Talk:Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Newer photo of partially-constructed temple
edit
I took the picture of the partially-constructed temple that's now on the page. That was taken on August 4th. Today I took another one, which I think turned out a little better.
My plan was to replace the month-old picture with the new one. But in the interim, the old picture has been moved inside the infobox. (Whoah!) I don't know how to do that, and I gather from log comments that the infobox can be used on other pages too. So I'm not sure whether it's desirable. Anyway, here's another picture. I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, to do with it. TypoBoy (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Now the building is much further along, but still under construction, as is the apartment building just north of it. Perhaps we could add recent photos of both.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I added a recent photo of the temple. TypoBoy (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Change in open house dates should be detailed here.
editWhile I am appreciative of Christensen MJ's good faith efforts to lessen the amount of detail regarding the change in open house dates, I feel that it is not sufficient to simply change the dates in the article to reflect the change. Noting that there was a change, along with a reason for the change, should be noted. The Church has not made public the reason for the date change, but it still should be stated in the article. At least, that's just MHO, for what it's worth. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it's really a non-event that isn't notable. The dates slid a couple of days and while purely speculative here, they may have simply determined a few more days were needed to be ready or that this suited some particular other need. While it doesn't warrant a "large" announcement, in the local area it will obviously be addressed from the standpoint of being sure the updated information is known. Since the "original" news release has been updated, it would just create undue confusion over something that isn't really that significant. Again, lack of true notability seems to apply. Those are my thoughts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have a right to your own opinion. I am still of the opinion that it is notable and should be noted in this article. I wouldn't mind if it were abbreviated somewhat, to perhaps be something like this: "The open house will take place between Wednesday August 10 (five days later than originally announced)-Friday September 9 (six days later than originally announced), thus adding a full day." In my mind, it all depends on what the consensus decides. If no one else wanted it to be included, that would be fine. I just wanted to put this out there and let the consensus decide. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)