Template talk:MFleaders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] List inclusion
I understand the idea of this template, but the "early Mormon leaders" section needs some clarification in order to convey that those men were not leaders of the FLDS, but instead are claimed as FLDS leaders by the FLDS themselves. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- This template deals with more than the FLDS. It deals with all fundamentalist Mormons. (You may be aware of that, but I'm unclear from your statement whether you are using that abbreviation to refer to fundamentalist Mormons or whether you are using it in the normal sense to refer to the FLDS Church.) Fundamentalist Mormons recognise these early leaders as "true" prophets, since the movement didn't start until after their tenures.
Since the template is dealing exclusively with the beliefs of fundamentalist Mormons, I personally don't see where the problem arises, butI do understand that confusion could result. Adding a simple explanation of "prior to the start of the fundamentalist movement" of something like that should clear up any confusion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)- I've added some (hopefully helpful) explanatory footnotes. I'll leave it up to you, TrustTruth, to remove the disputed template you added if these explanations satisfy you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, apparently footnotes don't work when on templates because the {reflist} function uses the templates from the article contents of the page the template is placed on. I'll try to convert these footnotes to mere text rather than using the footnote function. Sorry about the inconvenience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- So I fixed that problem. It's not ideal, but better than before. If anyone else has a better solution, please feel free to try to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good. I also clarified which are "recognized" and which are "disputed" in the titles. Removed template. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that was also a good change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've added some (hopefully helpful) explanatory footnotes. I'll leave it up to you, TrustTruth, to remove the disputed template you added if these explanations satisfy you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
