Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Succession of multiple apostles in the LDS Church

I wanted to start this section to clear up some confusion that may exist about apostolic succession. When more than one apostle dies, the first apostle called generally is filling the vacancy from the first apostle who died, the second called succeeds the second who died, and so on. I was pleased to see this issue addressed in the recent apostolic deaths and appointments. In all the relevant places, Ronald A. Rasband, the first one called, is said to have replaced [[L. Tom Perry, the first one who died; Gary E. Stevenson, the second called, is said to have replaced Boyd K. Packer, whose death was the second; and Dale G. Renlund, the third one called is said to have replaced Richard G. Scott, who was the third of the three apostles to die. There are some who cite the confusing case of the deaths of Neal A. Maxwell and David B. Haight, because some claim that since Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar were ordained the same day, it is almost impossible to say which of them succeeded Maxwell and which of them succeeded Haight. So too is the case of Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks, who were said to have both replaced both Mark E. Petersen and Legrand Richards. So too was the case of Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson. I think we need to aim for uniformity in this matter. In the case of Nelson and Oaks, Richards died first, so Nelson should be listed as replacing him, while Oaks should be listed as replacing Petersen. And in the Uchtdorf and Bednar case, I feel that Uchtdorf should be listed as replacing Maxwell and Bednar as replacing Haight. I really like the fact that no one has yet contested the fact that Rasband replaced Perry, Stevenson replaced Packer, and Renlund replaced Scott. But I know there are others who might not feel the same way. I propose we make it uniform for every such case to list the first apostle called as replacing the first who died and so on and so forth. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Without a source stating that this is "how it works", how can Wikipedia say? Without a source, it's just as plausible to come up with other schemes. Absent sources, it's not really up to Wikipedia to establish any particular scheme as "truth". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Category:Latter-day Saints portal

There is a discussion of Category:Latter-day Saints portal going on. Please participate.--Broter (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge "Ch.ofthe1stbornoftheFulnessofTimes" with "LeBaron group"?

It has been suggested that Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times be merged into LeBaron group, as it would appear Joel LeBaron's 1stbornoftheFulnessofTimes is the formal designation and rubric remaining regardless of the acknowledged tensions among its various sub-schisms arisen since Joel's death. All are invited to check out the discussion at Talk:Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times#Merger proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: There were no objections (nor ha ha even fellow contributors' input; a page with few interested editors) so I boldly merged to Le Baron group.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution to be moved to Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Creation of Tithe (Latter Day Saints)

I'm just leaving this note here to inform this project that I have just created the article Tithe (Latter Day Saints). I'm pretty surprised this wasn't created before, though it was kind of covered in a section in Tithe. If anybody wants to have a look through it that would be great. FriendlyGhostUser (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussion

An Articles for Deletion discussion is taking place concerning a newly created article, which appears to be relevant to this project.

The link for the discussion -- is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Texts desired for transcription?

Hi, I'm looking into piloting a transcription project on Wikisource for an LDS text, preferably one that isn't on Project Gutenberg yet and was scanned by BYU (BYU's public domain scans are on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/brigham_young_university).

Let me know if you have an opinion; otherwise I'll probably start with the Relief Society Magazine next week: https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag01reli Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think transcribing Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia would be helpful. FallingGravity (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

George Q. Cannon

Is there anyone out there who can modify Cannon's infobox to show his congressional term as well as the Mormon titles he has held?...Pvmoutside (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

New subpages

I have started new project subpages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Prospectus and Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Library listening the articles and subarticles in selected reference works related to the Latter Day Saint movement, the relative length of those articles and their subarticles, sources in the public domain mentioned or referenced in those sources, and on the library talk page generated a list of the various sources referenced by the number of times they are referenced. I am myself not entirely familiar with a lot of these works, and acknowledge up front that I may have made mistakes, actually, that I probably did make mistakes, but the lists might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lewis C. Bidamon's place of birth?

Hello all, On the Lewis C. Bidamon article states: "Bidamon was born in Williamsport, Virginia" but the infobox states: "Born January 16, 1806 / Harmony Township, Pennsylvania." Which is it? TuckerResearch (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Octaviano Tenorio

There is a discussion a Article for deletion on the inclusion of the article on Octaviano Tenorio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to be moved to List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Holy Spirit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement to be moved to List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John Parry (Mormon) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Parry (Mormon) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed portal merging

It is proposed to merge the Portal:Book of Mormon with the portal Portal:Latter Day Saints by User:Graham11. Your opinion can be written on Portal talk:Latter Day Saints.--Broter (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Any interested to help fill out blp @ Adam S. Miller?

If so, thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've worked on its sourcing some myself.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Merging Black People in Mormon Doctrine with Black People in Mormonism?

See discussion here Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Helaman, son of Helaman; Corianton; Shiblon; Timothy, son of Nephi; Amos, son of Nephi; Ammaron; and Amos, son of Amos

Recommend multi-level merger with Helaman, son of Helaman, Corianton, Shiblon, Timothy, son of Nephi, Amos, son of Nephi, Ammaron, and Amos, son of Amos. Recommend merger as individual articles gives undue weight. Please discuss at the Corianton talk page. Deaddebate (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

List of articles to create?

Does this project have a list of articles that need to be created? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Frecklefoot: There is a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Prospectus which lists the named articles and subarticles in some reference works related to this topic. I would assume many if not most articles in, for instance, biographical dictionaries of Mormonism would also probably be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion here. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Warlord of Barsoom! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the fortnight and Wikipedia:Mormon collaboration

Recommend merging Wikipedia:Mormon collaboration into Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the fortnight. Discussion here.

Funny that one of the pages has the hidden note "This collaboration appears to be inactive - it has been removed from the main LDS project navigation page." But it's still linked on the Portal page here and here. Deaddebate (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 12 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem for Exaltation (Mormonism)

Article blanked and copyright notice for Exaltation (Mormonism). Discussion here and here. Deaddebate (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Aaronic Priesthood MIA Young Women

Recommend merging Aaronic Priesthood MIA Young Women into Young Men (organization)#History and Young Women (organization)#History. Discussion here. Deaddebate (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done the merger, but I'd appreciate it if someone QC'd it. The old page is now a redirect but it should be a disambiguation, though I didn't see instructions on how to do a disambiguation after a merger. Also, the updated pages need significant copy-editing. Deaddebate (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Pahoran and King-men

Recommend merging King-men into Pahoran. Discussion here. Deaddebate (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done the merger--the updated page needs copy-editing. Deaddebate (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism

I have proposed a merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism. I can't see any real difference between the two, and at least one of the sources for the latter shows similar uncertainty ("Monolatry and Henotheism". Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. VIII: 810.). If anyone more knowledgeable can improve the distinction, or provide other comments, the discussion is at Talk:Monolatrism#merge proposal. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of the unilateral attempt to remove important information from Russell M. Nelson

In a recent edit to Russell M. Nelson, a fellow Wikipedia editor, who I prefer to assume was acting in good faith, attempted to unilaterally remove a sentence describing how Nelson is accepted by those of the LDS faith as a prophet, seer and revelator. I reverted that change with the observation that such a description exists on all Wikipedia articles about LDS apostles, and that, far from being an unnecessary distinction to make, it is vitally important because of its veracity. I am posting here to alert all those concerned about this issue. In reverting that good faith edit, I indicated that unless the distinction is determined as unnecessary for all LDS apostles and thus removed from all articles about them, it should not be removed from Nelson's article. I wanted to post here to have that opinion confirmed by the consensus that allowed the sentence in the first place. If the decision is made to remove it from all articles about LDS apostles , I have no objection whatsoever to removing it from that about Nelson. FWIW, those are my thoughts on the matter. Any other comments? --Jgstokes (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Enos (Book of Mormon prophet)

The above article has been tagged for being pretty much exclusively based on the BoM text to date. The page currently at wikisource:A Dictionary of the Book of Mormon/Enos has at least a bit of data which could be used on the topic, and I'm thinking the Book of Mormon: Book of Enos entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism here probably as a bit more data for referencing. Anyone want to try getting the existing quality tag removed from the article? John Carter (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Child marriage and Teen marriage articles

Opinions are needed on Talk:Child marriage/Archive 1#Recent changes and Talk:Teen marriage#Recent image addition. The first discussion concerns changes made to the article's terminology, the use of images and whether or not to merge the article. And the second discussion concerns whether or not the lead image is appropriate for the article. Permalinks here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Review requested at Cannabis and Latter-day Saints (marijuana)

I have started a section at the larger Cannabis and religion regarding the stance of the LDS church on cannabis/marijuana. Since I am not highly familiar with Church terminology and concepts, I'd like to invite any folks here to drop in to make sure I have not mis-phrased or mis-interpreted anything, or to add more facts and cites as needed. Thanks for your time! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

it seems accurate; I try to avoid large blockquotes in my writing, so one improvement I'd suggest is to simply summarize the quoted information. If you want to keep the quote, put it in a footnote. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, we ended up trimming it down at Cannabis and religion to summarize but I'm keeping it long in the full article for context. Is the phrasing/format of the full title okay, or needs to be moved? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Benjamin E. Park notable?

