WikiProject iconLatter Day Saint movement Template‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Two Latter Day Saint movement templates[edit]

Merged

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.

Since Template talk:Latter Day Saints already redirects here, I will open this discussion here.

At some point in the past two Latter Day Saint movement templates, ((Latter Day Saints)) and ((LDS)), did very different things. I have yet to figure out exactly what they did, but it appears to have been some kind of attempt to allow for multiple Latter Day Saint movement templates to be called out using only one template. (see TFD: Latter-day Saints)

However, at this point neither of these templates do what seemed to be intended purpose, nor do they follow WP:MOSLDS. ((LDS)) is a redirect to ((Latter Day Saints)), but the coding of ((Latter Day Saints)) only calls out for the use of ((Latter-day Saints)). So the net effect is ((LDS)) redirects to ((Latter Day Saints)) which redirects to ((Latter-day Saints)). (NOTE: While ((Latter Day Saint movement)) appears on the actual ((Latter Day Saints)) template page, the coding dose not pass ((Latter Day Saint movement)) on to any page using ((Latter Day Saints)). Therefore any page that calls out ((Latter Day Saints)) only gets ((Latter-day Saints)).)

After a little work, I fixed the few pages (10 or so) that used ((LDS)) and ((Latter Day Saints)) in the past, can changed it to the appropriate template, i.e any combination of ((Latter Day Saint movement)), ((Latter-day Saints)) and ((Community of Christ)).

At this point, if you check "Pages that link to "Template:Latter Day Saints" and "Pages that link to Template:LDS, you will see that that these two templates are now only used on Talk, Wikipedia and Sandbox type namespaces and these templates are no longer used on any articles. This means can do anything we want to them

I'm proposing the following:
  1. Redirect - Template:Latter Day Saints to a to Template:Latter Day Saint movement - Per WP:MOSLDS, the capitalization of the "D" and lack of "-" actually means something, so it would better fit WP:MOSLDS to have it redirect to Template:Latter Day Saint movement in case of future use.
  2. Keep - Template talk:Latter Day Saints as a redirect to Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement. Since Template talk:Latter Day Saints is already a redirect to Template talk:Latter Day Saint movement, which is weird as it goes to a different place then where the template redirect to, it should stay the way it is now.
  3. Redirect - Template:Lds (and talk page) to a redirect for Template:LDS (and talk page) - By doing this we eliminate a case where a "name-space collision can occur" as these two templates are case sensitive. Since "LDS" is the more appropriate capitalization, then Lds should be the redirect.

What dose everyone think?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support — well thought out reasoning; this is inline with the guidelines mentioned than current state. Thank you for taking the time to unravel the template mess. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems pretty uncontroversial. I've done it. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

"Mormon pornography" under culture?[edit]

