mentioned, feel free to suggest or make adjustments on this or Template:LDS Temple list2. My goal in this was simple functionality to make it easier to scroll through the list. I left the images and what I felt was the most pertinent information off the original template. Yes the image is small (a little larger than icon size), but a simple click on the temple name gives a bigger image (Infobox or Temple list2).

Talk about images, we don't have images for all the temples like we use to. Any way this can be remedied? Has anyone tried to get permissions for use of the released photos? Thanks--Dmm1169 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for the changes. Just giving my view and some information about why it changed.

I personally made a concerted effort to get permission for photos. You can do that by asking people who post on flickr or other places ldstemplepages.com to reply to an email giving permission to use on wikipedia and then send it to the people running the OTRS system so it is documented when you upload a picture that isn't taken by the uploader. (Note this process may have changed over the last 10 years. I tried to get permission from the ldstemplepages to use more of their images, but wasn't able to get a reply - that would be the best way to get quickly get pics from multiple temples. Note that in some countries where there is no freedom of panorama, it is nearly impossible to get a picture [South Korea and the Philippines being the 2 where there are temples]. Or if you do you must include some of the city landscape in order for it to meet the requirements of the commons deletionists (see The Manila Philippines temple. --Trödel 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on recommendations I've seen talk sections above, the "announced" list is sorted strictly by announcement date and by order in which it announced. Status label of "site announced" will still exist but not change sorting. Numbering will be adjusted at time of implementation. See draft page. Again, any recommendations/edits you provide will be helpful. I'm proposing this to be implemented on June 30 if consensus warrants. This proposal only applies to this page and not the lists in the country/state pages which use list2. --Dmm1169 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm supportive of that timeline, I think the changes are great. I am still a proponent of combining the "dedication scheduled" and "groundbreaking scheduled" with "under construction" and "announced", respectively, but I can let that go also. (and I couldn't figure out how to make that change even if I wanted to!) Glennfcowan (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Glennfcowan, How would you combine it? Combine "dedication scheduled" with "dedicated" and "groundbreaking scheduled" with "under construction"? If I list "dedication scheduled" with "under construction" then only the groundbreaking date would appear to keep in line with column header. A similar situation occurs if I combine the "groundbreaking scheduled" with "announced". That's why I still have those in separate tables, but willing to combine these tables if that's what works out best. Thanks! --Dmm1169 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, one of the columns would not work anymore. I had envisioned just having the status column designate what is going on with the temple (announced, site announced, and groundbreaking scheduled). In that instance the date for groundbreaking scheduled would just not show up. We'd lose a little data in the table, but the "groundbreaking scheduled" and "dedication scheduled" subgroups don't last long, typically, so the date isn't as important in my view. As I said, I can see it done both ways. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have an additional comment about the listed order for announced temples. If the consensus is on board with lumping the "Announced" temples totgether with "Site announced" temples by the date of the temple announcement, I am willing to stand by that consensus. But at the same time, the history of the Church setting groudbreakings, particularly within the last couple of years, shows that temples which have already had renderings released and sites announced are almost always more likely to have groundbreakings set sooner than temples which lack either or both an exterior rendering and/or site announcement. The whole reason the "Site announced" status was created was to make it easier to move the temples up to "Groundbreaking scheduled" when such announcements were made, precisely because those temples are more likely to have groundbreakings sooner than their counterparts for which the release of exterior renderings or site confirmations have not yet occurred. Looking at the Church Temples site, the Chronology page shows the announced temples by announcement date, but not in announcement order. I know that because the three temples from April 2018 were announced in the following order: Managua Nicaragua, Cagayan de Oro Philippines, and Russia, but the Chronology page lists them in the following order: Russia, Managua Nicaragua, then Cagayan de Oro. Meanwhile, the Construction Status page from the Church Temples site clearly puts the temples with "Sites announced" sorted by the dates of the site announcements, then lists the remaining temples lacking any information in order by date of announcement. I know that we don't want to necessarily copy either method the Church Temples site uses, but at the same time, I don't think that listing the temples with confirmed sites with the temples that have not had sites confirmed and lumping them all together in one group by the original announcement date may not be the way to go; I'm probably in the minority on this, and if everyone else is dead set on lumping those two separate statuses together and listing all announced temples by announcement date, I will do my best to support that consensus, but I don't think it would violate policy to take into consideration the fact that temples with sites confirmed almost always have groundbreakings set before that occurs for their counterparts which have not had any information announced. Just something I wanted to throw out for consideration here. Jgstokes (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Jgstokes, Yes "Site announced" temples will likely go into construction sooner than other announced temples. These columns are sortable, and sortable so one can still sort them by status. I believe now that its in the same table, it should be simply kept as announcement date. There's no "site announced date" in the templates or in this table as this date is more ambiguous and less relevant than "announced", "groundbreaking", "dedication". My view was different when the tables were separate and unsortable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think consensus is no longer there to advocate renumbering for "site announced" but that's why we're having these conversations.

