Template talk:LDS Temple status

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLatter Day Saint movement Template‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spelling out numbers[edit]

I think these numbers shouldn't be spelled out even though the general rule is to spell out numbers less than ten (per the style guide) However, these are comparable quantities and thus should all be of the same format:

  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

as described in that same style guide. I would opt for all numbers rather than all figures as it allows one to comprehend the sentence quickly without having to read each word. --Trödel 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a compelling argument... I wasn't consulting the style guide when I changed it, I was just remembering how I had been taught in school. I agree that this case represents "comparable quantities" and it seems prudent to follow the style guideline here. I'm going to change it back. – jaksmata 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
np - parallelism is one of the things I like in writing :) --Trödel 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Shouldn't a claim this specific be sourced to something? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut off clarification[edit]

While I agree that "Dedication Scheduled" is not a "operating temple", I'm not so sure it's "Under Construction" ether (as they are included here). For example, right at this moment, the San Salvador El Salvador Temple is having it's "Open House". This means that the temples "Construction" is done, but it is not "operating" in the strictest since (ie an active "temple"). However, I do note that the Quetzaltenango Guatemala Temple is "Dedication Scheduled" but is still "Under Construction".

So I wonder if another "classification" is needed. Something like:

  • There are 134 operating temples, 1 completed (awaiting dedication), 11 under construction, and 14 announced (not yet under construction).

or am I being to much a of nit-picker.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one seems to care so I'm going to do it.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support it. Also, if you are looking for some further comments, you can try posting here [1]. —Kmsiever (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operating should not include temples being renovated[edit]

I strongly disagree - as I think the way it is stated here: https://www.lds.org/church/temples/find-a-temple?lang=eng is confusing to someone who is not LDS. To include temples that are being renovated means you have to include the explanatory parenthetical and leaves one wondering - why are they included as operating if they are closed. It defies common sense. I'm changing back for now - would like additional opinions before a reversion - or a better explanation of why that is better other than "that's how its listed on lds.org". Thank you --Trödel 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern you are raising, but since I reverted the good faith edit you made, it's probably evident I see it differently. This is not a case of just trying to be held to what the church may view or want as the way to reflect this. You've noted confusion that may arise, but one of the challenges I see is that it can become even more confusing for people who may not understand, or who go looking for information in articles. If one were to look at church-provided sources, including the website you noted, the annual statistical report the church produces, etc. - but then also secondary sources that cover such things as dedications, those numbers are all going to reflect the total number of temples that have been dedicated over time - currently 143. Granted the actual number of temples in use may fluctuate as these closures for renovations continue. Though not a huge driving factor, but another simple & practical related issue is even the numbering that is used in the many wp articles that list or address temples. These aren't going to be up and down, edited and renumbered for every closure that takes place. Maybe it does defy some measure of common sense, in the terms you noted, but that seems most consistent with the general usage, both of the entity who builds and owns them, but also in related media coverage. I don't see the parenthetical clarification as a problem. If it weren't there, that would tend to defy common sense. Given the time it's been shown the other way, I think it should have been left the way it was and then have discussion, so I'd recommend changing it back and continue inviting other editors to weigh in. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trödel's wording is more straight forward, and logical. ChristensenMJ, I think you're straining at nats. —Asterisk*Splat→ 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Straining at gnats would mean I care that deeply. Not the case. More straight forward, perhaps, but inconsistent with every other place that it's likely to be shown in primary or secondary sources is all I am saying. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Church itself lists the same numbers as we have them here. If the Church counts the temples that are undergoing renovation, and ldschurchtemples.com does as well, that to me is a pretty darn good indication that we should do it that way too. I agree with ChristensenMJ and would be unalterably opposed to changing it back to inaccurate wording. It is far less confusing this way. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know we couldn't reach consensus on this last time, but I still don't understand why we would call a temple that is closed for renovations an "operating" temple. That the church lists it that way shouldn't control how Wikipedia describes the situation. --Trödel 22:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still very opposed to listing a "net" number because there's a strong likelihood that "all" non-church/secondary sources (again trying to not just state that's how it's listed on lds.org) are likely to say upon reporting something along the lines of "with the dedication of the xxxx Temple, the LDS Church now has 145 (that currently being the next number to come) operating temples." With that being said, for the text purposes of this template and in trying to consider some form of compromise, I did have a thought tonight that perhaps it could say something like "There are xxxx dedicated temples (which includes xxx previously dedicated, but closed for renovation), .......". I say text because I don't know if that would then put some of the individual temple templates in a confusing situation where they say "operating" or not. (Though I am hesitant to address much of this other related WP format "stuff" - lest anyone somehow think I am straining at gnats again.) Just trying to brainstorm a bit. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current LDS temple status[edit]

