Page 1 of 1
Temples list in PAF out of date?
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:13 am
I was recently entering data in PAF and found it didn't like 'MANHA' as a temple. A kind familysearch help-desk person claimed the correct entry was "NYORK", but my temple cards are pretty clearly marked "MANHA". Are those temple designations supposed to match? And how do you update the temples list in PAF?
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:31 am
According to this page
MANHA is for Manhattan, New York. NYORK is for Harrison, New York.
When I saw this come up before, PAF will complain about codes it doesn't know, but it will accept it. You might poke around and see if there's a file in there somewhere that can be hacked, er, updated.
Temple List IS outdated
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:03 am
The is an article in the PAF 5.2 Help system that is entitled "The list of temple codes does not list the temple that you need". Possible solutions mentioned arer:
"The list of temples codes contains the codes for all temples that were completed or announced when the software was released. Before you assume that the temple is not on the list. you should rad the entire list. The temple code may be different from what you expected.
If the temple code is not on the list. You can type it into the field"
MANHA is the correct code but it is not on the list. So it would need to be typed in. I'm not aware of a way to hack into PAF to modify the list.
Does an official updated list exist?
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:38 pm
Is there an updated list of temple codes available from an official source? Google finds a few apparently unofficial lists, but I couldn't find anything at lds.org or familysearch.org. If an updated list (continually updated) were available from an official source, that would help with at least some of the potential confusion? Could somebody with connections bug somebody in a position to publish a list?
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:10 pm
gordon wrote:MANHA is the correct code but it is not on the list. So it would need to be typed in. I'm not aware of a way to hack into PAF to modify the list.
rmrichesjr wrote:Is there an updated list of temple codes available from an official source? Google finds a few apparently unofficial lists, but I couldn't find anything at lds.org or familysearch.org. If an updated list (continually updated) were available from an official source, that would help with at least some of the potential confusion? Could somebody with connections bug somebody in a position to publish a list?
I used the 'ask a question' feature at familysearch.org and asked whether/where an updated list might be available from an official source. In just a few minutes, I got a reply that I should bring up PAF, go to the 'edit individual' screen, double click on the arrow key for 'Temple' to get the list. Perhaps PAF downloads an updated list from a Church server. Has anyone run wireshark while bringing up PAF and going to this list? That should tell us where it's getting the info. Or, perhaps it is necessary to download and reinstall PAF from time to time to get an updated list.
At least running PAF in Wine on Linux, I had to single-click on the arrow icon to get the list. I see Helsinki, Finland and Sacramento California, the two most recent operating temples according to the chronological list at lds.org. However, I don't see a code spelled MANHA. Gordon, are you sure MANHA is the correct code? PAF says NYORK is the code for New York, New York.
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:26 pm
Datapoint: The PAF exe is dated 7/17/2002. The Manhattan temple was announced on 8/7/2002. All of the temples dedicated since the Manhattan temple were announced in 2000 or 2001 and are on PAF's list.
I installed WireShark, but see no network traffic when I do as was suggested to update the list.
Added datapoint: The Kiev Ukraine temple was announced in 1998 and has not been completed. It's in PAF's list.
I believe it's been stated before that PAF's list is hard-coded and not updatable. It's list of temples were all known temples at the time it was created (including announced). All datapoints so far seem to point to that conclusion.