Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement: edit · history · watch · refresh

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8

[edit] Style Revision

The style guide stands in need of revision. As it is currently, it is very incorrect. Many other denominations that have broken off from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the years are being bundled into "Mormonism" and the "Latter-day Saints." Currently the tern Latter-day Saints refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and "Mormonism" is a term that should describe a combinaton of doctrines, culture, and lifestyle, as it pertians to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the Associated Press Styleguide, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” Please refer to the official style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide), and understand that the other denominations are not part of the Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibitor (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Mormon" needs to be clarified. But Wikipedia doesn't exist to define things but to collect and organize information about a subject. There are several of the "break offs" that use the term "Mormon" for their membership, so we can't declare that this should be exclusively applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, I have made repeated attempts (without success) to get a definite list as to which denominations use the "Mormon" for their membership.
However, I think that you have an incorrect concept about the difference between Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint. The former is used on Wikipedia (apparently derived from scholarly works) as an umbrella for all of the denominations that have descended from the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The later is used exclusively for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a clear distinction made by regular contributors. — Val42 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Day Saint RfC open

There's an RfC open at Talk:Lost Boys of Polygamy. They ask whether the article should exist, and if so whether the title is appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 23:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] restorationists in the press

interestingly I ran across this article today while reading the news on my centro. Aspen Times refers to LDS as restorationists. Trödel 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Omni doesn't have any references except to the Book of Mormon. We should be able to find some other works to reference. This also applies to all of the other articles about books in the Book of Mormon, except for First Book of Nephi and Third Nephi which have one each. We should be able to find plenty of additional material from LDS authors. Even some anti-Mormon writers have probably written things about these books. There should even be some from others not of these diametrically-opposed sides who have presented at LDS conferences. — Val42 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using subpages of article talk pages to store information for templates

Seeing no mention of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Transcluding article content from talk pages, I'm posting a note here. There are a number of editors - myself included - who think it is absolutely incorrect to use subpages of article talk pages in the way that they appear to be used by this WikiProject; one editor has mentioned an interest in getting such pages deleted via MfD if they are not moved to template namespace. I think a planned migration would be in the best interests of everyone; I suggest further discussion be continued at the Village pump. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Derricott

There currently is a AfD for Kent Derricott, an entertainer who is well know in Japan as a gaijin tarento, who is also well known there for being 'Mormon' (one of the two "Kento-san" who learned Japanese while serving a mission in Japan, the other being Kent Gilbert). The article is just a stub, which naturally needs expanding, but not sure if the AfD is justified. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney RfC

There is currently a discussion regarding how much weight to give the subject's religious affiliation at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. Any input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series)

In the second paragraph of this article's introduction it reads: "The premise of the series takes themes from Chariots of the Gods and Mormon theology." Shouldn't this mean that we ought to include this article and also fit it into one of the LDS-related categories? __meco (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

The editor Descartes1979 reverts 2 Theories in favour of Joseph Smith's own account. I think that this is anti-mormon bias because he wants to reduce the Theories which are in favour of Joseph Smith and at the same time lets the other theories stay on this article. Compare the versions of this article, my version is Origin of the Book of Mormon 1 and his version is Origin of the Book of Mormon 2

at the same time he wants to revert nearly all linguistic forms in the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article. Compare the versions of this article, my version is Linguistics and the Book of Mormon 1 and his version is Linguistics and the Book of Mormon 2. I think that this is a very obvious example of anti-mormon bias.84.146.201.29 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • To the anon editor - several of us have been waiting patiently for constructive discussion on your edits at the talk pages of the articles you note. Please join us, we are willing to come to a consensus, but your edits have amounted to plagiarism, and revert warring. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon B. Hinckley

With the recent death of Gordon B. Hinckley, that page will need extra attention to combat the vandalism that often occurs on current events topics. Hopefully members of this project will be able to assist. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also there is a Wikinews article about the death (found here) that could use some looking-in on. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible in Mormonism