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin E. Park.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Meet the Mormons:New Faces, New Stories

I feel that information about the new "Meet the Mormons: New Faces, New Stories" should be added to Wikipedia (I'm seeing it in the Washington DC temple visitor's center Monday Night). However with this follow on movie (with updated information on the original six stories and three new one), I'm not sure how to handle it. Unlike the original movie, it has not been placed into general release, so a separate article may or may not be appropriate. If not, then an additional section in the Meet the Mormons article is probably appropriate. Also, does anyone have specific information as to whether it is Meet the Mormons:New Faces, New Stories or Meet the Mormons:New Faces/ New Stories (, or / after faces). Feelings? (either post here or at Talk:Meet the Mormons).Naraht (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

LDS topics are mentioned on Jimbo's talkpage

... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix. Any thoughts/input?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can a scholar well known as a writer of reviews be considered notable not only under wp:BIO but as an author under wp:AUTH

Please weigh in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix here or User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Jimmy_Wales.2C_please_offer_your_opinion here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

WP need scholar Julie M. Smith blp stub

Owing2 2116 AML scholarship book honors for best non-fiction LINK. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinions on list of folk beliefs on Mormon Folklore page?

I'm working on Mormon folklore. I've been adding information about folk customs and material objects, which are a part of Mormon folklore studies. I feel like the list of folk beliefs is overly detailed for the page, and I'm thinking of putting it on a page like List of Mormon folk beliefs or something similar. Opinions? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

FairMormon as a source?

I've started cleaning up an article and I see FairMormon being used in at least one citation. Considering this is an apologetics organization I am curious if it is considered a reliable source by the standards of Wikipedia. Based upon WP:BIASED, I'm guessing the answer is "it depends". That said, I don't now what degree, if any, editorial oversight Fair has in place. As I understand it, they are are not officially connected to the church and are staffed by volunteer writers. Thanks for any info.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't FairMormin a closed wiki? Any any case I can't think of many occasions where using it as a source would be acceptable, except as allowed by WP:SELFSOURCE. ~Awilley (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Let me actually qualify that a bit. I have seen articles that use a format of "Critics say X…Apologists say Y" using crappy polemic and apologetic sources. Fair would be a reasonable source to use in that context, but my preference would be to delete both "sides" and only present a neutral pov using only high quality secondary sources. ~Awilley (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree with your analysis. I don't know about Fair's Wiki as I haven't spent much time there. The first place I saw a cite to said needs to be rewritten anyway due to poor grammar and some obvious WP:WEASEL-dom, but I just thought I'd ask for general knowledge moving forward.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Smith family sketches

I do not believe that the sketches of File:Alvin Smith.jpg and File:Samuel H. Smith.jpg are actual portraits from their lifetimes, and I explained my concerns here at Commons. I don't know if anyone cares or what to do about it. I'm not trying wage a campaign on this. It's just that I see these pictures as contemporary artistic expression rather than depiction of history. Of course so many historical figures also lack authentic portraits, who are often depicted by artists of later generations. And that's fine, but we usually disclose when they're created so that we know whether its a historical object or a memorialization to a legacy. And if these Smith family sketches aren't authentic, that brings the question over their copyright status. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC: is faith healing a pseudoscience

An Request For Comments is asking whether faith healing should be categorised as a pseudoscience. Good arguments have been made by both sides, which you of course can consider before casting a vote, if interested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1985 Hymnal article updated.

I've gone through and updated Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book) to include Author and Music writer (and in some cases translator and arranger when appropriate. A few of these include both the information in the 1985 book and the 2002 (small) revision. Let me know what you think...Naraht (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful! Are there any composers/writers you think ought to have a page that don't currently have one? I noticed you redlinked Julius Schubring. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I just went through and found a few where I had wikilinked one mention of a person but not others, so a check on that would be good. The first person that I saw with a high number of unlinked is "Theodore E. Curtis". The Hymns that may be significant enough for articles by themselves are (and this is entirely personal opinion): "Joseph Smith's first prayer", "Families can be together forever", and maybe "In our Lovely Deseret".

For Julius Schubring, I used a template called ill which is interlanguage link. In short, there is a page about him on the German Wikipedia, but not the English Wikipedia. This template links to the German in the (de), but if a page were to ever be created in English would automatically change to a normal link.

Where I think you might be able to help as well is the information behind the decision to do the 1985 Hymnal. When was that decided by the GAs, who was involved in the creation of it including members of the BYU Music Dept, etc.Naraht (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Ulisses Soares

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus May 2018 is available

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 11:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

TfD on Template:Latter Day Saint biography

People may be interested in This TfD on Template:Latter Day Saint biography and subtemplates Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 21 May 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) 16:44, 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) 16:52, 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) 17:01, 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) 03:09, 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) 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus June 2018 is out now!

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva

Another editor has nominated Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva, an Area Seventy in Brazil, for nomination. Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva would be welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus July 2018 is out now!

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint martyrs

IMO, this entire page has issues.

It staples together at least 3 or 4 groups that don't belong together.

• Pre succession crisis members who died including a *large* group from the Haun's Mill Massacre that should probably be flattened in some how
• Leaders of various smaller groups (Strang and two of the recent Fundamentalist groups
• Missionaries, in some cases that weren't even killed because of their faith
• Helmuth Hübener who definitely didn't die because he was LDS.
• a few others.

In addition, the pre succession crisis entries should not only be linked to the pre-succession name of the church, the displayed name should be that as well.

In short, I'd prefer that some source actually use the term Martyr before it is on this list.Naraht (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the list seems too inclusive. For sources on Mormon martyrs, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism lists a few from the scriptures and Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith. A search on BYU studies comes up with a few things as well. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd feel uncomfortable with a wikipedia list in that regard that included both Abinadi and Joseph Smith. And Parley P. Pratt is also doubtful to me, I really don't expect that if another Latter Day Saint had been standing next to Pratt that Hector would have gone after them, but I'm still willing to consider him on the list.Naraht (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I know there were two missionaries killed in Peru, who were non-Americans (either Peruvians or from other Spanish-speaking South American countries, their mission president Juan Angel Alvoradejo was a Mexican), in 1990. I am surprised they are not on the list. I found the source. Here is an Ensign article on it [1]. They were in the Lima Peru East Mission, and from Arequipa Peru and Trujillo Peru. I will try adding them to the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• I once read an article that mentioned there may have been some Tahitian or surrounding islands members of the LDS Church executed by colonial autorities in about 1852. I don't remember where I came arcoss the mention for sure, and it didn't give any names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oops, I take that back, the Peru missionaries are on there. I added Goerge P. Canova, however I am not sure he belongs. As a county comissionaer and branch president he was both a prominent citizen and known as a Mormon, but I do not know how the evidence adds up, or if a murderer was ever identified. One might also want to consult Patrick Q. Mason's work on anti-Mormon feelings in the south in the late 19th-century. I believe there were a few more missionaries killed. I believe in one case a missionary vanished while traveling alone and was presumed dead, but no body was ever found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a deltion sorting page for this topic.

I was trying to create one, but then realized I had no idea how to. Which is one reason why it is so hard to monitor deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Claudio R. M. Costa

Another editor has nominated the article on Claudio R. M. Costa, a general authority seventy, for deletion. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudio R. M. Costa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Mary Ellen W. Smoot

The Wikipedia article on Mary Ellen W. Smoot who was relief society general president is up for deletion. Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ellen W. Smoot would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Patricia P. Pinegar

The Wikipedia article on Patricia P. Pinegar who was primary general president is under discussion for deletion. Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia P. Pinegar would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Latter-day Saints new deprecation of terms "Mormon"/"L.D.S."