As for numbering, I don't see a strong significance for numbering undedicated temples as thy will change position on how far they're along several times between the announcement and dedication - especially with how many temples are announced or under construction. Even for dedicate temples; is temple #23 any more significant than temple #123? We've had temples (including my temple) undergo a complete reconstruction, but didn't change the numbering. However, those rebuilt after a more abrupt disasters were renumbered. If say, Kyiv temple (or an earlier constructed temple) was to end up on the "destroyed" category, there will be a lot of renumbering to do. Consensus does not share my view on this issue, which is why I take numbering into account. -- Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see a strong significance of undedicated temple numbers. They do change a lot if we reorder them for every little status change. "Site announced" usually is short term, but there are several temples that have been in that category for over a year, one coming up on two years. There have been 31 groundbreakings since Port Morseby's site was announced. I fear we are trying to catch every little nuance in this list, when the list should be at a higher, summary level. The detail is in the template or in the article itself. I can support either method, but I prefer the simpler approach. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Official names confirmed for Greater Guatemala City Guatemala and Rexburg North Idaho Temples

Hello again, everyone! This evening, I came across changes on the Church's official temple page. The entries for the Greater Guatemala City Guatemala and Rexburg North Idaho Temples had been moved down, with the first being renamed the Miraflores Guatemala City Guatemala Temple, and the second being named the Teton River Idaho Temple. Since these changes were officially noted on that page, I am assuming we can take them as official. I have moved the existing Greater Guatemala City Guatemala Temple template to now be the Miraflores Guatemala City Guatemala Temple template, and the Rexburg North Idaho Temple template to now be the Teton River Idaho Temple template. I believe I did everything that needed to be done to clean up after the moves, but if I am missing anything, I will not object in any way to anyone assisting me in fixing that and getting it taken care of. Please post here with any questions. My thanks once again to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with making the changes in accordance to the official website. It has not been updated in the News and images sites, Google maps, etc. My guess is that they'll eventually conform to what's on the official website. --Dmm1169 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Reformatting of Page and extension

On May 24, I proposed changing the format of the table within the page with a deadline of June 30 to make the change. While there was some significant discussion, only three others commented with consensus so far favoring the change. This being said, I'd prefer to hear from more users over this significant of a change. Therefore, I'm extending the effective date to July 15. The current and proposed pages are highlighted below:

	Current	Proposed
Page	Current Page	Proposed Page
Template	Current Template	Proposed Template*

• Note: Proposed template does not have a documentation page as it is in sandbox status

The following table is a brief list of views on discussed topics:

User	Reformat?	Rededication Dates?	Sort by Announced Date?
Dmm1169	Yes	No	Yes
Glennfcowan	Yes	No	Yes
Jgstokes	Yes	Yes	No
Trodel	has reservations regarding change	ok if removed	Yes
dgmitchell91	Yes	Yes	Yes

Summary Views

Views on reformatting:

Pros

• Takes up less space (Page length and memory size) This reduces scrolling, upload time, and page limits. Some templates would fail to run if it got too much bigger.
• Sortable columns. Operating temples were combined into one table allowing one to sort among operating temples. One can also sort "under construction" and "announced" temples tables.

Cons

• Not as much information Shown. Rededication, Open House, Temple Height, Style, and Notes were removed to simplify table.
• Smaller image. Because temple facts were reduced to a one-line wrapable cells, the image height maxed out to about the height of two lines.

Other comments,

• Template:LDS Temple list2 used in LDS in [country/state] pages will still remain in its current format with the ability to expand and add more information in the future. This contains all information in this table, plus some.
• Trödel shared that this current page has been nominated for featured list on multiple occasions and wished we do something to make it more likely for the list to be featured again.

Views on adding rededication dates:

Jgstokes recommended having hidden rows for rededication of temples similar to the the Chronology page on the Church Temples site.

Pros

• Allows rededication dates to be displayed with click on "Show".

Cons

• adds a level of complexity to the tables
• conflicts with the sort feature of the table
• only first rededication date is currently available in Temples templates. Adding additional rededication dates will require the field to be added in all temple templates.
• don't know a way to make a single button to show down all hidden rows in a table.

Sort by announced date

Yes on this issue indicates sorting and numbering all temples according to announcement date. No vote lists "site announced" temples according to when their site was announced then announced temples according to their announcement dates. Either proposal still allows "site announced" to be its own status.

Views in favor of sorting numbering "announced" table only by "announced date"

• Not having to renumber temples every time a temple site is announced.

Views in favor of numbering "announced" table by status "site announced" then "announced"

• "Site announced" temples generally go under construction before temples without a site announcement.

Other comments:

• in either case, columns are sortable
• some discussion on whether undedicated temples should be numbered.