I've noticed that most of the articles on the Bible or books of the Bible say anything about the LDS view of the Bible. It's important that others know that we revere and study the Bible, especially after Elders Ballard and Nelson gave talks on the importance of the Bible these last two General Conferences. I think we should add a section to each of those articles explaining the LDS viewpoint. If necessary, we could also make a new article specifically about the LDS Bible. What do you think? Anyone want to help? -Tea and crumpets (t c) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tea, it would seem a separate article on Bible (LDS) would not be helpful. The LDS bible is the same bible that exists for the rest of Christianity; there is no difference between the two. The LDS have a preference for the King James version, but that is as far as it goes. I would be happy to help, let me know where you are starting and I will assist as I can. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The preference for the King James version by the LDS Church naturally only extends to the English language, and there are LDS specific chapter heading, footnotes, dictionaries, and indexes, especially notable in the latest version printed by the church. It might be an interesting article if someone described both that, as well as the history of usage/official adoption of various versions of the Bible, including in languages other than English, for the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If, as you all indicated, there isn't a specific, different translation of most of the books of the Old and New Testament used by Mormons, then there probably wouldn't be any particularly obvious reason to include reference to the LDS in most of the articles about the Bible, barring specific unusual interpretations. It would help to know exactly which books of the Bible are included by the LDS. I'm guessing, based on the use of the King James, it's more or less the "Protestant" Bible? However, if any of you were to want to create a separate article on the use of the Bible by the LDS, I can't imagine anyone would object, provided there were the requisite reliable sources and enough content to justify a separate article, and I assume both of those factors can be easily met. John Carter (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The English version of the Bible published by the LDS church is a standard King James version with specialized footnotes which cross reference to the other LDS scriptures (D&C, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon). In addition, there are included in the footnotes comparative verses from the "Joseph Smith translation," or "Inspired Version." These notes, however, do not impinge upon the primary King James text, which reads exactly like it would from any other non-LDS printed version of the King James Bible. All distinctive differences related to the main text are confined completely to the footnotes. In other languages, a standard (non-LDS) Bible is typically used. It would be of interest in some article to illustrate those unique aspects of the English language LDS printing of the Bible. Bochica (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) Hello John, it is true that we use the KJV of the Bible; however the teaching on the Apocrypha may be interesting to you. Joseph Smith stated the following:

Apocrypha. March 9, 1833—Having come to that portion of the ancient writings called the Apocrypha, I received the following revelation:
  1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
  2. There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
  3. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
  4. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5. And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom,
  5. And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
It is left to the individual member to study the Apocrypha or not. This is found in the History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 322. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how this applies to other languages, but at least in Portuguese, the João Ferreira de Almeida translation of the Bible is the "authorized" version used in Portuguese-speaking congregations (aka wards & branches). Since there have been several native Portuguese-speaking general authorities who have served as the Area President of the Brazil Area, this is pretty much official doctrine for the LDS Church, although I can't give an exact reference here. I did hear it directly from Helio Carmargo (the first Brazilian called as a Seventy), but that isn't a citeable reference. Interestingly enough, this edition of the Bible supposedly was based upon the KJV, and the Portuguese Wikipedia reference above lists the Textus Receptus bibical text as the basis of the translation... also used in the KJV. I don't know how much official emphasis upon the Textus Receptus has been given by the LDS Church, but that does seem to be a very common thread among other language editions of the Bible used by the LDS Church as well. Food for thought at least.
One other interesting aspect of LDS acceptance of apocryphal writings should also be mentioned, so far as the LDS Church has a significantly expanded cannon above and beyond mainstream Christianity. One book in particular, Sefer haYashar (midrash) (allegedly the Book of Jasher), was referenced by Joseph Smith (this is in the article) and has found its way into LDS theology in a number of ways. More could be said about this topic as well in an LDS context, but I wouldn't push it too hard. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laie Hawaii Temple

Peer review request found here. Please help. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Mormon

This article's quality is deteriorating drastically. Large sections have been removed, the lead is terrible now. This article just needs help from people who know what they're doing. I'm beginning to wonder if this project has anyone who knows how to do anything other than argue about POV issues! Referencing and layout too often seem to be thrown out the window in the name of the all-powerful POV. The fact is, 90% of your POV problems would be solved if you actually cited your sources half as religiously as you argue over POV! Wrad (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dedicating a country?