Perhaps imprudently and prematurely, I unilaterally changed this template to include the following clarifications:

1a. The number of temples operating (149).
2a. The number of under construction temples (15).
2b. The number of temples under construction that are scheduled for dedication (3).
3a. The number of temples announced (9).
3b. The number of announced temples that have a groundbreaking scheduled (1).
4a. The number of temples currently undergoing renovation (4).
4b. The number of temples undergoing renovation that are scheduled for dedication (2).
4c. The number of temples whose renovation will begin shortly (1).

After making the edits, I took up this matter with ChristensenMJ, who has been tireless in his efforts to keep the temple status current. He stated that there was such a thing as too much information, and thus reverted my change. While I have the greatest respect for ChristensenMJ and can see his point, the question in my mind is, will these numbers be interesting, useful, and helpful to those who come to find out the current status of temples? In my mind, it is not enough to say how many are operating, under construction, announced, and undergoing renovation. The fact of scheduled temple dedications is always important, as are the number of groundbreakings and future renovations. I respect ChristensenMJ too much to unilaterally revert his undoing of my changes, but I wanted to address this with those who watch this page so everyone can have a say. Is this information overload, or will it be valuable and worthwhile for our readers to have? It won't bother me if the consensus votes against my changes. I just don't want to get into an edit war with or potentially offend ChristensenMJ. It would be far better to get the consensus to decide. So what say all of you? Is it information overkill, or would it be worthwhile to have in the status? What I've done in my personal efforts to keep track of temple progress is change the type face for the different statuses. I have the numbers that are certain bolded (such as when dedications are announced or if a previously dedicated temple gets renovated and a rededication is scheduled), I have the numbers that may change based on future dedication or groundbreaking announcements in italics. And I have the number of announced temples underlined, since those are the least certain. I've rambled on long enough. I'll step off my soapbox now and leave it to the rest of you to comment. Please keep the discussion civil and assume good faith. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Manitoba Temple[edit]

Hello again, everyone! The Winnipeg Manitoba Temple had its' groundbreaking in early December 2016, but it has not had full-scale efforts commence, due first to harsh conditions of Winter 2017. Full-scale efforts are still not underway because the plans are being slightly modified. That is all evidenced and detailed here. While I recognize that ChristensenMJ's objections to some of my efforts to expand this template are well-taken, it seems disingenuous at best to define a temple as "under construction" when it has had a groundbreaking, but full-scale efforts have not yet begun. I fully understand that, for purposes of summation and clarity, the kind of detail I mentioned in the topic above cannot be included, but should Wikipedia, which thrives on verifiability, define Winnipeg as "under construction" when full-scale efforts have not yet begun? If the consensus says so, I will agree with that, but thought it worth mentioning. And just so there are no hard feelings, I will not restore the wording I would prefer on this until some consensus is formed either way. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Oregon Temple Closed for Renovation; COVID-19 mention in temple status[edit]