Other suggestions:

• Glennfcowan suggested combining the "dedication scheduled" and "groundbreaking scheduled" with "under construction" and "announced", respectively.
• adding additional fields such as additional rededications and dates and their respective open houses as well as any other fields that might be used in the future. It's easier to add multiple fields at once rather than one field now an another later.

Feel free to edit/reply and add your thoughts to tables and views. Thanks -- Dmm1169 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to make all your proposed changes but implement all the suggestions aswell Dgmitchell91 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Who do I put my name down on the tables Dgmitchell91 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• I recommend proposing the list for WP:Featured List status and getting feedback from the community at large before making a change such as this. I don't think I was clear after reading my comments above, but I meant to propose doing that back then. Some of the changes to the current list came from the featured list reviewers. I think a change like this would be a great time to incorporate things that could make it featured. Finally, it would also provide the additional feedback that is desired. Finally, if we could get the list to be featured, then it can be proposed to be on the home page as list of the day, etc. --Trödel 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also, the new format removes nearly all the references. I would recommend including the church page or the temple page from churchofjesuschristtemples.org in the table so that the list isn't attacked for having insufficient references. Having references would also help the new list pass muster as a featured list. I made a change to the template, but discovered that the <ref> tag can not be in the format template but must be in the data template, so a new "ref_id" data point would need to be put into each temple's data template. It now is in for St George and a few other temples so you can see how the reference would work. --Trödel 18:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  PS - note that I would recommend using better words than "reference" and using a better data item name than "ref_id". I just did something quick as a proof of concept that we could include references in the list. We should discuss what to use such as "Salt Lake City temple details from churchofjesuschristtemples.org" --Trödel 18:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

New fields, removing unnecessary fields

Proposal to add rededication/open house fields and merge/remove unnecessary fields in the process. These fields may be used in infobox templates, the extended list template shown in LDS in [Country]/[State] pages, possibly the temple comparison pages, and potentially future pages. The fields cannot be added until all LDS Temple templates have it included, otherwise it will cause an error in the display. See Template talk:LDS Temple#New fields, removing unnecessary fields for discussion. -- Dmm1169 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Title capitalization

The title of this article, along with a provision at MOS:LDS, violates MOS:THEINST, a site-wide guideline which trumps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints § Capitalization issue. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

churchofjesuschristtemples.org removal from Wikipedia

Horse Eye's Back has pointed out to me over a lengthy discussion on my talk page that the https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/ is a fanfare site and not acceptable for use on Wikipedia due to its policy due to it being a fansite and thus should be deleted. This is used in the infoboxes and other locations. Any comments/objections about removal? Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC) I'm taggingJgstokes, ChristensenMJ, Glennfcowan, Good Olfactory, Jdaloner, FormalDude, Val42, Johnpacklambert, TheOtter, {{Rachel Helps (BYU) for broader discussion. I personally believe it should be brought to further discussion as it's been used in Wikipedia at least since 2004.Dmm1169 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What @Horse Eye's Back has said is largely correct. I see no indication that the website is anything other than a self published source, and as such while the information on it is likely correct, it should not be used as a reliable source. This may require a lot of work to update infoboxes and other locations to reflect such information. Rollidan (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dmm1169, Much as I love that site, I must concur: if it doesn't meet the established criteria, it needs to be removed. I would honestly hate that, though. The site is well established and has a large amount of information that, to the best of my knowledge, is not readily available anywhere else (e.g. photos, dedicatory prayers, etc.). While the Church's official temple page has lots of great content, it doesn't even come close to this "fanfare site" for quantity and quality of information on the individual temples themselves. Does this somehow help us justify it? TheOtter (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rollidan, Thank you for your comments. It was very much helpful. Dmm1169 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dmm1169: Like Rollidan says above, it does not look like the website meets the reliability criteria for self-published sources and so should not be used for references. I think you may be able to use the Church's temple pages for some of the temple statistics and dates. For information about stakes and such, you may be able to use ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com or cumorah.com. There's a bit of a discussion regarding these over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources.

However, I do think that the website in question may be a valid external links candidate, which has a lower threshold criteria than reliable sources, for temple specific articles and for temple infoboxes (the "News and images" link I think goes to this website, but maybe not). There is an external links noticeboard to get additional community feedback if there is a question on this usage. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an angle I didn't know much about, but is worth discussing. It does seem like ChurchofJesusChristTemples meets the criteria for SPS. This is a more technical area than I am used to. I have always viewed the site as a professional and reliable source. What would it take to become a non-fansite source? If the website owner had been interviewed by media members for information about temples, would that add enough credibility? (I don't think that has happened, but I am trying to understand). Or if the author had been invited to present at a conference or other event? It may make sense to see if we can find reasonable evidence of credibility.

If the website in question is an SPS, then I would imagine then that the two sites listed by FyzixFighter would also be SPSs since one is a blog and the other a website run by people connected to the Latter Day Saint movement.