1. SLC Tribune[2] >>>>>For over a century, the smaller churches of Joseph Smith’s Restoration movement have differentiated themselves by proudly declaring, “We are not Mormon!” It has been a badge of honor of sorts, a way of sticking it to an alleged rival that has converted more people than all the other Restoration churches combined. How on earth are we [WPdian Hodgd: viz., non-"Latter-day Saints" who join them as participants in the so-called "Latter Day Saint movement"] supposed to differentiate ourselves from the Mormons if they don’t want to be called Mormons either? --- Daniel P. Stone<<<<< --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is settled quite well based on the fact that all religious entities which trace their origins in any way to the original faith as established (correct term for Wikipedia purposes) by Joseph Smith are considered to be part of the "Latter Day Saint movement". "Mormonism", on the other hand, refers to one or two of the larger offshoots that have several shared beliefs, including the Book of Mormon, which some of the smaller offshoot groups have since rejected. Does that help? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

lds.org -> churchofchrist.org

And I think some of the newsroom urls changed to (ldsnewsroom to newsroom)

Randy

The Church announced the new URLs and the intent to implement them, but that process has not yet been completed. As a result, until the new URLs are actively running, we need to maintain the current ones on all Wikipedia pages within this project. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Sunstone magazine on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Sunstone magazine on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Sunstone (magazine). — Newslinger talk 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000

I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this article and assess it. It was created by a student editor as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brigham Young University/HIST 221 - Gonzales - The United States Since 1877 (Winter 2019), and student moved the article to the mainspace on their own without submitting it for WP:AFC review. There are some WP:MOS and other similar errors which can be cleaned up, but my main concerns are that it's a WP:CONTENTFORK which might not need it's own stand-alone article. I don't believe the university course this student created the article for has ended; so, it's possible that they are still going to get graded on their work; at the same time, it's been added to the mainspace which means that it probably shouldn't be left as is just because it's part of a student editing project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Two redirects to Portal:Latter Day Saints

Two redirects to Portal:Latter Day Saints, specifically Portal:Josephites and Portal:Prairie Saints, have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 9#Portal:Josephites. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mormon Battalion monuments

Hello. I am working on Mormon Battalion monuments, as part of an expansion of the content from the List of Mexican–American War monuments and memorials. I've just created Mormon Battalion Monument and Mormon Battalion Monument (New Mexico). Please ping me if you are interested in working on this project. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories including WikiProject Latter Day saints in the name

There are a number of categories for templates that have WikiProject Latter Day Saints in the name where it would seem more appropriate (and more in line with similar religion based templates to not have the word WikiProject there. These include

• Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement temple templates
• Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement temple navboxes
• Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement LDS templates

and many more. I wanted to ask here before creating a large WP:CFD to remote the word WikiProject from the name.Naraht (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

removing "WikiProject" from the category names seems appropriate to me. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanx. Given how active you are here, I'll make the CFD.

House of Joseph (LDS Church)

I've had this article on my watchlist for a while and just noticed some changes. I looked at the talk page and saw that some editors had had issues with it in the past that are unresolved. Starting with the question of whether this designation is purely a Latter-Day Saint one or is used in other denominations. There's a section on Proposed modern descendants of the Lamanites that odesn't match that our Lamanites article says and an issue over whether all the content belongs in the article. See Talk:House of Joseph (LDS Church)#Umm, ewww. (not exactly a section heading I'd ever write!). Doug Weller talk 08:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sam Young of Houston

Article needed for activist Sam Young? https://www.ksl.com/article/46651242/hundreds-march-in-utah-rally-against-child-abuse --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Church website move

Hi all! Just informing the community regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the bulk of the main church website, lds.org, has been moved to the new URL, churchofjesuschrist.org. In other words, I say it is now appropriate to change references and other mentions of the website to reflect that change. Note that the church newsroom, mormonnewsroom.org, has not been moved yet and thus those references should not be changed. I appreciate any additional thoughts. Rollidan (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also test the URLs to make sure that they work before publishing the article Rollidan (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollindan, thank you for noting that here. The first step was adjusting all of the lds.org subpages and relinking them. I imagine that with mormon.org and lds.org having been updated, the Newsroom will be the next major focus. I agree also that the Newsroom URLs should not be changed until the move of those pages is official as well. Thanks again for mentioning this. Part of me wishes that there was some way that someone (for instance, a Wikipedia administrator) could do an across-the-board replacement of all such URLs in one go, but I don't know if that would even be possible. For now, though, I'd recommend that anyone who has time to do so should chip in and help with those changes on a page-by-page basis. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In the most recent General Conference, something like 85-90% of all websites have been migrated to the new domains. lds.org is for all intents and purposes, defunct. DavidBailey (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mormon / Mormonism no more

With the change of 85-90% of all websites of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being removed from domains containing lds.org or mormon.org, the name changes have largely been complete.

The fact is, members of the Church generally don't use the term "Mormon" and certainly not "Mormonism" which has been archaic for a while now. We might as well bring back "Mormonite."

I began working to merge Mormonism into Latter Day Saint movement, but ran into style issues. I'd like to propose the following to help modernize the articles on the Church and on the Latter Day Saint movement.

Old / New

• lds.org / churchofjesuschrist.org
• mormon.org / comeuntochrist.org
• Mormon / Latter-day Saint (member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
• Mormon / Latter Day Saint (member of one of the splinter sects of the Latter Day Saint movement)
• Mormonism / Latter Day Saint movement (why are we distinguishing between these when 99+% of the movement don't go by the name Mormon?)
• LDS Church / restored Church of Jesus Christ (shortened version of the full name)

Others? DavidBailey (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think you are looking for the style manual for Mormonism. See the talk page there for discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your redirecting of the Mormonism article which was incorrect for a number of reasons. For our purposes it doesn't matter so much how Mormons (members of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) think of themselves. It matters more how reliable sources refer to them. And I'm not just talking about newspapers in the past couple of years. I'm talking about about over a century's worth of scholarly works talking about people who did identify primarily as "Mormons". You can't just erase 100 years of history with a few clicks of the mouse based on a rebranding. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

And apparently not religious epithets, either. Let's start calling (Redacted). After all, I'm sure there's a hundred years of reliable sources using those words, too. Things change for reasons other than "rebranding." 136.36.62.207 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Mormons" and the offensive epithets you mentioned. The difference is that Mormons actively embraced the term, and recently too. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign ~Awilley (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with what Rachel and Awilley said above. I will say that the website changes are already in progress, but for a variety of reasons, such as WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONPLACE, it is better that the other pages/words remain in their current status. Rollidan (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Over 99 percent of the Latter Day Saint movement doesn't consider themselves "Mormon." Why are we calling them that? DavidBailey (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Over 99 percent of the Latter Day Saint movement doesn't consider themselves "Mormon." ~Awilley (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

And this doesn't change what the people outside the religion call them, at least immediately.Naraht (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment on this issue here. I stand by what I said there. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Project tagging: include historic homes of Mormon settlers?

Hi, I am an editor most prolific in the area of historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recently i have been actively developing articles on historic places in Utah, a great number of which seem to be original homestead homes or later substantial houses of Mormon families. And I also have created a few more general articles such as Tithing buildings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which covers about 20 tithing offices. I am aware of the preference for usage of the full name for the LDS church, like NRHP editors have preference for spelling out the full name for NRHP, and I am often using the full name, but also I will use the term "Mormon" and "LDS church" sometimes nonetheless, particularly where historic usage was to use the Mormon term.

Question: For articles on historic homes of Mormon families, and Mormons' commercial and co-op and farm and mining buildings, etc., should these be tagged with {{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement}}?