I noticed that Mormon pornography is listed under "culture" on this template. I don't think it belongs there. It seems more a product of ex-Mormon culture than of Mormon culture. Similarly, Portrayal of Mormons in comics would not go under this heading, because it is describing how outsiders depict Mormons. Does anyone disagree? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are ex-Mormons not part of Mormon culture? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, could I ask you to slow down on adding new items to the template? The middle of a discussion about whether or not certain links should be there seems like a time for WP:DISCUSS, not a time for WP:BOLD. Moreover, adding the ex-Mormon link right now risks coming across as a retroactive attempt to shore up your position in this discussion. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And even if that were the case what would be the problem with any of that? While we're asking questions how did you come to find yourself on this page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also given the sections Portrayal of Mormons in comics#Mormon characters in comics 1950s–today and Portrayal of Mormons in comics#Comics by Mormon artists that does clearly belong under that heading, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is some crossover between portrayals of Mormons in literature and Mormon literature. I'm not really sure where it would belong so I am going to think about it some more. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with OP on trimming Mormon pornography from the template. This would be like having The Da Vinci Code (film) or great and abominable church in Template:Catholic Church footer. It's too niche and too narrow. I'm also not convinced the Mormon pornography page itself has enough substance to exist as a page. Searching the term on GoogleScholar yields not even a full page of hits, one of which is an article about the tenedentious use of the term "Mormon porn" on the Wayback Machine as an apparent smear of actor Guy Wilson. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No way to trim it from the template, at best you can get it moved from Culture to Related. If you want to challenge its notability go ahead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it makes more sense in related, if we insist on including it. Since this template has a lot in common with cataloging, I am going to ask my friend who catalogs anti-Mormon and Mormon materials if she has some ideas for a better sub-category than "related". Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm interested in the thoughts of Rachel Helps (BYU)'s cataloger friend, though I think whether there's a consensus insisting on including it is very up in the air.
Horse Eye's Back's claim that there is No way to trim it from the template; is confusing. The page isn't locked from editing. We could easily trim it from the template. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still thinking about it, but I think that Portrayal of Mormons in Comics and Mormon pornography would fit under a sub-category of Mormons in Popular Culture, if you believe that pornography is a part of culture. I'm not sure if I would put Mormons in Popular Culture in a larger category of "About Mormons" that would include Mormon studies as well (because Mormon studies is the study of Mormon history, while Mormon literature is about the thing itself, if that makes sense). I am going to keep thinking about it and see if I can think of anything better. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never come across an academic who believed that porn wasn't part of culture, have you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that while Mormon Studies includes the study of Mormon history it is not the the study of Mormon history, its an interdisciplinary field. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a "study and portrayal of Mormons" section, but I'm not totally satisfied with it. I'm open to your thoughts. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remain unconvinced "Mormon pornography" belongs in the template (I see no place for Nunsploitation in the Catholic Church footer or Template:Christianity footer). But I can see some value in bundling these pages on media about Mormons. A section title like "The Mormon image" might be fitting, perhaps, a la The Mormon Graphic Image, 1834–1914 (University of Utah Press, 1983) and The Mormon Image in the American Mind (Oxford University Press, 2013). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to be a little different, if we had a Nun navbox it would be included. This is not a navbox for the church or the religion, this is the page for the movement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I would still like to remove "Mormon pornography" from the template as well. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a non sequitur. You're the only one who has brought up censorship in this discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) and I have talked about this as a categorization matter. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So its just a coincidence that the only one being objected to is the porn one? I'm also still unsure what you're doing here besides stalking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edit pages on U. S. history, including the history of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. This template appears on pages that I've edited, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please WP:AGF of other editors. Related to that, your accusation of COI seems off the mark. This is a template for the Latter Day Saint movement. Rachel Helps (BYU) has a COI for the BYU Library that employs her. And the decision to trim Ex-Mormon wasn't an unreasonable one. Exvangelical doesn't appear on Template:Christianity footer or Template:Evangelical Protestantism in the United States. The difference you draw between nunsploitation and Mormon pornography also isn't persuasive; they're both media largely made by non-practitioners deploying the image of practitioners. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does. But how in this case did you end up here? On the talk page... To add timely edits to this discussion. The difference would appear to be that most of the people who make Mormon pornography are part of the ex-mormon subculture (which is a Mormon subculture, its as much part of the movement as anything else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also note that the second template you cite, Evangelical Protestantism in the United States, is currently only a list of churches... It doesn't have a culture section at all and if it did it would definitely include Exvangelical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trimming the template[edit]

As I've spent more time with this and other templates, the balloon-like size of it has increasingly dawned on me. There are nearly 160 links in the template as it presently stands. While essays are not binding policy, they can provide advice that is persuasive and useful; I think this essay about navigation boxes is both: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space and a large template has limited navigation value. The current template is so over-exhaustive a reader can get lost in what is, effectly, a "sea of blue". As the essay asks, Would a reader really want to go from A to B? Does a link to second anointing really serve a Wikipedia user reading about Joseph Smith III?