As far as changes made as a result of this discussion, I would prefer to see a full discussion and consensus before any changes are made, but it looks like HEB has already been Bold in removing a few links. I don't think we have to do things the way they have always been done just because that's the way they have always been done. We should find consensus then act. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

SPSs are not inherently unreliable. Usually SPSs do not satisfy the requirements to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and to have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something. They can be reliable when the self-published source is produced by an established subject-matter expert (SME), whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. SPSs can also be used as a reliable source even if not from an SME for information about themselves, with some caveats. If the maintainer of ChurchofJesusChristTemples were a known SME on LDS temples and had published previously on that subject in reliable sources (along the lines of being quoted on the subject in multiple, independent reliable media or having a history of presenting at conferences like you suggest), then it would be possible to use it as an RS. With regards to ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com and cumorah.com, Matt Martinich, who maintains and contributes to these sites, is a known independent demographer who is often cited by reliable sources on the topic of Church statistics and demographics, therefore it may be possible to use his SPSs with sufficient caution (again, per WP:SPS) in some situations, particularly when no other third-party source exists.

If you want to get a broader consensus from the larger WP community, either for the OP website or for the ones I've suggested, WP:RSN is probably the best (though not only) place for that. I do think that ChurchofJesusChristTemples is a value-added resource and would advocate for listing it as an external link on temple pages. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You've provided two exceptions for SPS that do not apply here. The publisher of ChurchofJesusChristTemples is anonymous and therefore not a subject-matter expert, and it cannot be used as information about itself because it's not affiliated with the LDS Church. There's no reason it should ever be listed on Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude:: While I reognized that the policy-based reasons mentioned above are valid, I have a slight quibble with your comment above. The publisher of the Church Temples site is not anonymous. Information about him can be found in the following link: [1] Further, information from his site has in turn been cited in reports from several news organizations with no connection to the Church. Here are just a few examples at the top of a basic internet search: https://www.heraldextra.com/news/2014/sep/28/seeing-the-provo-city-center-temple-through-a-bloggers-eyes/ https://www.deseret.com/2016/1/25/20581073/photos-document-progress-of-lds-philadelphia-pennsylvania-temple

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-reports/541187/bringing-the-bible-to-bangkok-the-mormons-are-here-to-stay And that's just at a glance through one internet search. I can also confirm that, on a consistent basis, those searching for information about temples of the Church will find the site in question among the top results in most search engines. Just a short time ago, previous discussions determined that internet search results on matters relating to the growth of the Church essentially establish Matthew Martinich, as the owner and author of a blog about Church Growth, as an expert on that subject whose information is sufficiently independent from the Church. So if citations inl reliably independent sources establish notability, shouldn't the criteria that established Martinich as an independent expert apply to Satterfield? The only difference there is that there may not be as many sources quoting Satterfield. But those reliable sources that do quote him appear to establish him as an expert on temple information.

If Martinich, by established policy, has been deemed by Wikipedia as an expert in Church Growth matters who is sufficiently independent of the Church, in my view, those same policies should apply to some degree in terms of considering the question of whether Satterfield is similarly an expert on temple matters whose work is sufficiently independent of the Church. I mean no offense by this comment, and if my argument is flawed and the consensus remains in favor of removing the Church Temples site from Wikipedia due to lack of sufficient sourcing establishing editorial independence, I will stand by whatever the consensus decides on this, even if that consensus is something I may disagree with on a personal level. Thanks to all who take time to read these thoughts. Jgstokes (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: No offense taken. In my view, a couple mentions in newspapers is not enough to be considered a subject-matter expert. One newspaper calls him nothing more than "a seasoned temple blogger". He would need to have been published by multiple reliable, independent publications, not just cited/mentioned. I'm not familiar with community discussion on Matthew Martinich, can you link me to that? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude, thanks for the thoughts. As far as your question is concerned, I knorw the subject of the Church Growth Blog and its' independence has come up at least a few times in the 15 years or so in which I've been editing here. And while I know that it has been discussed a few times, after 15 years, it's easier to reember the outcome of those discussions than it appears to be to remember where it was discussed. I believe it has come up a few times on the talk page for the main article about the Church, and if memory serves me correctly, it may have also come up at both the Wikiproject talk page and the MOS talk page. But precisely where and when is harder to recall. If it comes back to me, I will try to remember to confirm where I saw it and link to it here. If nothing else, several reliable sources that have no connection whatsoever to the Church have cited the blog and its' webmaster as expert sources on the subject. Hope that answers your question. Jgstokes (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources

Referencing has been used regularly for recent temple announcements (last couple of years) and sporadically before that. Almost all referencing, especially recent sources have used the Church Newsroom exclusively or in conjunction with another source (typically Deseret News if used). Those references are transcluded this and other pages that use these templates. Consequently most references in this page comes from Newsroom - a primary source.