I assume that tithing offices and temples and ward churches which were directly part of the church should be tagged, but I am not sure about the residences and commercial buildings of LDS members. This relates to many of the current 1,843 places listed on the National Register in Utah, listed here, of which 1,015 currently have articles (per NRHP wikiproject status report at wp:NRHPPROGRESSUT). NRHP listing requires properties to be more than 50 years old, and it seems to me that the majority in Utah, and a good number in Idaho and other adjoining areas, are Mormon-related. (User:Ntsimp is another NRHP editor active on Utah sites, what do you think?) --Doncram (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say merely being owned by some church member isn't enough; I agree that the building in question would need some stronger specific connection with the church. Ntsimp (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, maybe more is needed to make this a proper question. The historic places I mean seem to be important in LDS history. What about a historic place whose importance is described like this:

The Samuel Baker house, constructed between 1870-1875, is significant as one of ten stone houses remaining in Mendon which document the community's early settlement by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Because they represent the first permanent dwellings erected by the Mormon pioneers outside their camp-like forts, these stone buildings record an important turning point in the life of the town. For their builders, these substantial homes signaled the long awaited end to a precariously fragile frontier existence. For later generations, the houses became monuments to those whose endurance and sacrifice paved the way for the comforts and prosperity of today. In Utah, pioneer buildings acquire the added significance of being essentially sacred artifacts. All religions maintain a need to define themselves against the background of sacred time that time which documents the events which first brought the religion into being. / Mormonism is a relatively recent religion, and it's sacred time is often recorded in the period of trials and persecutions which preceeded the exodus to and eventual triumph of the movement in Utah. The sacred history of Mormonism then is locked up in the events surrounding the founding of the church in New York in 1830, the movement to Ohio and then Missouri in the 1830s, the expulsion from Missouri and the flight to Nauvoo, Illinois in 1838, the expulsion from Illinois in 1845 and, perhaps more importantly, the first, or pioneer stage, in the settlement of Utah after 1847. Sacred time becomes interchangeable with pioneer time in Utah, and buildings from the period are the most visible symbols by which new generations of Mormons place themselves in relation to their religion and history. Because all signs of the fort have long been erased from the land, Mendon's chronolgical narrative begins, materially and spiritually, in stone buildings. The Samuel Baker house is particularly signficant because it is one of only four of the extant stone buildings which retains its historic integrity. (emphasis added; quote is from NRHP document for Samuel Baker House)

That is making a pretty strong case that this house is important in LDS history. The current Samuel Baker House article does not reflect that, but assume it were developed to reflect that sacredness, etc.? --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sunstone (magazine) site suspended

I've replaced a couple of links with alternatives, but is this a blip or do we need to amend the article? Doug Weller talk 12:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Their site does seem to be working worse than usual. Usually I can get a page to load within a few tries though... Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

LDS in country discussion

Need your thoughts on naming articles concerning LDS in (country) over at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in (country) or Mormonism in (country) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Letter to a CES Director for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Letter to a CES Director is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to a CES Director until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustress (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for LDS leaders

I just created a discussion of the inclusion criteria for LDS leaders at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I hope that link works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Carol F. McConkie

There is a discussion a Article for deletion on the inclusion of the article on Carol F. McConkie at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie (2nd nomination). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugo E. Martinez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo E. Martinez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo E. Martinez (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Religious text, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Finding constancy in naming of "Apostle" position

I have opened a discussion at List of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) in order to find some constancy in naming. Before I accidentally impose my personal view, it would nice to have a real consensus of proper naming of "Apostle". Any input would be nice.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Saturday's Warrior proposed for deletion

Saturday's Warrior has been proposed for deletion because it does not meet WP:NFILM. Discussion here. Tea and crumpets (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea and crumpets (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The horrid MOS

I am tired of the so called MOS being used to force almost no uses of the correct name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This has become a regressive attack against people being able to speak of themselves in ways that make sense and resonate with them. It has also created a situation where the usually allowance of change in names used when institutions change their name is being fought in the case of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square adopting there name. The manual of style was written over a decade ago and refuses to allow for any change in usage to reflect actual change in usage by people. It is a very frustrating situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gerrit W. Gong

A nomination has been made for the deletion of the article on Gerrit W. Gong. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerrit W. Gongparticipatiion, instight and sourcing from this group would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ulisses Sores

A nomination for the deletion of the article on Ulisses Sores has been made. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares (2nd nomination). Participation, insights and sourcing from this group would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This page needs some cleanup, including broken references and some information in the "temples" templates it relies on is missing. I made a non-visible tweak to Template:LDS Temple compare to get the "Comparison" article page down below Wikipedia's post-expansion include size limit, but it's still very close to the limit. Please take care not to push it over the limit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Restructuring the List of area seventies page

Hello again, everyone! I ran into a problem updating the list of area seventies page, so I requested help with the problem. The responding editor suggested that the area seventies template as currently utilized be discontinued in favor of organizing the information in another way. I have accordingly put out a a request for comment on how best to do so, and would invite anyone reading this who is interested to weigh in on the matter under that topic on that page. The commenting period on this matter will remain open unless and until there is a clear consensus on what to do with the page going forward. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square

I have just posted what looks to be the 4th formal request to rename this page to the official Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Whenever a university or team changes its name, Wikipedia immediately falls in line and changes all aossiciated categories. There is no good reason given to not do this in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Related Request for Move (Jan 16)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Moved

---

A Request for Move on a relate article is backlogged and needs more participation. The proposal is to move Mormonism and Christianity → Mormonism and Nicene Christianity.

Please consider joining the discussion to help build consensus for or against the proposed move. If you are an uninvolved admin, please consider closing the RM. Thanks. JaredHWood💬 14:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for comment on Criticism article

I have made a proposal on the talk page for restructuring Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a look and give input over there. JHelzer💬 16:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD for Bill McKeever

The article on Bill McKeever, a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been nominated for deletion due to apparent failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Comments are encouraged on the AfD page, especially if it is decided to merge parts of the page with Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or related pages. Thank you. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Church of the Latter Day Saints

Should Church of the Latter Day Saints redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)? I'm guessing that most people who search for the term will be looking for the modern LDS Church, but on the other hand "Church of the Latter Day Saints" was the official name of the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) from 1834–1838. (Note that Church of the Latter-Day Saints redirects to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not having received any input, I am going to redirect Church of the Latter Day Saints to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think that anyone searching for that term is most likely looking for the current LDS Church, not the original organization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hyphen in Latter-Day?

Is the correct way to refer to members of the Church as Latter-Day Saints or Latter Day Saints? I've noticed this discrepancy across several articles. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends....a long response could be given, but generally, part of that depends on the time span/period being addressed. Since I'll assume you are specifically asking about members of the LDS Church (& if it's after the Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints), then it's Latter-day Saints. So, mostly it's not a discrepancy, but it is a nuance that has some reason to it.ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChristensenMJ: Thanks. Yes, I'm referring to the present day LDS Church members. What about the instances of "Latter Day Saints Movement"? Is that not hyphenated because it refers to more than just the present day LDS Church movement? (Ex: Latter Day Saint movement, Book of Mormon) ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, although ChristensenMJ is welcome to add anything since your above question was directed to him, I'd like to try addressing your question on my end in the meantime. There are three sets of terms that are pertinent to this project: Mormonism, Latter Day Saint movement, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first term, Mormonism, refers to the set of doctrines, beliefs, religious practices, and traditions observed in the original sect established by Joseph Smith and in the subsequent splinter groups that resulted from the succession crisis of 1844.

Between the time the Church was established in 1830 and 1838, when the name of the Church was more firmly and formally established, the Church went by many different names, including the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest sect within Mormonism in comparison with other splinter groups forming new sects based on Mormonism theology. So when speaking of the largest sect, it is Latter-day Saints, with a lower case "d" and a hyphen between "Latter" and "day". When refering to all sects tracing their origin back to the 1830 sect established by Smith, that comprises the Latter Day Saint movement, for which most of the splinter groups do share some common beliefs, practices, doctrines, and policies. Hope that helps to clarify this for you. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, I see that represented now in the articles. Thanks! ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Creation of subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG)

The creation of SNG for topics related to Latter Day Saints, and specifically LDS Church subjects and leaders, is something I've been discussing with @Jgstokes for at least a month now. Given that similiar SNG's have been created, such as the WP:CATHOLIC/N essay and WP:CLERGY, I think an LDS SNG warrants serious consideration.

How to go about it is a good question. Given the complexities of topics related to Latter Day Saints, I think it would probably be best to create a standalone SNG or essay, rather than try to incorporate LDS guidelines into existing SNGs. One other option would be to try to revive past failed proposals like Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures).

