Talk:Church Websites

Excellent compilation, Alan. Thanks. Lindsayre 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sites

There are additional Church sites that could be added to this list. See [1] for a more complete list.

Country Sites

Would it be appropriate to include a table for the offical Country Sites? --Steve 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that would be unnecessary and a maintenance headache. The link you provided is to a page that gives a great set of well-organized links that we would be hard pressed to improve upon. It would be helpful to provide link to that page somehow in this article, but I would vote against duplicating the entire table. -- Aebrown 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I made my best stab at organization, but I'm not so confident I made a great choice in the last section: "Sites that redirect to other sites." It's helpful to know understand this distinction in certain cases, but it's not an immediately obvious organizational principle that helps users find sites. It will be easy for people to miss sites in that section (as we have already seen).

But then again, it does really seem that these are lesser entries. While they are registered domains or subdomains, they simply point you to some place on or that you could get to several other ways. They don't feel like a different site, but just like a shortcut.

I did find that the first section was getting really long at first, and when I split out these redirection sites, I ended up with two sections that were more manageable, and that is helpful, I think. In any case, I would welcome a discussion and suggestions as to how to improve this. -- Aebrown 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure an exhaustive list is necessary. Should we just focus on sites that clerks would use? Lindsayre 16:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This list was initially prompted by a discussion on the LDS Tech forum regarding which sites could be added to the Additional Web Resources area of LUWS. Depending on the needs and preferences of a particular ward or stake, this could easily include music, family history, employment, etc. So I don't think we should limit ourselves to clerk sites. There is indeed the danger of the list getting out of hand, however, so we should be careful not to broaden the scope too much. I'm just not sure what the proper boundaries are. -- Aebrown 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we include folders within websites?

The Church must have dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of folders within websites that cover certain topics. A recent addition to the website list ( fits in this category. As I was creating the list, I considered this class of URL and rejected it for inclusion. I only include actual domains and subdomains (except for YouTube, which is a special case in many ways).

The particular new addition is one that can be easily be accessed from -- in fact, it is available from the home page of (Serving in the Church > Mission and Service Opportunities). I really don't look forward to the prospect of adding these hundreds of folders to our list -- I think it will be distracting from the purpose of the list. I would vote to remove that item and nip this potential expansion in the bud. -- Aebrown 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I can see some examples where I included sites that are simply folders, and are not domains or subdomains. These would include and But these totally act like separate sites, require authentication, and are not accessible from within the normal navigation of So I would soften my definition somewhat to include such sites, but I still think we should not include folders of that can be navigated to normally. So I removed the entry. -- Aebrown 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tips for adding entries

When users want to add new entries, here are some guidelines that might be helpful:

  1. Don't add folders of websites that already exist in the list, unless those folders act like different web sites. Examples:
    • Do not add: (this is simply a shortcut to an area on
    • OK to add: (this is the Missionary Recommendation System, is not accessible from, and requires authentication)
  2. The LUWS column may be tricky to fill in for a new entry if you are not a LUWS administrator. But if you are simply adding a new subdomain to an existing site, you can copy the LUWS column for the main domain. For example, if you are adding, and you see a "Yes" by, go ahead and put a Yes by LUWS keys on only the main domain name to determine if a URL is permitted. But if you are adding a new domain and can't determine if it works in LUWS, just put a question mark in that column and someone will eventually fill it in.
  3. Please leave two blank lines between the level 2 headings. Without the second line, the bottom of the table in the section above crowds the heading of the next section. Or I suppose if you feel really strongly that this is non-standard, you could "fix" all of them. But do not remove the second line in a section or two, as that creates an inconsistent look -- it should be "all or nothin'" (h/t Oscar Hammerstein II).

-- Aebrown 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Alan for your tips/guidelines. I can understand why folders should not be added to the list. Inadvertently I have been guilty of causing blank lines to be removed. I believe this has occurred due the browser I have been using (Google Chrome) and was not intentional. --Steve 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Into my head just popped an idea as to how the blank lines are being inadvertently deleted. If you edit a section, rather than the whole article, the MediaWiki editor removes the extra blank line. I don't think there's anything you can do about it, if you choose to edit a section. I really doubt that it has anything to do with a particular browser. To fix it, we can:
  1. Hope no one edits sections, and restore the deleted blank line if they do.
  2. Add a <br /> code at the end of each table to create the extra space.
  3. Revert to the standard of only one blank line after a section, and quit worrying about the somewhat crowded spacing.
I think I would vote for #2. #1 is a maintenance headache, and for this page, #3 really does look crowded. -- Aebrown 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many Administrative sites removed?

Mcdanielca removed many administrative sites from the list. I certainly agree with most of those removals; most of the removed sites were for particular Church departments, or were obsolete, or did not have very broad usage. I see the note that has been added saying that "Please avoid adding sites that are role-specific and contain sensitive information." But if that were taken literally, we would have to remove CDOL,,, and most if not all of the others.

But I would argue for the restoration of some of these sites on the list:

  1. Missionary Recommendation System. This is used nearly as broadly as CDOL -- stake presidents, bishops, and both stake and ward clerks and executive secretaries are generally involved in this process.
  2. Temple Recommend Activation. This is used by multiple people in each stake.
  3. Official Communication Library. This is mentioned separately in the Official communications article; since it is only used by one person per stake, I don't feel as strongly about this one, but I would still vote for its inclusion.

I would also question some of the other sites. These don't seem to work at all:


and this one seems to be obscure and even less broadly useful than some other sites that were deleted:


-- Aebrown 21:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alan, we have the go ahead to keep the Temple Recommend Activation Site on the list. The items that don't work should obviously be deleted. Mcdanielca 19:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this research, Cassie. I see that you went ahead and restored three sites and deleted two. I took the liberty of removing, since it is clearly labeled as a department intranet and thus has no general use. I also made changes for the new and sites. -- Aebrown 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of the sites

Though the sections are nicely divided, the list of sites in each section seems almost randomly ordered. I'm thinking of putting, for example, all of the domains together, and all of the domains together etc (within each section of course). Thoughts? --Techgurufloyd 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I reorganized the general sites section like I'm thinking... Comments? Like? Dislike? --Techgurufloyd 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I like what you've done with the general sites section. I did a similar thing a while back to the last section (sites that redirect...), and I think it's a lot more usable. For that section, I would vote against grouping the domains together as you were suggesting; I don't think that's a strong enough organizational principle. I would prefer to just stick with the alphabetical order it is in now.
But some of the other sections could use some organization. This list just sort of grew; since there was no clear organization, people have just tossed in sites wherever they felt like. The result does appear somewhat random because of that. -- Aebrown 17:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This page was last modified on 9 July 2012, at 16:09.

Note: Content found in this wiki may not always reflect official Church information. See Terms of Use.