Temple announcements are primarily made during General Conference (Next one is April 1-2). Is Church Newsroom Acceptable for use as a reference? Used as a reference in Conjunction with another source? What about other sources? I'll likely not be the one that will be adding any announced temples this conference as I'll be watching from out of town and away from my computer, but want an understanding on what to use in the future. Thanks.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Second thought. Just found and saw WP:LDS/RS which states for Church Newsroom, Deseret News - Church News, etc. "It might be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, but avoid using it as a source for exceptional claims. In general, a secondary source with a stronger consensus for reliability is preferred." It appears acceptable as this information appears uncontroversial, but at the same time it dose state a secondary source with stronger consensus is preferred.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Date Format

I am starting a new subject to try and establish an updated consensus on how dates are listed on this page. For a while now, new temple templates have indicated that month, day, year should be used, but on most of the dedicated temples, temples with dedications scheduled, those that are under construction, and those with groundbreakings or site announcements have actually used the day, month, year format. I'm not particularly more partial to one way or the other. I just think it needs to be uniform throughout each template so there aren't any inconsistencies. Does anyone have any thoughts or preference on this? Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates, months, and years, it appears both ways are just as acceptable as the other. I also see one page in Main Page uses the d month year, and the next would use month day, year, and the next page uses both. I agree it probably ought to be uniform. I'm good and see no problem with either format. Although, our official commenting timestamps are day month year. Do you think we should use that? Dmm1169 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

While I will accept any consensus decision, for me it's easier to format templates that use the day-month-year format. which eliminates the need for commas. So that would be my preference here, FWIW. Jgstokes (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Newsroom articles are always formatted day/month/year in the top left-hand corner, the international standard date format. This format is also used on FamilySearch and the Temples site, so I would agree that this format should be preferred to allow for page with more unison in its formatting. Sordman2 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The key is consistency within a given article. Both formats are acceptable, but the MOS simply requires that all dates use the same format in a given article. In other words, we don't need to waste time going through and changing date formats in every article from one to the other except places where articles have both formats present in the article text and/or citations. It's the same issue with regional spellings; many are acceptable, it's just a matter of consistency within an article and where the topic is from. The general consensus I've seen on articles is that those about topics in the US follow US standards of spelling and date formats. While Church sources often use day-month-year format, most secondary sources from the US, like news reports from other media, tend to use month-day-year format. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

New Anchorage Alaska Temple

The LDS Church has announced plans to "rebuild" the Anchorage Alaska Temple. Preceding examples are the Nauvoo Illinois Temple (original and present) rebuilt at the same location as the original and given separate pages. The Apia Samoa Temple original and present doesn't have separate pages but is shown separately in list (dedicated and destroyed). In this instance, not only is the new Structure going to replace the existing, but it's going to be at a new location and upon completion, the existing structure will be removed and replaced by a meetinghouse.

To keep the list consistent, I'm placing another line "Anchorage Alaska Temple" under the announced section. I don't see that under question. It's a different structure and unlike the other examples, this one is going to be at a different location. Should it have its own page like Nauvoo or Combined with original like Apia? Obviously, no page needs to be created while it's in the announced phase but will be best to know and have a consensus on the matter by 2024.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, while it's being built, I have the new temple labeled as "(new)". Is this ok or is there a better term (ie. "replacement")?--Dmm1169 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Although unique, I personally don't think this needs two separate pages, so I'd do it like Apia. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what I think would be the best option as well. Every structure doesn't need its own page, and it may get confused in the searches.

The original and current Nauvoo temples were separated by more than a century, and the original played a central role in church history. The existing, while still significant, does not play the role as central image of the church. Consequently, having two Nauvoo Temple pages seems justified.

As for the current naming within this page, I'm not sure if "New" is the best way to distinguish the difference, and I don't know of a better word to differentiate until the "new" replaces the existing. I brought up "replacement", but no replacement has occurred as of yet. When "new" replaces the existing, then "new" will drop off the name and the status of existing temple could be listed and renamed "Closed and building levelled" similar to the status of the endowment house. Numbering will drop off once decommissioned, which may end up being another topic for discussion. Thanks!-- Dmm1169 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I also support the one article approach. I can't add anything else to what has been said. As far as the name goes, how about "original" and "rebuilt". Glennfcowan (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sordman2 brought up a valid argument then deleted it on the template talk page. I'm resurrecting it for discussion. I would like to see what others have to say about it. "The reconstructed Anchorage Temple should not be listed here as the 301st Temple. While the temple will be constructed while the current Anchorage Temple is in operation, it is not intended to be an additional temple; it is a relocation of the current structure. This information should be on the Anchorage Alaska Temple's page."--Dmm1169 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My reply:

In short, why I listed it as a new temple: new structure at a new location. While I believe the church will follow through with its plans, theoretically, the church can change its mind and keep both of them open.