I think the guidelines we want to establish are mainly regarding religious figures rather than topics. The main issue to address is that some figures are likely to be widely notable, but by standards of GNG, a large portion of their sources are written off as not independent. The majority of these non-independent references should be more than sufficient for use as sources. A notability essay or guideline is something that could help to keep articles about notable people when their sources are often reasonably tied to the LDS Church (which is, explicably, the origin of these person's notability).

I'm going to start drafting something to start with in my userspace. In the meantime, I encourage all feedback that anyone has to offer. ––FormalDude talk 00:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, if it helps, I know that some articles about general Church leaders have been subject to deletion over time primarily in view of the rationale that lack of significant coverage in indepedent sources does not verify notability. Since no established consensus was able to be formed, there are a few parameters to consider. Primarily, we've seen past AfD discussions utilize the theory that service as a general authority, general officer, or area seventy of the Church does not automatically meet the current guidelines for notability standards. :Although apostles serve for life, in 2018, there was at least one attempt to delete an article about the current junior apostle Ulisses Soares. If you look at the history of the Wikipedia page for him, you'll probably be able to find the archived deletion discussion. Additionally, although the members of the Presidency of the Seventy, General Authority Seventies, and members of the Presiding Bishopric all have a key role in the day-to-day business of the Church, many of those articles have likewise been deleted. Starting in 2004, all but one of the 10 apostles called between then and now were either members of the Presidency of the Seventy (Uchtdorf, Cook, Christofferson, Andersen, Rasband, Gong, and Soares), 1 serving as a General Authority Seventy at the time of his call (Renlund), and 1 serving as the Presiding Bishop of the Church (Stevenson). The only current apostle who did not spend any time as a general authority prior to his apostolic call was Bednar, who was an area seventy at the time he was called.

We have also seen each current member of the Presiding Bishopric serving as a GA Seventy prior to their calls, with Dean M. Davies having been sustained a GA Seventy last October following his release from the Presiding Bishopric. We have one current GA Seventy (Adrian Ochoa) who was serving in the Young Men Gneral Presidency at the time he was called as a General Authority Seventy, while another former GA Seventy (Tad R. Calliser) was released as such when he was called to be the Sunday School General President. I believe that one thing that makes any current General Authority notable is that any new apostles are usually called after fairly extensive service as either a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, a GA Seventy or Presiding Bishopric member.

There are also current and former area seventies who are prominent in their own rights. Current BYU president Kevin J Worhten served as an area seventy prior to his release as such on August 1 of this year, though he retains the role of BYU president. Current Ensign College President Bruce C. Kusch has spent years in academia. Newly-inaugurated BYU-Pathway Worldwide President Brian K. Ashton was a former counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency. And current BYU-Idaho President Henry J. Eyring is an area seventy and the son of Henry B. Eyring of the First Presidency.

But the argument has been made (and apparently supported up until now) that service as a general authority, area seventy, or general officer of the Church does not in and of itself qualify for the current general standards of notability. If a separate set of parameters can be found to verify such notability, that could enable us to either reopen or reverse past deletion discussions and outcomes. It might also be worth noting that I felt in some cases when article deletion discussions were taking place that some of those deletion discussions were opened and closed with a determination to delete them solely on the basis that the involved editors who were not members of the Church were not swayed by any argument that attempted to establish notability for those leaders.

I've probably given you quite enough (if not indeed too much) food for thought on this matter, but those are some factors we may want to keep in mind as we attempt to estalbish notability criteria specific to leaders of the Church and Church-related subjects that lack sufficient support from secondary sources. So any suggestions you have would be appreciated. Within the next day or two, I will try to look over what you're putting together on this matter and I may at that point have additional feedback for you. In the meantime, hopefully what I've shared here has been helpful to you. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Anyone is welcome to participate in the drafting of the SNG at User:FormalDude/Notability (Latter Day Saints). ––FormalDude talk 01:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard request for comment: The Interpreter Journal

Should the Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship be viewed as a generally reliable source? Please join the discussion and add your input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Interpreter:_A_Journal_of_Latter-day_Saint_Faith_and_Scholarship. Epachamo (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple unused or rarely used LDS templates nominated for deletion

Watchers of this page may be interested in discussions about some rarely used or unused LDS-temple-related templates being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 24. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment at Shroud of Turin

There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Historicity of the Book of Mormon

There is a dispute as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon (and possibly other Book of Mormon related topics) ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox conversion proposal and tests

Please see this discussion about converting the LDS temple infobox to a more standard-sized and standard-formatted infobox. The data tables would continue to be used. Please notify other talk pages that may be interested. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Article for Founding Fathers baptised by President Woodruff

I've actually had two people ask me for the list of the Founding Fathers (and related) baptized by President Woodruff and the first time I went to wikipedia expecting to find the list, but it isn't here. Is this list worth adding to President Woodruff's article or is the entire setup around that enough for an additional article?Naraht (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article

There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the independence of Deseret News

Please see the RSN discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Title capitalization

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints § Capitalization issue concerning a provision at MOS:LDS which affects a large number of LDS-related articles. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Perennial sources

I stated a list of sources at User:FormalDude/LDS RS that I'd like to add to the WikiProject. Can other editors please review the list to see if we can reach a consensus to maintain this here? ––FormalDude talk 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, the list looks great.I might suggest that we consider adding the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. That has been cited here as a source on some articles. I believe I previously stated I had found some inaccuracies or incorrect information in that source, but I was never able to relocate whatever it was that I had concerns about relating to the source. Also, I don't know what the general consensus would be on this one, but the Church teamed up in the 2010s with independent scholars of Church history, which consisted of such experts from both inside and outside Church membership. That team wrote a series of essays to explain controversial/misunderstood doctrine and practices of the Church. Although those essays are both published and endorsed by the Church, the fact that the project used a number of scholars of Church history who are not members of the Church could potentially factor into a determination of whether or not that is a source we can move. Again, I'm just throwing those ideas out. If either or both the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Gosspel Topics Essays are deemed sufficiently independent of the Church, that might provide sufficiently independent sourcing for content in articles related to this movement. Just some thoughts, FWIW. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a FABULOUS idea. I would have it mirror the larger table Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and include the legend and other columns. For the Deseret News, it should mirror the entry larger Reliable Source noticeboard, specifically, I think we should add "The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed." I recommend adding The Interpreter Foundation, FAIR, Mormon Stories, Reddit, Radio Free Mormon, Ensign/Liahona, Mormanity (Arise From the Dust), Book of Mormon Central, and Pearl of Great Price Central as "Generally Unreliable" sources. I would add Dialogue Journal and Sunstone Journal as Generally Reliable. The Church history essays are absolutely not independent. The editorial board was the First Presidency, and given that the authors are all anonymous, it cannot be said that it was written by a number of scholars of Church history who are not members of the Church. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was created by a BYU professor. It also has claims in it that are far outside the mainstream science. I recommend both of these be used only as an example of Latter-day Saint beliefs.Epachamo (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I would agree with most of what has been said by @Epachamo here. The church history essays and encyclopedia of mormon are both aligned with the Church, and with the essays being published on the church website they are not independent. In regards to the Deseret News, I would say that it has sufficient editorial independence to be considered a reliable source, but probably could not be used to satisfy notability independent of other sources. Rollidan (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Please feel free to edit User:FormalDude/LDS RS and add sources.

