Latter Day Saint movement Template‑class Mid‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Is this suitable for use on each of the articles it lists? ...comments? ~BFizz 02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template near the top of each article listed on it, except for the links in the "people" section. I'm wondering if that section is a good idea or not. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable to include Portal:Book of Mormon on this template, but Portal:Latter-day Saints doesn't belong, for several reasons:

• There are multiple denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement that use the Book of Mormon, and giving special attention to the LDS Church is unjustified in this context
  • Additionally arguments that the LDS Church is the biggest in the movement doesn't matter in this instance
• This template is for material that is core to the topic
  • The topic is the BoM, not LDS Church
  • The Book of Mormon preceded all forms of all churches in movement, so again denominational specific links in the template are not justified.

Thought? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for inclusion

1. The Portal:Latter-day Saints does also include other denominations at the bottom of the portal, so the other denominations are mentioned.
2. The LDS church is the biggest denomination and is so rightfully dominant in this portal, so we can in good faith link to them.
3. The LDS church and the Book of Mormon belong together, its members are even called Mormons.

--79.192.16.44 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

1. Portal:Latter-day Saints has always been, and currently remains denomination specific; the small smattering of information in the Latter-day Saints topics template does not change this fact.
2. The size of the LDS Church doesn't matter in this discussion.
3. Regardless of the intent of the LDS Church, the term Mormon is not exclusive to members of the LDS Church.

-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responce

Why are you so keen on kepping this portal out. It was accepted for 6 days until you reverted it again.--79.192.16.44 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated both above and in the previous edit summaries why I think adding that portal here is a bad idea. Additionally, I think you are confusing not being noticed with acceptance: I was busy in real life, or I would have reverted it immediately after you had added it back, and 6 days sets no precedence. The reason why I opened this dialog on this talk page was to gain consensus, and this should be established before your change is reinstated. As you appear to frequently switch between IP address with your German ISP, there was no way to be sure to notify you about this discussion, other than in the edit summary of the reverts.

I have invited participants of wp:LDS to this discussion (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Discussion at Template talk:Book of Mormon), and if that doesn't generate any commentary here in the next week or two, then I'll individually invite some of the more active participants of that project. You are also welcome to invite editors you think might be interested to this discussion; I find template:Please see particularly helpful in that process. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be possible to file a request for comment as per WP:RFC if there are insufficient comments without such. Speaking for myself, personally, I would oppose the inclusion of a link to the LDS portal for what may well be the reason that links to the other various portals for various Christian denominations or groupings are apparently not included in Template:Books of the New Testament, that there are numerous groups which value the Book of Mormon, and inclusion of any one would presumably mean that potentially inclusion of others would be required as well as they are created. That would be far too many on the NT books template. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I pointed out that despite its title, the 2011 musical The Book of Mormon is not an adaptation of the Book of Mormon. Instead, it tells an original story, set in the twenty-first century, about Latter-day Saint missionaries. Left guide put the link to The Book of Mormon back in the template. May I ask for an explanation? In what way is The Book of Mormon's plot, set in the twenty-first century, in (what can charitably only be called a parody of) Uganda, in Africa, starring characters who are Latter-day Saint missionaries (rather than Book of Mormon figures), an adaptation of the Book of Mormon? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you raised an objection to its inclusion in the "adaptations" section, I instead added it into the "other" section. Left guide (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that; my apologies for not quite catching that you had re-added it to "Other" rather than re-added it to "Adaptations". Nevertheless, I don't think The Book of Mormon belongs in the template. Compared to all the other links, The Book of Mormon, despite its name, has very little to do with the Book of Mormon. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, from what I understand the musical is more about the church as a whole and missionary work in particular. I don't feel too strongly about its inclusion either way at this point, so feel free to revert/remove if you really think it's too tangential. Left guide (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having seen the musical and read secondary source material about it, it's supposed to be about Latter-day Saint missionaries. Thank you for discussing this. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content in this template is redundant with Template:Books of the Book of Mormon, Template:Figures in the Book of Mormon, and Template:Places in the Book of Mormon. Wikipedia guidelines on templates oblige that "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related", and an explanatory essay persuasively states that "Few articles have more than one sidebar."

A recent attempt to trim this template so the sidebar isn't redundant with other sidebars and isn't as sprawling was reverted. There was an edit summary content that there may have been a misunderstanding of user @Horse Eye's Back:'s comment, for which I apologize.

