Template talk:LDS Temple

Conversion to the template namespace

The creation of this page was discussed at the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 18#Transcluding article content from talk pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trödel (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Status

This template, or rather the sub-page templates, seem to be working correctly after being moved from the Talk namespace. Here's the todo list:

• Move each temples "Talk:/data" page here
• Update List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use the moved data instead of "Talk:/data" pages
• Update Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use the moved data instead of "Talk:/data" pages
• Update all templates that reference the "Talk:/data" pages (infobox, LDS Temple lists, etc.)
• Update each temple page to use the data here instead of the "Talk:/data" page
• Update each new data sub-page, changing {{BASEPAGENAME}} to show the main temple page instead - also add Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement templates
• Delete the "Talk:/data" redirects - they won't be needed anymore
• Update project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples) with new instructions

 – jaksmata 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT concerns

An editor at the Village pump has expressed concerns that some content of the temple templates violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. Specifically, information on the cafeterias has been mentioned as needing to be removed, and I'm inclined to agree. Other data elements from these templates that should be removed need to be discussed here in order to establish consensus. – jaksmata 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is accomplished by removing it - maybe I'm just inclusionist by nature - I just figure if it is useful and arguably encyclopedic and neutral it should be left alone - --Trödel 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unknown Parameters

It appears that most if not all of the temples now have an issue with their template. For example Bern Switzerland Temple, if edited and then previewed, it gives the following messages

• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "region" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "continent" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "rededication_link" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "image_width" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "country" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox LDS Temple with unknown parameter "style" (this message is shown only in preview).

(without the dots, just using that to separate the lines) The information looks fine in Template:LDS Temple/Bern Switzerland Temple, but somehow the template or subtemplates that are using it, has a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Family history codes?

Is there any reason we should add the family history code to this template? See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Display Name

What is the Display Name used for? It says display name for infobox, but I don't see it being used in the infobox.--Dmm1169 (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no explanation of the removal of Display Name from the list of parameters or from the templates - but it was done in 2017 using AWB - I see no consensus for its removal --Trödel 00:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I support restoring this parameter into the templates. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 20:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll see if I can figure out how to use AWB to add it back in. It would be helfpul in the Area and other lists as the word "temple" is not really necessary in all those places. --Trödel 21:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

New fields, removing unnecessary fields

At least nine temples are going or gone through a second renovation which will end in a second rededication. Adding third rededication/open house even though there is none currently because the field will be much easier to add when adding rededication2 than waiting till when that rededication occurs. There's no immediate plans on using the open houses (maybe list openhouses in infobox), but for the same reason, it's easier to add when adding other fields.

I Suggest the following fields be added:

   | r_open_house        = <!-- Date(s)*** of open house for first rededication-->
   | rededication2       = <!-- Date of second rededication, use "January 1, 2000" format -->
   | rededication2_by    = <!-- Person who said rededication prayer. Include "[[ ]]" for individuals with wikilink. <ref> use permitted.-->
   | r2_open_house       = <!-- Date(s)*** of open house for second rededication-->
   | rededication3       = <!-- Date of third rededication, use "January 1, 2000" format -->
   | rededication3_by    = <!-- Person who said rededication prayer. Include "[[ ]]" for individuals with wikilink. <ref> use permitted.-->
   | r3_open_house       = <!-- Date(s)*** of open house for third rededication-->

Merge and remove the following:

• site_announcement_link (<ref> is supported in "announced by")
• groundbreaking_link (Wikilinks are permitted in groundbreaking_by field)
• dedication_link (Wikilinks are permitted in dedication_by field)
• cafeteria (church announced last year that it was closing all cafeterias)

Any other fields need to be added/merged/removed? It's much easier now than later.

thanks -- Dmm1169 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Be Bold and go for it --Trödel 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully concur, {{U|Dmm1169}}. Since you were the one who proposed the changes that have since been implemented on the list of temples pages, I have no qualms about saying that I likely wouldn't object to any other changes you want to make. So whenever you feel a need to make changes, I too think you should boldly go ahead and do it. If anyone has problems with those adjustments after the fact, such objections can be discussed, but please don't feel like you need to hold off on making those changes on my account, or on the account of anyone else who has seen the good work you've done to make the page easier to navigate. Go for it! Jgstokes (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for being late to this discussion, but… Is there a reason there’s not a Matron parameter? It should be optional, if added, appearing directly under the Temple President with the full label as Temple Matron. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹(Tadg^Talk-Email) 14:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The matron does just as much to support the functions and the day-to-day operation of temples as the president. I would be in favor of adding such a field to these templates, especially since the Church announces both a president and matron. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Unused fields

Any reason address and phone are asked for in these templates even though they're not used? Dmm1169 (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. I would support removing them. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 20:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Standardizing the date field

The parameters of the temple template currently stipulate that new dates added follow the month, day, and year format. But it seems that most of the entered dates follow the Wikipedia style of smallest unit to largest (day, month, year). I think it should be standardized across the board, and I think that the standard should be day, month, year, but that's just my opinion. Do any of you have any preference or thoughts on that matter? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say either is fine, as long as it's standardized. per date signature of these comments, Wikipedia does tend to want to use day unabbreviated month and four digit year. The church on its records tend to use day three letter month and four digit year. Just my two cents. - Dmm1169 (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm obviously late to this discussion, but I think the date format, and any of the regional variants we have in English (spellings, measurements, etc.) should be determined by the temple location, similar to how other Wikipedia articles typically work. Of note, the church's newsroom uses MDY for their English press releases (such as this one for the Cleveland Ohio Temple open house). Even looking at my home state, the Kirtland and Columbus templates use MDY, but the Cleveland and Cincinnati templates use DMY. I'm more concerned with consistency within an article (so if the template uses DMY the body of the article should too) rather than consistency across templates. For articles on temples in the US, MDY seems more appropriate since most sources have them in that format. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Area field?

Since temples are administrated under the Area Authorities, wouldn't a field for "Area" be needed? Dmm1169 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. Go for it! User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing endowment_style and

Given that there are no more temples that feature live endowments, this param should be removed. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 21:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Date ranges

Can anyone find any objections to using an en dash instead of a hyphen for date ranges within the various templates here? The template documentation here uses the formats from MOS:DATERANGE (which uses an en dash for date ranges) and dozens of existing temple templates use it as well. I ask because I went to change a hyphen to an en dash per the MOS and it was reverted with the reasoning "Was correct as shown; en dash or em dash not appropriate in this case." Not seeing any discussion or consensus where we decided to disregard the MOS or the examples that the template documentation uses for date ranges. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)