Talk:David A. Bednar

Free photo of Elder Bednar in a suit and tie?

I'd like to ask this once again: Does anyone have a free picture of Elder Bednar wearing a suit and tie? I'm concerned that some non-LDS, not being familiar with how LDS leaders normally dress, may look at the current photo (showing him speaking at a university commencement and wearing an academic robe) and come to the mistaken conclusion that he's wearing some sort of Mormon clerical garb (analogous to what a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister might wear during one of their religious services). I know there was another photo of Elder Bednar some time ago, but it apparently turned out to be copyrighted and was removed. Richwales (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:DavidABednar.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DavidABednar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

S-box

I don't understand what the issue with including the comment that there was a name change in the s-box. Otherwise the different titles would need to be split because one title ends when the other was created. Not everyone know that the name change occurred and the S-box needs to make that clear.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what is meant by the different titles would need to be split - they already are as they table has been modified, which is great. As my note in the edit summary indicated, it is far more than a name change, it can be seen as the table is done and people will have read about it, or can read about it, in plenty of places within this or associated articles. It just adds extra info that doesn't need to clutter an already busy box. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "Clutter". Other pages use {{s-new}} and {{S-non}} to denote name changes. For example:

This is how the page would look like this if it were done like most I have seen. I was trying to eliminated the need for an additional line with the inclusion of some kind of note explaining that the campus changed, whatever it is. Then we can eliminate an entire row, but there needs to be some kind of note.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs)

If you don't like "Renamed" then give me something you do like. "Campus changed to", or anything else.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If the concern is trying to minimize space and eliminate a line, the options won't make a great deal of difference. Whether it's split as currently shown or as in the example you've provided, not a lot different. I actually think it's fine as currently shown, but also could go with example above. Keeping them together, as the article currently shows, may help make the transition more apparent. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with ChristensenMJ: the current wording of the succession box is less confusing and far less cluttered. If my opinion matters, I say we should leave it as it is. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David A. Bednar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511043637/http://www.byui.edu/president/presbio.html to http://www.byui.edu/president/presbio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Profession?

The lede paragraph mentions that he is an "educator by profession." This isn't entirely correct. It is true he was an educator by profession through his prior work as a university instructor and administrator. Since then, however, his profession has changed to his now full-time, paid theological work in the governing councils of the Church. He is no longer a professional "educator." He is a professional church administrator. I propose an edit be made that completely strikes the sentence about him being an "educator by profession."Dakotacoda (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)