Hello again, everyone! Earlier today, the Church's temple list and the relevant page from the Church Temples site, the Medford Oregon Temple closed for minor renovations in mid-July. Although minor renovations would not usually necessitate a rededication, the temple is anticipated to be dedicated sometime in late 2021-early 2022. That is the reasoning behind that update to the template today. Additionally, today I added information about the COVID-19 pandemic that has led to a phased reopening of temples, which was removed by ChristensenMJ. I recognize the validity of his expressed concerns about that content (since the COVID-19 closures are mentioned in several other temple articles, it might be unnecessary duplication to include that information here). At the same time, I wonder if some mention of it somehow on this template would still be warranted. ChristensenMJ suggested a potential reference could be added, and I would be fine with that. But I did want to open up a discussion here on that matter. Since I have the highest degree of respect for ChristensenMJ, I wanted to open that proposal up for discussion. I am perfectly willing to stand by whatever the consensus decides on this. Thanks again, all. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that considering its usage (generally in running text), this particular template should be kept as short and succinct as possible. Nothing on this template should really ever change except for the numbers. I don't think any mention of opening/closing status due to COVID (through a reference or any other means) is warranted. Just my two cents. Jdaloner (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the situation with the Medford temple interesting. It was scheduled to have its 'phase' changed months ago, but then ended up being paused (for a long time) due to local conditions, and it appears the Church took advantage of that pause to go ahead and perform the major maintenance and/or light renovation that is currently being performed. Although it's said above that "the temple is anticipated to be dedicated sometime in late 2021-early 2022," I can't find any reference supporting the idea that it will be rededicated at all. I suspect the temple was never formally 'decommissioned' and that there won't be any rededication; it will simply open up again when the work is done. Here's a relevant Facebook post from ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org. (Also of note, the Fresno California Temple--immediately before the Medford Oregon Temple in the chronological list--was closed for a few months recently, after having already progressed to phase 3, to perform what sounded like similar major maintenance and/or light renovation, and there was no decommissioning or rededicating. It just opened up again.) Jdaloner (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should include covid-19 openings in this as it is intended to be a short phrase used in multiple places for succinct summary. If that extra information is needed for covid-19 it should be added to the articles that use this template, which are:
As you can see from the list some of these are not likely candidates to include covid-19 info. --Trödel 23:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing Church[edit]

The MOS says "..but capitalized "Church" should be used only when it is part of a longer reference to a specific church (as in "LDS Church")."

Thus it should be capitalized, as in the context the use of this template immediately follows the full name of the Church or is in article only about the CJCLDS. Even when used as a footnote (not listed below), the footnote is in context a reference to the specific denomination and is not making a claim like CJCLDS is the Church (which is what the MOS for LDS Movement was trying to avoid).

In these cases "church" is being used as a proper noun that has a clear antecedent and thus it should be capitalized as the "Church". --Trödel 20:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the talk topic for the community to participate in. I don't believe that is how the MOS has been, or should be, interpreted (which would also be a challenge with the recent good faith edits on finances). As you know, the first part of the MOS section identified above says: "Avoid the use of controversial capitalizations such as "the Church" or "The Church" when referring to any specific Latter Day Saint church, since there is general disagreement concerning its appropriateness. For all such churches, "the church" is acceptable when the word church is an uncapitalized common noun, but capitalized "Church" should be used only when it is part of a longer reference to a specific church (as in "LDS Church")." (italics added) It has generally been understood and practiced (all across WP articles) that it's either shown as "church" or uses "LDS Church." ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think I would be more in favor of using "LDS Church" rather than "the Church." That would just be my personal preference at this point. If the consensus decides otherwise, I am willing to stand by that. Just my two cents, for whatever they may be worth to anyone. Jgstokes (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "Church" is ok; but that is a reasonable compromise. However, I would remove the wikilink. --Trödel 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will get that removed. If someone thinks it should be restored in the future, they can do that. Jgstokes (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wer're good to go - thank you! --Trödel 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LDS_Temple_status&oldid=1177637743"