What are the "Church history essays"? Is that the Journal of Mormon History? ––FormalDude talk 13:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Notify: @Jgstokes, Epachamo, and Rollidan. ––FormalDude talk 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The church history essays/gospel topics essays are a series of scholarly essays that have been published by the church in response to some of the more controversial topics within the church's history, such as race and the priesthood or polygamy. As Epachamo mentioned, there are no authors mentioned with the articles, and so we cannot say they are independent of the church. Googling "Lds church gospel topics essays" pulls them right up. Rollidan (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: Any thoughts on this? ––FormalDude (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Jgstokes, Epachamo, Rollidan, and Rachel Helps (BYU): Appreciate all the feedback this has gotten and though we can continue to improve it I think it's ready to be moved in to project space. Should it be given its own subpage or should we add it as a section of WP:LDS? ––FormalDude (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  My vote is for its own page, but I don't feel strongly either way. Epachamo (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I also like the idea of it having its own page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've created the page at WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources and linked to it at WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Would any of this be information that would be good to include in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints? I know that others have been pushing for changes to the MOS based on the updated style guide and parameters set by the Church in 2018, but I don't know whether any of the sources listed would be relevant to the efforts to resolve that question, and, as I've acknowledged previously, I have not seen anything that would lead me to change my conclusion that those guidelines from the Church, meant for media usage, are equally applicable to Wikipedia. By the way, my apologies to all of you other longtime contributors to this project. I kind of dropped off the grid there for a bit. My wife and I recently relocated to my father-in-law's old house, which we inherited following his death several months ago, so with everything going on there, my participation here has been sporadic/nonexistent. Parenthetically FormalDude, because I've been busy with everything associated with our move, I haven't made much progress on figuring out where to go from here with the notability guidelines you asked me to draft. I see some others have made recommendations on those, and I do want to contribute. But the last few months have been a bit crazy, between the passing of my wife's father, our recent move, and my dealing with the ongoing health challenges. That being said, I did want to thank all who have been participating in discussions about Church articles here recently for keeping things going while I could not. Hopefully once things are a bit more settled for me personally, I'll be back to fuller participation in editing article here, including getting back to the process of drafting those guidelines. My thanks once again to you all. Jgstokes (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- lomrjyo ^talk 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A ton of LDS' articles on Polish Wikipedia that are missing from English

I noticed that on Polish Wikipedia there is a ton, well, many dozens of high quality, very detailed and very referenced articles related to Latter Day Saint topics that generally have no English (or any other) interwikis. They are generally created by one Polish editor: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/pl.wikipedia.org/Bacus15 They are in Polish, but Google Translate (in Chrome, etc.) allows anyone to do a one-mouse-click translation if you want to take a look.

First, I'd appreciate if someone could confirm they are, well, not hoaxes (see Zhemao hoaxes). I did a check on a few topics/sources and I didn't see any obvious red flags, except, well, it's a ton of articles in Polish about a topic that is not well known in Poland and the lack of interwikis for most (not all) is a bit of a red flag. Again, on that level this looks very much like Zhemao incident. In some cases it could be just a bit of OR, of course, and hopefully it just represents a case of a Polish researcher/editor finding many topics that somehow did not come to the attention of the much larger and active English community of editors interested in LTS topics.

Second, assuming this is all good content, this is treasure trove of topics that can be translated to English, with just minor copyediting after machine translation. It's all seemingly well referenced (usually to English books, with page numbers and ISBNs; often to websites with links that allow verification), possibly at GA level in many cases (some of those articles received GA status on pl wiki). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! I looked at two of the book pages and the one for Joseph Fielding McConkie. They look like legitimate pages. There are a LOT of books in Mormon literature, including devotional literature, that could have their own pages, but which don't currently have pages on enwiki. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU) Thanks for looking. A passing thought: since you are connected with BYU, do you know of any professors who assign their students to create Wikipedia articles related to LDS' topics? The students could try translating the articles from Polish to English (no knowledge of Polish required, machine translation should produce passable drafts that just need some language copyediting for jargon and occasional grammar issue). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#My students :)Naraht (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, in the past I have done trainings for BYU linguistics classes with Wikipedia assignments, but I don't know of any classes that are going on right now (you can see some current classes at BYU that have Wikiedu assignments by scrolling down here). Assigning students LDS topics to a class of new student editors at BYU has some big potential issues for non-neutral editing... most students understand NPOV, but it is not always obvious. I do have a copyediting intern right now though, and I told her that it could be a good way to get some editing experience. Because of some recent Wikidrama, I'm a little cautious about trying new things right now, but it is definitely something I want to try, maybe in a month or two when I'm feeling braver, haha. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone who also directs students to edit Wikipedia, I understand. Do let me know if I can offer any assistance, wikidramu-related or otherwise. Fellow wiki-teachers are few enough that it's always a pleasure to meet another one around here :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus See her talk page, *IF* *YOU* *DARE*. 1/2 :) Naraht (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. The COI issue seems IMHO rather far fetched (from my cursory review, I don't think COI was broken), and the discussion(s) ended few weeks ago so I don't think there is any point in me commenting there (let the sleeping dogs lie, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, I think I'll move that stuff to my talk page archives. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I recommend automation through User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Revisiting a Capitalization Issue

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

---

Hello again, everyonne! In a recent discussion here on Wikipedia, a consensus was reached that "The" (with a capital "T") was part of the name of the Church, and that policies advocating for a lower-case "the" or the omission of "The" or "the" was not consistent with established policies. As some of you are also aware, discussions at the talk page for the manual of style led to another discussion elsewhere that determined that using the lower-case "the" in the name of the Church mid-sentence or mid-article title would be more consistent with policy. I feel that the mid-sentence determination consensus might be moot now in view of the more-recent consensus that "The" in the capital case is part of the Church's name. Another reason to restore the mid-sentence or mid-title capitalization of "The" in the name of the Church would be so as not to confuse it with another Church with a similar name that does use the mid-sentence lower-case in its' name on the pages of its' website. Given that, and the clear recent precedent from the talk page of the article about the Church, I would like to propose here for discussion that any mid-sentence or mid-title reference to the full name of the Church should be restored to utilize the capital case "The", effective immediately upon agreement by consensus, and that any article titles changed to use the lower-case "the" in the Church's name would also revert to the capital case, consistent with that consensus. I will not unilaterally be bold on this matter and move the articles back to their names with "The" capitalized, but thought it would be worth considering, given the determination that "The" in the capital casee is part of the full name. I welcome discussion on this. @Rreagan007, Ortizesp, Lomrjyo, Necrothesp, FyzixFighter, Rollidan, Shwcz, BarrelProof, FormalDude, AjaxSmack, Cinderella157, Zfish118, GoodDay, Epachamo, RomanSpinner, YorkshireExpat, and P-Makoto: for their input on this. If any of you know of anyone I've forgotten who might want to weigh in on this, please feel free to ping them as well. Thanks for your consideration of this proposal. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• The RM you reference bases its conclusion partly on the MOS discussion, so I don't see how you can view it as a reason to override said discussion. I see this as a settled matter given the thorough discussion at MOS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on mid-sentence capitalization. However, "The" is clearly part of the proper name of the church and should be included in the article title regardless of how the mid-sentence issue is settled (albeit in my weak opinion, "sorted" by second word "Church"). –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• I concur with User:FormalDude; the RM discussion plus the previous MOS discussion together settle on all titles and text including "the" but only capitalized in the initial position, i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There was no rationale or comment given in the move closure and no endorsement of mid-sentence caps in the discussion that would warrant introducing rehashing the recent MOS discussion. —  AjaxSmack  15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with FormalDude. As was noted in both the MOS RFC and the RM, the mid-sentence capitalization and use of "The" at the start of the article title are not explicitly connected. The wording of WP:THE allows for cases where the two will be different in general. I disagreed with the argument that the MOS RFC drives a need to change the article title, I would also disagree that the RM result would necessarily drive the MOS to change. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, I see your point. I somehow mistook a consensus for "The" as an official part of the name of the Church as an agreement that applied specifically to the capital "T" when that was not accurate. Can't believe I missed that. The others I pinged can certainly weigh in on this if they feel a need to, but if everyone is in agreement on that point, it might not be wise on my part to argue or belabor the point further. I apologize if opening up the question was a waste of everyone's time. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Per FormalDude, I see this as a settled matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I see this is not (or is no longer) marked as an RfC. Given your own acknowledgement, it might be appropriate for you to close/archive this discussion using template:archive top? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Book of Mormon citations

I'm working on a template {{Mormonverse}} to use to cite Mormon verses, styled after {{Bibleverse}} and {{Tanakhverse}}.

The big difference at the moment is that Bibleverse can handle input like {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1-2}} whereas to do something similar in Mormonverse it would be like {{Mormonverse|Alma|1|1|range=-2}}. Bibleverse is based off of Lua code, while Mormonverse is based off on {{sourcetext}}.

In theory the Mormonverse Lua code could/should be a very cut down version of the Bibleverse code, so the input could be given more succinctly as {{Mormonverse|Alma|1:1-2}}. I find the Lua pretty daunting and need some help.