Nevertheless, I think Book of Mormon topic sidebars should more closely follow WP:CLN. All persons in the Book of Mormon is a tight relationship, as is all places. But every single possible Book of Mormon topic ever leads to a dizzying assemblage that leaps from Lucy Harris to Ammonihah to Solomon Chamberlin. A more tightly constructed sidebar would improve these articles. A box that contains all of these links could be better as a horizontal navigation box, as WP:CLN suggests, rather than a vertical sidebar displayed prominently on the page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"every single possible Book of Mormon topic" would still be topics with a tight relationship... It would just most likely not be due which is a different question. I would also note that you created two of those templates, isn't the logical solution here to uncreate them as well as Template:Books of the Book of Mormon? As you said one template is preferred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferred that a single article includes only one template. That is a reason for removing a more generic template and prioritizing a more specific template. It is not a reason for uncreating templates.

Consider Template:Bible sidebar. It does not appear on articles like John's vision of the Son of Man, which instead has the much more specific Template:John. The Gospel of Luke does not have the Bible sidebar; it has Template:Books of the New Testament. There is substantial precedent that when a topic area has many articles within it (like the Book of Mormon or the Bible), that Wikipedians create more tightly defined sidebars for subtopic areas, like the New Testament or like figures. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a reason "a reason for removing a more generic template and prioritizing a more specific template" when everything on the more specific template is included in the more generic template? I don't believe that the Book of Mormon has any New Testament or like figures, am I mistaken? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series on
Books of the New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts Four Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke John Lukan Acts Acts of the Apostles
Epistles and Apocalypse Pauline epistles Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews Catholic epistles James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Apocalypse Book of Revelation
Authorship Luke-Acts Johannine works Pauline epistles Hebrews Petrine epistles
Related topics New Testament canon New Testament manuscripts Synoptic Gospels Johannine literature (epistles) Pastoral epistles
Bible portal  Christianity portal
v t e

Why is a more generic template that is less tightly defined than the more specific templates a reason for using the generic one that doesn't follow WP:CLN as much as the more specific one does? Do you mean you would support adding everything in Template:Books of the New Testament (pictured to the side as a visual example), Template:John, Template:Peter, Template:Tanakh OT to Template:Bible sidebar and getting rid of the subtopic sidebars and adding the "more generic template" to all Johannine pages, Tanakh pages, New Testament pages, etc.? resulting in one much more unwieldy generic sidebar for all Bible topics instead of the multiple, helpful, tightly defined, subtopical navigation sidebars? If so, I disagree with that, in the same way that I disagree with your suggestion to uncreate the helpful, tightly defined, subtopical navigation sidebars for Book of Mormon topics. The "Books of the New Testament" sidebar is as useful as the "Books of the Book of Mormon" sidebar and vice versa. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It never says that more tightly defined is better, it just says that they should be "fairly tightly defined" which is a standard both boxes exceed by a high margin. I think the whataboutism is unhelpful and you should discuss this page, not other pages (the New Testament has orders of magnitude more coverage than the Book of Mormon so its apples and oranges). Can you explain more what your idea for turning the current sidebar into a horizontal navigation box? I'm not opposed to that in theory, but would like to know what the end stage of that looks like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about calling comparison to another religious text topic "whataboutism". It's a useful comparison; the difference in coverage is a difference in degree, but not of kind.

I'm not convinced the current Template:Book of Mormon meets or exceeds the "fairly tightly defined" standard. It's noticeably longer and more sprawling than the biblical topic examples (which are closer in length to Template: Books of the Book of Mormon, Template:Figures in the Book of Mormon, and Template:Places in the Book of Mormon) and introduces pretty stretched relationships between topics, like having Book of Mormon monetary system and Sidney Rigdon in the same navbox.

As for the idea of turning Template:Book of Mormon into a horizontal navbox, it could look something like Template:BoM. (I just made it based on the existing Template:Book of Mormon, moving around a couple of things for organizational purposes, but I wouldn't consider the placement of links set in stone.)

Though to be frank, I still think it's too long, even as a horizontal navigation box, with a whopping ~160 links. I think the length of something like Template:Evangelical Protestantism in the United States, with closer to 100 links, is more navigable. Template:BoM2 presents a much more streamlined and readable alternative version that trims the Books, Persons, and Places, since there are sidebar navboxes for those. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a policy of treating similar articles alike, absolutely nothing is gained from such comparisons other than creating what is inherently a false balance because how the articles are is based on coverage not whether or not the topic is similar or comparable. Related to a single book is "fairly tightly defined" by any reasonable interpretation, its actually a lot more than "fairly". Why do you call ~160 whopping? Thats not so big, Template:BoM actually looks easier to navigate than BoM2 does because deleting major navigation links makes it less easy to navigate not more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLN, navigation boxes with a lot of links can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. It's a principle similar to MOS:OVERLINK. Even if "more links" technically means "more navigation", the excess of choices becomes overwhelming and confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at some point it does, but this one is neither overly busy or hard to read and use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]