Once dedicated, how should the new one be numbered? The Nauvoo Temple is #113 even though the original was built before St George (the rebuilt was labeled as a dedication). Apia Samoa is listed as #22 rather than #123 as it was labeled as a rededication. Based on Nauvoo and Apia examples. If it's referred publicly as "rededicated", use the pervious number. If it's referred to as "dedicated" like a new temple, use a new number. These are my thoughts.

The original temple, once decommissioned, will fall in the category: "Destroyed or operated by others" category (no numbering). Dmm1169 (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps settle the question of how to handle the onstruction of the "new" temple on this page, but it was observed elsewhere that, when the original Anchorage Alaska Temple was dedicated, the prayer noted a blessing on the entire tempple complex. Since the ground on which the meetinghouse now stands has already been dedicatedd as a part of that prayer, my guess is that a formal groundbreaking and site dedication will not be necessary. And even if that is not the case, since the new temple is part of the same complex, it isn't going to be considered "new" by the Church. My understanding is that the new temple will retain the same numbering and original dedication information, which means the only thing necessary would be to rededicate the temple in its' new place once construction is complete. Hope that helps. Jgstokes (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes Thank you for your feedback. Unless there's unforeseen objections, there won't be an additional page for this new temple. Any better wording? Glennfcowan suggested wording "origional" and "rebuilt". Maybe label the "new" one "announced"/"Under Construction" while it's in pre-dedicated state? But that might confuse with status. Or do you think the new temple should not have a template until it replaces the original?

I looked at the dedicatory prayer don't see where the ground itself is dedicated. The prayer focused on the structure and representation of the structure. From what I can tell, typically chapels and temples are dedicated separately even if they're on the same complex. The Tabernacle was dedicated decades before the Salt Lake Temple. This does not seem to fit the list as renovation.

The LDS Church does not publish numbering on their temple list. I've seen numbering only on third party lists and fan sites. That being said, the LDS Church does number buildings and units, but I'm guessing that building number is not the same as Wikipedia's.

When their announced, progress is tracked until dedication. When renovated status progresses to under renovation, open house, and dedication. It's not as easy to track in this case because another building is open during the process.

This is a new case, but maybe just the first of other building replacements. Thanks.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The passage I'm talking about comes from the prayer offered in January 1999, wherein the temple was dedicated.

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/anchorage-alaska-temple/dedicatory-prayer/

In the seventh paragraph down from the top, you'll find President Hinckley said: "We dedicate all of the elements of its structure from the foundation to the figure of Moroni. We dedicate every facility found herein, together with the land on which it stands."

Some additional thoughts: The dedication of the original strructure will not be disregarded or cast aside. Therefore, the new Anchorage Alaska Temple will have the same number and include the same information on its' OG open house and dedication. Additionally, the fact that the larger temple will be built on the same overall temple lot while the OG temple continues to operate makes me think we need to handle this in a somewhat unconventional way. Let me explin what I men:

In April of each year, changes in general Church leadership are sustained in conference. Last April, a new Relief Society and Primary General Presidency were sustained with the caveat that the changes in question would not take effect until August 1. Later in April, new area leadership assignmnts were announced as has been customary, and they didn't go into effect until Augut 1 either. As a Wikipedian aware of the crystal ball policy, I found that a user subpage could be created to allow the changes to be made and sit ready for August 1, when they could be implemented into the main page.

So my suggestion is that we leave the current Anchorage Alaska Temple template as is for now. After all, we won't need to do anything about pages relating to this temple until construction begins on the new edifice somtime early next year. Closer to the end of this year, I suggest that we create a new template subpage. That could possibly be under a name like Template:LDS Temple/Anchorage Alaska Temple/New. That template would then be linked to the main Anchorage Temple template and article The new template would have an identical number of the existing template, and all the same information, with applicable footnotes and references indicating that the OG temple continues to operate for the time being. We could also note there any pertinent information indicated about the anticipated rededication. Once the OG Anchorage Temple begins the process of being decomissioned and demolished, the subpage template could then be moved into the template mainspace where it would have all of the relevant information about the originl edifice and the new temple.

The only other issue to resolve in that cse would be how to handle the recognition of the unique sitution on this page. Last year, when the Church announced that an area seventy in the Europe North Area would ve direct oversight for Ukraine and Moldova for the time being, with those two nations being unlisted in the main Europe North Area table, we created a subsection on the area page specificially for that unique situation. A similar subsection could be included here, if the table syntax allows for that, so that information about both the OG temple and the new temple under construction is visible here.

Sorry for that lengthy comment, but I tihnk this might possibly be the best way to handle this. Aside from that, it's worth noting that, again, construction on the new edifice won't get underway for another year on the new edifice, and in between now and then, we could easily see somthing that indicates how the Church will be handling this unique scenario on their temple pages. And based on that information, we can adjust the plan accordingly. I see no rush here. Hopefully all of this answers your questions. Let me know if I can clarify anything. Jgstokes (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we're getting too entrenched in details and missing the overall picture. It's still up for discussion, but based on comments so far, here's what I propose.