I began using the template on the pages Zarahemla and Book of Mormon, and then realized I should get the template syntax completely ironed out first. If we can have syntax more like {{Bibleverse}}, with the colins and hyphens rather than pipes, I think that'd be better. Eievie (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I just found there's already a {{LDS}} template, which does something similar to what I was attempting. However, the parameters in it are really repetitive and messy, and I don't think this really what we want. That said, there may be something useful in it to draw upon. In the end, both should probably be consolidated into a single template. Eievie (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikisource vs. lds.org . I think the *PRIMARY* question is which we link to. If it is wikisource, then we can make a wrapper for sourcetext, probably to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_(1981) , if lds.org, then the question of going to a non-neutral site needs to be dealt with (however the biblica source on bibleverse appears to be very much pro-christianity/prothetizing). Naraht (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If we decide to go with lds.org I'd be willing to try to interpret the LUA, it looks like most of the code is handling differences between possible code. With this one, none of those *should* be necessary. Note, I have no idea how to put LUA code into a sandbox. I'd also suggest that the name be BoMverse for parallelism. (perhaps with Mormonverse as a redirect). Note, the URL to the LDS website should be of the form (for 1st Nephi 7:14( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/7?lang=eng&id=14#p14 (1-ne, 2-ne, jacob, enos, jarom, omni, w-of-m, mosiah, alma, hel, 3-ne, 4-ne, morm, ether, moro).Naraht (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Another question, if this is for the Latter Day saint movement, does it make sense to use multiple versions (somehow). I went looking for the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS), but I can't find an online version from them. Otherwise, does it make sense to allow versions to be specified such as the 1920 and 1991 (I don't know if there is any easily accessible version of the 1920, See http://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/editions-1830-1981 for a list of the possible choices among the two groups.Naraht (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I did create a module and start poking around with the Lua code, but I quickly got confused. It's here. It doesn't have "sandbox" in the name. Maybe it should for now?

I don't have strong feelings about wikisource vs LDS.org. Even if we stick with wikisource, I'd like to be able to eliminate the |range= which I think requires Lua.

{{Bibleverse}} has an optional last parameter to specific different versions, and we could totally do that too. Except the only other version I could find is the wikisource 1830 version, which does not have the verse numbers, so we couldn't link to verses. Eievie (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The RLDS are working on an online version of their Book of Mormon http://www.communityofchrist.net/Scriptures/Book_of_Mormon/bkm_online/bkm_online.html It's not up yet, but we might want to consider making the template adaptable for that later on. Eievie (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've *ever* seem anyone complain about something being created in Modulespace. If someone complains, we'll deal with it. I'm not sure what the results of using "range" in what is linked to , I think it is only what is displayed. ( John 3:14 vs. John 3:14-16 for example), I think the link generated is the same. According to https://askgramps.org/book-of-mormon-printing-history/ , the verses were first indicated in 1879 (which means that the LDS and the RLDS/CoC are likely to have different numbering). So unless some of the groups like AUB have an online copy (unlikely), it looks like the only versions would be 1879, 1920 and 1981. (I guess we could link to that if we ignored the verse...) Unfortunately, the easiest references to the differences are from anti-LDS sites, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty indifferent as to what site it links to; I'll let someone else decide that one. The main point I care about is that {{Bibleverse}}'s syntax is so succinct:

{{Bibleverse|Bible book name|c:v–c:v|version}}

and if we can have syntax modeled after that, it'd be great. Eievie (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Having an exhaustive listing of every single edition would be cool, but a more useful question would be, "Which other editions would actually be cited in Wikipedia articles?" Like, are there any contexts were we actually need to cite C of C, or AUB scripture? Eievie (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you've considered all of my comments. Please let me know how I can help including trying sandbox entries.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've started playing around with the Lua code here and testing it here. I've clearly broken it, though. The first goal is to get it working for just the LDS.org version. Eievie (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed a couple of variables we don't pre-generate, the question is whether there are any in the BoM that are no_chapters, the way that 2John is.Naraht (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been rewriting the Lua code (Module:Mormonverse, Template:Mormonverse), and I think I'm basically done now.

examples (for more see Template:Mormonverse/testcases)

{{Mormonverse|2 Nephi|6:6-7}}	2 Nephi 6:6–7
{{Mormonverse|D&C|132}}	Doctrine and Covenants 132
{{Mormonverse|Abraham|1:6}}	Abraham 1:6

Thing it still may need:

• Error checking, for when someone puts in the wrong parameters. I'm not quite sure how wikipedia lua error adding is supposed to work.
• Oddball citations (things like Official Declarations 1 and 2 and the facsimiles). How are citations for those typically formatted?
• Other versions, if anyone has a good online source for an earlier edition.

One more big question: Do we want to keep the {{Mormonverse}} name, or overwrite the other template, {{LDS}}, and use that instead? Eievie (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Biggins, as the main editor of the template {{LDS}}, I'd like to get your input on the suggestion of overwriting it. To quickly summarize:

• I think the numerous different arguments that {{LDS}} takes is messy, and that an ideal template would have more streamlined, intuitive input. That's why I've structed {{Mormonverse}} the way I have.
• For the URL, I picked LDS.org over Wikisource because it uniquely allows for multiple verses to be highlighted. I'm flexible on this point, it could be changed.

Eievie (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Eievie thanks for tagging me. It's been a bit since I wrote that code, but I'm all for simplifying syntax. I think one of the reasons I kept the somewhat kludgy syntax is that is how the existing template worked, and I wanted to straight-up replace the former template without having to worry about breaking existing citations. I'm fine with overwriting the LDS template, we should just obviously make sure it works with how it has been used in the past.

I'm not opposed to using LDS.org instead of Wikisource. I would vote Wikisource, but the highlighting function on LDS.org is very useful so I'm totally fine if that's the consensus. I also think it's important to note that this template is for the SLC-based church, not for any other members of the Restoration movement.

I appreciate all the work on this, it looks great! I'm happy to help with anything if needed. ― biggins (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh and again it's been a good while since I dived into it, but the errors in the Lua template I wrote will show up here [3] if that is at all helpful. ― biggins (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Doctrine & Covenants in the template

Unfortunately, while the BoM may be easy to do with this, the D&C is *not*. Either this should be specifically designated that it is for the Brighamite sects (including the largest based in SLC) or the D&C entry *needs* a "sect" argument. Looking at Doctrine_and_Covenants#Chart_comparison_of_editions things *just* don't match up. D&C 136 for someone from the CoJCoLDS is by Brigham Young in 1947 for the Organization of Mormon pioneer westward journey. For someone of the Community of Christ it is by Frederick M. Smith in 1932 for Changes in leadership positions; unity.Naraht (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't added any sect distinctions yet because the only online versions I've found have been LDS, and the Snuffers (https://scriptures.info/scriptures/bofm/), and I haven't yet seen any page that actually wants to cite the Snuffer version. If you have more versions, and applications for them (ie. like a page where such a thing would actually be used), I'm happy to add them. Eievie (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Or are you proposing there be a required sect variable even if there aren't other versions? Like for clarity's sake, and to leave the door open to add other versions later on, without having to change every instance where the template's used? Eievie (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Template name

@Naraht @Biggins What should the name of the template be? {{LDS}}? {{Mormonverse}}? Something else? Eievie (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Mormonverse is better than just LDS since it's much more descriptive. I could see some members of the LDS church preferring LDSverse or something similar since the LDS church has been discouraging the use of "Mormon" recently; I think we should do what is clearest for wikipedia, though. Depending on what sect's scriptures the template links to one or the other might make more sense, but I don't really have a preference between those two. So... something-verse is my vote! ― biggins (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