The article on Dieter F. Uchtdorf contains the following line: "On May 12, 2006 Uchtdorf dedicated Slovakia for the preaching of the gospel." This has a very odd ring to it, at least to my ears. Can we rephrase this, or put it in more context? Alai (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Before formal missionary work is authorized for a specific region of the world, a formal prayer/ceremony is often performed... usually officiated by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve... for the specific country or political unit where the activity will be taking place. This is usually followed (but not always) by the establishment of an LDS mission for that country, or at least the formal introduction of LDS missionaries. This dedicatory prayer is recorded in the official records of the LDS Church, and is usually a date of note in historical accounts about that country for at least the LDS Church members that live in that country. Prior to the dedication, formal approval from the government of that country is usually obtained for permission to begin proseltyzing in that country, if such permission is required, or some sort of formal legal registration has also taken place.
As many of these dedicatory prayers are of significant historical vintage, it is certainly noteworthy that somebody currently alive was one of those who officiated at a specific country... so yes, this is something worthy of inclusion into an article like this. Hopefully the former communist government attitude in Slovakia toward religion should be a reason for why this is something of a relatively recent event, while the dedicatory prayer for England took place in the middle of the 19th Century, to give an example. I don't know how to rephrase this better, but I hope this gives some background information for what is happening. And yes, this sentence is very much LDS catch phrases and should be reworded for a more general audience. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a page

Secret combination, a page within the scope of this project is going to have to be moved to make room for a disambiguation page. What would an appropriate name for the new page be? The other page will be Secret Combination (song). It is a song by Kalomoira. Grk1011 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review : Golden plates

Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene England

Hi, I'm sorry I don't know all that much about WikiProjects, but I just created a stub for Eugene England (I feel that he is definitely notable enough in the LDS tradition to warrant a wikipedia page) and I put the {{LDSproject}} boilerplate on it. I don't know if I was supposed to ask about that first or what, but I just was bold and did it. I put it on the list of pages requesting assessment, I'm hoping to add more info to it as time goes on, and I'm asking others (including whoever reads this) to contribute anything they know about the entry for this great thinker. Let me know if I screwed anything up and/or how I can help improve his page from a simple stub. Thanks. biggins (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is excluding Haun's Mill from 'List of massacres' biased?

Is there a reason that the Haun's Mill massacre is excluded from the List of massacres article? Not including it, but including the Mountain Meadows massacre seems to smack of bias. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably just missed. I've added it to the list. — Val42 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How about List of terrorist incidents? It lists MMM but not Haun's Mill. Same with List of battles and other violent events by death toll, Historical persecution by Christians & List of United States military history events. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added it to the above articles. Good catch. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Haun's Mill and the MMM really a "terrorist incident"? I think both incidents fall better under the definition of genocide. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW - Haun's Mill was not persecution by Christians, but was rather motivated by local political and economic friction. I removed Haun's Mill from Historical persecution by Christians. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I also removed Haun's Mill from List of United States military history events - it was perpetrated by the Missouri Militia, a paramilitary force at best, and not regular U.S. Military. Notice how it was the only action by a militia in the entire article? --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Descartes, I saw that you forgot to remove Mountain Meadows from the same sites, so I helped you out. I would disagree with you on Haun's Mill; it happened because they were Mormons not because they were just normal settlers. Attempting to limit the scope to such a narrow perspective is not supported by any reputable historian. MMM does not fit the definition of genocide; one could argue that Haun's Mill was a cultural group, but that still seems to only fit the technical definition.
It would have been more helpful if you would have deleted both at the same time, but to only delete Haun's Mill does not lend a lot of evidence to your objectivity. I am sure it was just an oversight. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right Storm Rider, I didn't realize the MMM was in the article Religious persecution by Christians, and I agree that it should not be there. I also agree that MMM was not a military event. However, the Utah War was, so I am going to add some of the info back to List of United States military history events - but I will exclude the MMM. Thanks for the catch. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon

Some people want to merge Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon with some other article. This would be a great and tragic mistake. Please vote against it. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with Das Baz (I proposed the merge) - the content in Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon and certain sections of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon are identical. There is a rampant problem with the articles about Mormonism in that there are hundreds of disparate articles on obscure topics, that are not linked in a coherent way. I strongly believe they need to be consolidated so that people who have an interest in Mormon topics can find the information more easily. The Linguistics article gets a lot of traffic, and is referenced by the main Book of Mormon article among others. That is where the information in the Egyptian names article belongs (which is where, by the way, information on Hebrew and Greek names in the Book of Mormon already are). I just don't understand why it would be a "tragic mistake", and have yet to hear a good argument supporting that view. Das, are you sure you aren't overreacting a bit? --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because I have seen too many cases where a "merge" is just a first step towards total deletion of the facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the merge is complete, I hope that you will see that we have not deleted the content. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daughter of Jared

I came across Daughter of Jared today. I don't think that it will ever be anything other than a stub. Check it out and make any comments on that article's page. — Val42 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree - I added a proposed deletion flag.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Likewise I also proposed the deletion of Akish. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Mormon articles

The following text was just added to the Nephi article:

"The historicity of the story of Nephi is not generally accepted by non-LDS historians or archaeologists.

This type of sentence is being added piecemeal to the Book of Mormon articles. I think that we need to add this (or something similar) to all of the Book of Mormon articles, or remove it from all of them. I think that the compromise that will be reached will be somewhere in between, but it needs to be done. The compromise that I suggest is, "X is, according to the Book of Mormon, ...." — Val42 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators for the Christianity projects

I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinator?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I created the article Technology and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because some people think that the church does not support technology and confuse the church with the Amish. I need your help to expand this article because it is still a stub. Please help me to expand this article.Cmmmm 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who thinks that - do you have a reference? I think the article is not nearly notable enough. I have proposed a merge of this content to the main LDS church article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews & Latter Day Saints reporting

Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews might benefit from some ongoing assistance by people with subject matter expertise on the Latter Day Saint movement, such as those found at this WikiProject. Recent interesting statements in related news stories there include (emphasis mine):

-- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LDS project bot

I am thinking of creating a bot to help with a few of the common tasks related to this project, and I would like to hear what you think. Below I am listing a few of the tasks that it could do. Please add other repetitive tasks that you think would be good to include in its functionality as well:

  1. Change references to LDS scriptures into the {{lds}} template.
  2. Periodically update the list of pages at /Articles needed
  3. Add navigation templates to new articles
  4. Add LDS project tags to new articles

--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Nauvoo, Illinois & Nauvoo, Illinois

History of Nauvoo, Illinois has been split out of the history section of Nauvoo, Illinois into a new article. History of Nauvoo, Illinois needs a better intro, and the history section of Nauvoo, Illinois needs at least a summary paragraph about the history of the city. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hofmann edit

I'm not really a member of this project, but I was looking at this edit of the Mark William Hofmann article. It makes some claim about finding some papers somewhere related to the case and claims Church leaders didn't let authorities know about their discovery, blah, blah, blah. I didn't get it all. I thought someone ought to look at it who knows how to balance it out. The ref the editor gave is to an anti-Mormon website, so I don't think it's the most reliable source of information. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polygamy in the United States

Recent changes here use Mormon in reference to the movement, the LDS Church, and the FLDS and related offshoots. Needs a real copy edit and some balance. Also, given the title, needs information on US polygamists not affiliated with the LDS movement. WBardwin (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any polygamist groups in the US not affiliated with the LDS movement? I don't think there are, but I could be wrong. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There's House of Yahweh. — Val42 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism in the LDS

There has been some recent discussion at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum page about what to do with all the articles relating to baptism in the various Christian churches. A list of the articles invovled can be found at User:Pastordavid/workpage. Some of these articles relate specifically to the LDS churches. I think we would all welcome any input from members of this project regarding what if anything to do with the articles, which might include keeping them separate, merging them, or otherwise dealing with them. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject in Spanish

Hi! I come from Spanish Wikiproject of LDS. We have got an idea there about translation. We can translate articles onto the rest on languages, I mean, for example, translate Nukuʻalofa Tonga Temple onto Tongan language and the rest of articles the same. What do you think? For do this we need help to say it on the other Wikipedias. I'll try to translate onto Catalonian and Occitanian. Please, help us with this. --Jeneme (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. It sounds like English isn't your native language, so if you need help with translating just let me know. I'd try to translate them to Spanish myself, but the last time I tried that on Wikipedia, someone thought my translation was "espantoso". — Val42 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My native language is Spanish (my English is very poor as you see). In Spanish LDS project we're doing this. Rjgalindo and Lokj translate articles from English to Spanish, and then Chabi correct the mistakes from translation. So, when you translate an article into Spanish, tell it to Chabi, he'll help you and, of course, tell it to me. --Jeneme (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
These folks in the Spanish wiki are doing a fantastic job, so far I know none are LDS. I try to keep up with them, but my main focus is medicine in Spanish, which is «espantoso». Now they're moving into other languages and leading the project there. So whatever you can do to help in any of the languages would be an enormous contribution. Even if your spanish isn't too sharp as it once probably was, come stop by our discussion pages and we'll touch it up. Un abrazo, Bobjgalindo (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)