• Temple page will remain the same for both the original and announced building. (no new mainspace page for new structure)
• Since it's a new construction, not renovating the existing structure, a separate template will be used to track during construction (currently #301). How that should be named during this time is up for debate. I'm ok with it being a subpage template as you proposed, but I don't think really matters either way.
• once dedicated and original decommissioned, the original will be classified similar status and listing to the Endowment House (no numbering) which was also decommissioned. Title of section may need to be renamed something like "Destroyed, decommissioned, or operated by others".
• We've got a few years before this time, assuming rededication (which is what it appears at this time), the templates will basically appear similar in structure to the Apia Samoa Temple list/templates. The new dedication info will list as rededication, and the original Anchorage temple dedication info would be listed as the dedication info. If it's treated as a dedication of an entirely new temple, then treated and numbered accordingly. Pages and templates such as navboxes that distinguish between the two will have it listed as (Original and Existing) - again similar to Nauvoo & Apia temples.

These are my thoughts adjusted to previous comments. Of course, still up for discussion. Thanks.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/apia-samoa-temple

https://www.deseret.com/2005/9/6/19910641/samoans-celebrate-rebuilt-temple

In the above articles, the current Apia Samoa Temple was described as a dedication, and not a rededication, and from a very blurry image posted by the newsroom, it appears that only one date is inscribed on the capstone, as opposed to the Nauvoo Illinois Temple's capstone which lists both dates. The new Apia Samoa Temple was also built in a different location than the original, and had a private groundbreaking ceremony. From what I've read from some articles I cannot remember, the Nauvoo Illinois Temple was built on the site of the original, but not directly over the location of the original. Regardless, the Church still lists Apia Samoa Temple's dedication date in 1983.

When the new Anchorage Temple is completed following a groundbreaking ceremony of some sort, there is a high chance that the articles regarding its completion and open house will describe it as a dedication. This would not warrant a change in numbering for this temple, similar to Apia's situation.

Apia and Anchorage's situation is different from that of Ogden and Provo's (future) reconstruction in that groundbreaking ceremonies are warranted for Apia and Anchorage, as they are in different locations than the originals. Ogden and Provo, though new structures are directly over the originals.

It might make sense to label the original Apia Samoa Temple and current Anchorage Alaska Temple (after the new one is completed) as decommissioned, rather than destroyed. Apia was under closed for renovation (meaning it wasn't in operation) at the time of the fire. Sordman2 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. If the temple replaces the existing as already planned, it would be listed as a rededication. I think consensus is going that direction. As you mentioned the prayer says one thing, but the milestones say another. Milestones of the Apia Temple from the official church website calls it a rededication even though the prayer says dedication. While Anchorage announcement is quite unique, it has a lot of similarities to the Apia's replacement. Thanks.-- Dmm1169 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Dm1169, I mean no disrespect here, but I strongly object to listing the Anchorage Alaska Temple (New) as #301 on this list. I'd prefer we use the existing numbering with a letter (A would do). My main reason for advocating against treating the new Anchorage Temple as an entirely new temple is due to the fact that President Nelson continues to announce new temples every April and October. Because this temple won't begin the construction process until after the April and October General Conferences this year, As a Latter-day Saint blogger who follows the latest temple construction updates and passes them along, I heard at one point prior to last year that President Nelson was planning on announcing at least 35 temples per year going forward. So by the time the new temple begins construction, a minimum of 35 other new temples will be on this list, meaning we'd have to push it down in April and again in October. That's why I advocate for using its' current number with the letter A to signify this is a different edifice from the original, but will assume the original's number upon its' dedication. As added evidence that this might be a better approrach, on the Church Temples site for the existing Anchorage temple, the subheading notes the following: "54th dedicated temple in operation; scheduled to close for renovation early 2024." Therefore, I propose that, regardless of what the template for the new temple is called, that it should show up on this page as 54A, with any kind of reference added to it for explanatory purposes. What does everyone think of that proposal? I know this is an odd scenario, so if anyone has a better idea than calling it 54A or 301, I'd welcome additional discussion from anyone who wants to weigh in. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your change in numbering. Sorry I didn't notice your comment till just now. I have no objection to your matching the number of the original (54A). The primary purpose of having the extra template is to track the temple status. If it can't be placed accordingly, I see no reason of having that extra template. Thanks.--Dmm1169 (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Other rebuilt temples with unique situations simply do not have numbering for the non-existing structure. Thanks. -- Dmm1169 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Placement of new temple

Since the new Anchorage Temple template is used to track progression towards dedication like other new temples, I'd recommend leaving/moving it similar to other new temples. Thanks! - Dmm1169 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Dmm1169, It's not a construction in the same way as the 133 temples President Nelson has announced. New heading for this section borrowed from the following article: https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2023/1/23/23565588/anchorage-alaska-temple-resizing-reconstructing-relocating-plans. To avoid an edit war, we can discuss this further on talk if need be. But it's not a "new" new temple. There's a distinction, Jgstokes (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes It's definitely a new structure. Placing it with the remainder of announced temples allow for one to see it in comparison in order to another announced temples.