Additionally, the links overwhelmingly favor topics pertaining only to one denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (The "Doctrines and practices" section even links not to a page about the doctrines and practices of the Latter Day Saint movement, but of Latter-day Saints specifically!) It's understandable there's more Wikipedia pages about that denomination, because there's more secondary source coverage of it—but is it really useful for this template to have so much overlap with the existing template:Latter-day Saints?

I propose a more focused template that refrains from unnecessary overlap with other templates and concentrates on highlighting what will be of the highest utility for a cross-denominational template about the overall movement: comparative reading about various denominations and leaders. I have created a potential new version in a sandbox. What do editors think of this? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A navbox with 160 items is fine if it creates a comprehensible and understandable map of Wikipedia's collection on the subject. I don't know enough about the topic to know if the navbox flows well, and would guide a reader through the subject material in a way that gives them an accurate overview without gaps which can be filled by existing articles. As to your question, if the Second anointing is an LDS topic which is covered by Wikipedia then it belongs here somewhere, the key is "where" and if placement is accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know the topic very well, from my editing on Wikipedia and from training in the history of American Christianities, and the existing navbox with 160 links is overwhelming and confusing. It's hard to find anything in it because there's so much and so disjointedly organized. Mormon fundamentalism and Mormonism and Nicene Christianity are juxtaposed as if both are foundational to the Latter Day Saint movement (when I'd argue both are quite niche), the Restoration Branches categorized under history when the article doesn't even have a history section, a bibliography of critical books about Mormonism being "Related" but not under "the Mormon image" (academic term for perceptions of Mormonism), so much of this being redundant with template:Latter-day Saints (and relatively distinct to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints as a singular denomination), etc. It'd be like having a navigation box about Europe but 80% of it links to England articles. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you have misinterpreted that essay... It isn't even a large template yet and we haven't gotten close to cramming things with limited relevance into it (it has maybe 1 in 100 LDS movement related articles on it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than look at the ratio of navigation box links to Latter Day Saint movement topic articles, I'd invite looking at the relevance of each link to the overall Latter Day Saint movement. If a user is learning about this religious movement, getting an introductory educational experience, how relevant is an article like Adam–God doctrine (extant only in some denominations of Mormon fundamentalism) or son of perdition (extant only in the Brighamite strain of the tradition)? If I'm reading the Joseph Smith III or Christian fellowships of "the Remnants" movement articles, links to other leaders, to other denominations, other texts considered sacred—those links make more sense than links to topics that are niche rather than introductory. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we making such assumptions about the user? Whatever they are they won't be monolithic. You seem to be suggesting what happens when an article is in multiple navboxes. That is actually encouraged until about ten navboxes or so. If you're on Book of Mormon for example you will get this Template:Religious books navbox. If you want a navbox with a number of relevant texts maybe make a navbox for new religious movement texts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In context, other texts considered sacred refers to various texts of the Latter Day Saint movement, like the Book of the Law of the Lord (significant to Strangism) or the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (significant to Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ). This is very telling, however: the existing navigation box is so bloated and overstuffed that the various sacred texts linked didn't even register. This goes toward why I propose trimming this navigation box down to something more manageable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is that telling? Mormonism is a niche new religious movement not a mainstream or deeply historical religious movement. Why would a generalized template for religious texts include their minor texts in addition to the Book of Mormon? Not being due one place doesn't say anything about whether or not its due somewhere else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way you've summarized what I've said suggests there's a misunderstanding. This subthread about whether there are multiple navigation boxes on an article is, anyway, ancillary to whether this navigation box is overstuffed. I maintain it is too long and has too many links. It is difficult to navigate. Its bloatedness makes it less useful to a reader. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the difference between being too long and having too many links? I don't find it difficult to navigate, what makes it difficult for you? I also don't think its bloated, its only medium sized, objectively it is not large, so that doesn't see to be an argument that stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not against moving Son of perdition (Mormonism) to the "Brighamite" navbox. Adam–God doctrine should stay because its part of the common history of the movement, even if its only extent in some groups now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories