Talk:Gila Valley Arizona Temple

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gila Valley Arizona Temple article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 6 September 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Gila Valley Arizona Temple. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Name[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Gila_Valley_Arizona.2C_and_temple_names for a discussion as to why "The" is an official part of the temple's name and included in the article's title. Shereth 13:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 21:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gila Valley Arizona Temple → The Gila Valley Arizona Temple – I realizes that this has been discussed before, (see here) but no consensus was reached and no change was made. However, I believe that it was leaning to including the word "The". Although I do not like the word "The" in the name of this article, the "official name" includes "The" (See Offical LDS Temple website and Offical LDS Newsroom). Additionally this isn't the only temple to use "The", See The Hague Netherlands Temple. I think it was incorrectly moved from The Gila Valley Arizona Temple by Eustress in November of 2011 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gila_Valley_Arizona_Temple&action=history here).--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was moved to "The Gila Valley Arizona Temple" concurrent with the linked discussion; as you have stated, it was moved to "Gila Valley Arizona Temple" without discussion last November. I see no compelling reason why it was moved at that time and see no reason why it should not be moved back to the full, if somewhat awkward, title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereth (talk • contribs)

Oppose Neither condition of WP:THE appears to be met here. The title indicates that the subject is a temple of a geographic location (Gila Valey Arizona) that does not employ "the" in its name. The meaning does not change by removing "the" nor is there any clear indication that "the" would be capitalized in running text. The example or The Hague Netherlands Temple is not terribly appropriate given the geographical reference is The Hague (whose reason for including "the" are exemplified in the reference naming convention.). I also noticed that no other temple (Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States)in the united states employs "the" in the title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry but you are incorrect. It meets the conditions at WP:THE. Just read the next line...

"These conditions are sometimes met if the page name is:

the title of a work or publication (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea, or The New York Times), or
the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company (e.g. The Beatles, The Invincibles, The Hershey Company), or
another official or commonly used proper name (e.g. The Hague, The Crown, The Nature Conservancy)."

Clearly it meets #2 and #3. The "official or commonly used name" and "the commonly used proper name" is "The Gila Valley Arizona Temple".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally as Shereth pointed out, it was decided back in August of 2009 that it meet WP:THE and the "The" should be included, but User:Eustress moved it without discussion in 2011. It should be moved back.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there is "sometimes", and I still fail to see why an exception is warranted here. If the geographical reference employed "the" I would be entirely in support. The key here is that the title does not and no other temples within the same categorical group employ "the" in the title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the geographical reference isn't really pertinent to this discussion, but rather the name of the subject of the article itself. ARTEST4ECHO has supplied ample evidence that the building's official name as presented on church documents includes "The" as part of the name. As you have pointed out yourself no other US temples use "The" as part of the name; the fact that this appears to be a unique case promulgated in numerous official sources seems to validate that its use is intentional rather than erroneous. As I pointed out in the previous discussion it's not our place to proofread or correct errors that the church may have made in the naming of this temple, nor is it our place to truncate part of the name because we feel it fits in a little better with the rest of them. Shereth 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the official name (that selected by the church) is almost irrelevant, it's which name is most common amongst reliable sources. Finding independent sources was not terribly easy. An Eastern Arizona Courier article employed "The" [1] as did KCSG [2]. Deseret News employed lowercase [3] [4] [5]. KSL is inconsistent and has employed both lowercase[6] [7] and upercase [8]. So my observations amongst independent media is Eastern Arizona Courier, KCSG employ "The", Deseret News does not employ "The" and KSL is inconsistent. The results are not convincing enough for me to be in support. I could be convinced is a number of other media outlets, once again not church related, were shown to employ the capitalization as a preference.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are incorrect. Per WP:The The official name is the only thing that is relevant.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say but official name is most certainly not the only , nor likely most important, factor that is relevant. Rather, its the name selected through reliable sources, hence the news article search above. Unless you can show that independent reliable sources are employing "the" widely you don't have my support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see both versions of the phraseology used when referring only to the location itself, so I think the official phraseology used by the temple's church (link) should be used here, which includes "The". I might also suggest renaming Gila_Valley_(Graham_County). —Eustress ^talk 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far; USGS just calls it Gila Valley. [9]. Shereth 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What dose the USGS calling the City a different name have anything to do with the name of the temple. The official name used "The".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absolutely no need for the definite article, whether it's in the official name or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So were supposed to ignore Wikipedia rules? Per WP:THE the Offical name is ALL that is relevant so it should be included.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clearly there's disagreement here over whether WP:THE conditions are met. Count me among those who think they're not. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has appeared that this situation is in a "no consensus" state currently. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 15:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.