Samoa Temple Precedents set or used:

• The dedication of the new structure is called "rededication".
• both structures shares the same wikipedia page.
• It has a separate temple template to the former structure.
• The "new" Samoa temple uses the original dedication of the original Samoa temple in page, list, and templates.
• Only the current operating temple is given a number, but according to the dedication of the original structure.
• Only explanation for list group is stated in "List of Temples" section. Individual explanation is found in its own temple page and/or in its template notes. (Case for all temple lists)

Samoa temple was dedicated the year prior to creation of this page, and no other example has existed since. Consequently, there is no precedent on exactly how to track its construction. However, both Samoa temple templates group the non-existent structure with other temples in like category. Therefore, I don't see the need for the "new" Anchorage Temple to have its own category. Unlike renovations, Apia had a groundbreaking ceremony for its new structure and its progression resembled very similar to a newly announced temples, and this one if following a similar track. The only significant difference I've seen is that the dedication ends up being called "rededication". Site location was done concurrently to temple construction announcement, but that was also true for Salt Lake and other temples. - Thanks! Dmm1169 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's a new structure of not is immaterial. That is not the relevant point of my issue. We cannot look to be previous situations as precedents applying in regards to this scenario because unless I am mistaken, the Church has never before constructed a larger version of an existing temple while the existing temple remained open, and this is not a new temple in the same way that any of the 82 currently-announced temples is. For that reason, it should not be listed as a new temple because it is a unique anomaly. And at any rate, even if I were to compromise on this, I wouldn't agree that it should be placed in the "Announced" queue based on the date of the renovation announcement. The germaine points are that it is a unique situation and that the new structure will retain the number of the original. Since this is a unique situation, past precedents relating to other temples do not apply and are irrelevant in my view. We don't have a consensus for keeping it where it is or for putting it in its' own category, so I will wait to move the template to its' own section again until there is consensus either way. In the meantime, could we hear from others on this? I'm not trying to be difficult here. But I feel like my concerns about listing this as a "new temple" when it is not a first-time construction are not being heard or understood, and as a long-term contributor to this page, that's not a great feeling. Jgstokes (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jgstokes here. This should be treated as a renovation or just a major update rather than a typical "new" temple. It's simply the result of the church deciding that it's more economical and practical to replace the building rather than renovate or expand it again. It's not going to result in a new temple presidency or changes in the district; it's just moving to a new building so there's no disruption. If the church ultimately decides to treat it as a new temple (like labeling it as "Anchorage II" like they did with the current Nauvoo temple), we can revisit it, but as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case. I imagine we will see at least a few more cases of this in the future as temples age. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point now. I've also separated the "Destroyed and operated by others" section into lists of "Destroyed", "Closed and building leveled", and "Operated by others" as these are really significantly different types of events. The "Closed and building leveled" would have another temple in its list once the original Anchorage temple is decommissioned. Would it be better for "Closed and building leveled" to simply state "closed", or "decommissioned" or something else indicating that it was a planned closure?

I removed Anchorage-specific language from header to allow for others in event other replacements are announced. This is consistent in how other section lists are structured in this page. Thanks! Dmm1169 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, we don't need a unique list for every unique situation. "Destroyed or operated by others" would be three separate lists if that was the case. "Announced" and "Site announced" status grouped together for same reason. Thanks. - Dmm1169 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in sections headers for announced, under construction, etc does it exclude replacements, and this replacement does fit the current definition for the announced section. Thanks. - Dmm1169 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Per most dictionries, replacement is defined as "the action or process of replacing someone or something." Tht definition does not apply to this scenario, where the new building will be built and dedicated before the current one is decomissioned. Since building the new structure is being done first, this is not a "replacement" by usul definitions. In any case, we don't need to come up with a consensus on a term when the sources are pretty specific on the fAct that this is actully more of a reloction and resizing thn a replacement. If the Church referred to the new temple as a "replacement", that would be one thing. But since the terms "relocation and resizing" are used in the currently-cited sources, it would be wiser to go with what the sources say. When in doubt, we always defer to that. If you could produce a source referring to this scenario as a replcement, that would be something to support your preference. But in the absence thereof, best to stick to what the currently-cited sources actually say. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Renovations

We have "announced" "under construction" and dedicated temples for those newly announced plus Anchorage. No similar list is for renovations other than a status change during the renovation itself. This will allow following of renovated temples similar to new construction.

• Thought's on creating categories for renovations (ie "renovation announced", "under renovation", "rededication announced")?
• If we do these categories should it be on a new page?

Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is n exccellent idea. Unless anyone else disagrees, I'd say we should go for it and implement that change where applicable. Jgstokes (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)