One logistic benefit is that this way I can just go down the list of pages that use the LDS template and replace them. If the new template used that name too, it would make that messier. Eievie (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with "Mormonverse" as well.Naraht (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

churchofjesuschrist.org vs wikisource

I am STRONGLY against changing links to churchofjesuschrist.org from wikisource. This change should not be changed without discussion. There are literally hundreds of different Latter Day Saint groups, and linking to just churchofjesuschrist.org is in no way neutral. There was a large debate for the bible verse template to find a neutral source, and we should likewise strive to be neutral. Epachamo (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Epachamo The problem is that the CoJCoLDS did the division into chapters and verses in 1879. Any group which doesn't trace itself to Brigham Young's trip to Salt Lake City isn't guaranteed to split things the same way. It's not as bad as it is for the D&C where the order of the numbers and what is included varies greatly. So given that CoJCoLDS and Community of Christ differ as to what D&C 136 is, how do we deal with the fact that they might have different texts for Moroni 2:17? I know there are a lot of groups other than CoJCoLDS and Community of Christ, but I think that figuring out what to do with the two of them *has* to be the start. (Conversely, at least for the CoJCoLDS articles, a CoJCoLDSverse template could be created.) I know the BoM from the Community of Christ isn't online, but does anyone have a good feeling for how different the chapter/verse alignment is?Naraht (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Epachamo I feel like I keep repeating myself: I welcome the premise of adding other additions of Mormon scripture to this template, but I have yet to be provided with any actual links. I'd be happy to add (for example) FLDS D&C — if such an online resource exists. But as far as I know, it doesn't, and I can't create such a thing out of thin air. Eievie (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that we should be directing people to wikisource instead of churchofjesuschrist.org. We don't use unreliable, or non-neutral sources on Wikipedia period. The fact that nothing better exists is not a good enough reason to use an unreliable or non-neutral source. Epachamo (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Epachamo. At this point, there are three types of viable online sources for the BoM. 1) pre-1879 wikisource (which we can't chapter and verse) 2) 1981 CoJCoLDS version wikisource (which we can link to Chapter/Verse 3) churchofjesuschrist.org. I'm fine with the 1981 CoJCoLDS version, but functionally, we are locking this into CoJCoLDS (and other groups descended from those that followed BY).Naraht (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should go with option 2. My concerns are mostly rooted in the wikipedia link policies WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2, WP:ADV, and WP:ELYES #3. Epachamo (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Images of Joseph Smith

I started writing an article on the Smith/Larsen daguerreotype, but I quickly realized all the parts where it's compared to other images of him were ballooning, so I pivoted and made the page about all the images. Draft:Images of Joseph Smith is what I've got so far. If someone else has something to add that'd be great. Eievie (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is really great! It is super close to being publishable. I found this thesis from the 1960s that might be helpful. Epachamo (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, thanks! It says the RLDS painting is on display at the Auditorium (Community of Christ). It was published in 1962; do you if that's still true? Eievie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know the citation for a quote along the lines of: "Joseph is a fine looking man from the front, not so fine from the side." Lachlan Mackay mentions it in an interview, and I feel like I've heard it before, but I can't find the citation. It feels relevant to the Maudsley side image pictures. Eievie (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a source for that quote, but this book ("occasional paper"), published by BYU's religious studies center, has a chapter on physical descriptions. I asked my friend who is a research historian if she had thoughts on the draft. She wrote that the draft is pretty good! She offered to help find more secondary sources suitable for Wikipedia and had this advice:

Two suggestions: They might want to draw attention to the fact that the Junius Wells statement is contested -- he did make that statement, but it was a hearsay statement made ~50 years after the conversation he was claiming to report.

Also, to forestall other editors adding other purported images, they might want to add a section called "debunked images," or something like that, explaining that other claimed images are tenaciously supported by partisans despite expert disavowal. One of them is a photograph of Alexander Stewart (secretary of the interior) and the so-called Scannel Daguerreotype that Shannon Tracy promoted almost 20 years ago, which is a heavily manipulated, unprovenanced, image that is supported neither by LDS nor CoC. I guarantee you that somebody will add one or both of those to the article if they aren't dealt with now.

I think they want to be careful about using the 1962 thesis, other than as a minor historical stepping stone to modern discussion. It is so outdated and doesn't address at all any of the images and claims people today are interested in and would want to have addressed in the article.

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The McCarl thesis can be cut easily; I just included it cuz someone suggested it.

The "debunked images" section sounds like a worthwhile section to have, but I know nothing about those images, so I'll leave that to someone else to write.

This started out as a page just about the Smith/Larsen daguerreotype, you can easily see that's still the longest section by a lot. I'm trying to add stuff to the other sections as well, but I've just read less about those. If someone else could step in and add to those themselves, it'd be much appreciated. Eievie (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I get you! I should see if I can add some info about the debunked images. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk)

Article Request

Only one of the General Young Men's Presidents doesn't have an article: Vaughn J. Featherstone. I think the General Young Men's Presidents are by definition notable.Naraht (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Brother Featherstone had an article a number of years ago, but it was deleted per the discussion here. To summarize it, while general officers are noteworthy within the church, they need sufficient sources independent of the church to support an article, as for the purposes of Wikipedia they act as representatives/employees of the church. Since Brother Featherstone's article did not have such independent sources, that is why it was deleted. Rollidan (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, so what positions in the Church are notable enough to qualify *just* on the basis of the position, just the Q15?Naraht (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability criteria on Wikipedia are not met on the basis of anyone's position in the church, but their coverage in secondary, independent sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

To go beyond the LDS Church, do Popes not automatically qualify or are they considered Heads of State? (which becomes questionable between the unification of Italy and the Lateran Treaties)Naraht (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that Popes have sufficient secondary sources about them to fulfill notability criteria. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization of template categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 18#Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving away from "Mormon" when discussing the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The project guidelines state that:

"In general, use the term Mormon or its derivatives only when referring to people or denominations with historical ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based in Utah."

This is outdated as "Mormon" does not reflect the organizations preferred names. Even LDS is not appropriate. Referring to the members as "Latter-day Saints" is acceptable. Other options include "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," “members of the Church of Jesus Christ” and “members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ." Their style guide can be found here: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide and contains more details.

Any thoughts on what this guideline should be adjusted to set a new standard? Switching to "Latter-day Saints" would be the most concise move away from "Mormons." Obviously it will take time to implement but it is well overdue for a standard to be set as the organization's stance on this was announced August of 2018 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/mormon-is-out-church-releases-statement-on-how-to-refer-to-the-organization?lang=eng

"Mormon" can of course still be used in instances such as the Mormon War, Mormon Trail, Book of Mormon, and etc. as well if the word is used in the title of a book/article. Apianostari (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses common name, and follows convention. It doesn't set it. Most organizations still use the term "Mormon" when referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would be supportive of this change if you could find several independent style guides that follow this convention. Epachamo (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that there are distinct terminological differences. Mormonism now refers to the beliefs shared by all religious sects tracing their origins back to the church estblished in the 1830s. Any of those sects with the common beliefs of MOrmonism fall under the description of Latter Day Saint denomintions. And The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest sect within the Latter Day Saint movement that adheres to the shared beliefs of all faiths under the umbrella of Mormonism. That is the distinction.

Also, people continue to cite President Nelson's request in suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt the guidelines from the Church instantaneously and across the board. But President Nelson specifically stated with respect to the guidelines that "Responsible media will be sympathetic to our request. Wikipedia does not fll under the umbrella of "responsible media" by any stretch of the imagination. So it's incorrect to imply that Wikipedia is under the same umbrella as responsible media. What Wikipedia actually is is the source anyone can edit by using reliable sources, some of whom have chosen not to fully comply with the request.

Changes are in the words on MOS:LDS, so please take part in those discussions. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards the MOS:LDS. Apianostari (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

An update on this matter: "How the LDS Church worked and worked — and paid and paid — to get its name 'right' on the internet." Salt Lake Tribune ––FormalDude (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that reading that article requires a subscription. Did the article also appear elsewhere where there may not be a paywall? Thanks . Jgstokes (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, here's the archived version. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LDS Temple list/size-floor-site

Template:LDS Temple list/size-floor-site has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The above is a courtesy notice to the project. I have learned in the past that these LDS temple templates are a complex system, and even when something appears to be unused or not useful, it may be needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Endowment Film

I was looking at the Filmography for Gordon Jump, and although the article with references indicate the fact that he was in an Endowment Film, there is no link down in his filmography. I *think* that currently the best link would be to Endowment (Mormonism)#Overview, but I'm curious as to whether there is someplace else or even close to enough information to make an article. I *think* there might be enough to make an article. I'm not sure LDS Living is the best place to use as a source, but I think there is enough for a stub. Naraht (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)