Template talk:Infobox LDS Temple

To edit the syntax box click Template_talk:Infobox_LDS_Temple/Syntax.

Untitled

Good job on the infobox - I have made a few small changes - be bold if you don't like them. I have tried to keep the blue color in the title of LDS Infoboxes for a consistent look/feel to those areas. It seems a bit long when you look at it in the article - We probably will need to add info about rededication. --Trödel 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS What do you think about moving it to Template:LDS Infobox Temple in order to keep a consistent naming structure for the temples LDS x? --Trödel 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an entry for rededication and rededication_by, so I think we are covered there, unless you are thinking of something else. The naming convention is based on other infoboxes, specifically Template:infobox Film. I think we should follow the infobox naming convention (unless there isn't one). I would also like to add some #if statements on the temple number, so it will say something like "5th operating temple" rather than "Number: 5", but it needs some logic to handle the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Bytebear 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch the rededication parameters. That would work great. Your number issue would be some complex stuff - but I think you could do it with #switch - the only thing is you would need to parse the text of the parameter unless you wanted to list all the things like 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 51, ... with other handling the "th". That's true: most of the infoboxes do use that format. I am not sure if that is a standard or a tradition. :) --Trödel 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added the syntax and syntax guide. Now hopefully people will start using it. I am going to look into the #switch statement to format the number. Bytebear 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help out some :) --Trödel 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Measurements

I added acres (square meters) as well as square feet (square meters). How accurate do we want these numbers to be? 6.5 acres doesn't seem particularly accurate, and converting to meters will give 26304 square meters, but do we want to just use 26300, or 26000 or what? Bytebear 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think for the sq ft on "List of temples of CJC" I kept it to 3 sig digits. I think that 2 would probably be sufficient because the acreage is usually give to only 2 sig digits. --Trödel 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this code on another template:

{{!}} {{{height}}} ft ({{#expr: {{{height}}} * 0.3048 round 1 }} m) }}

I am going to attempt to incorporate it into the template. Bytebear 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am getting a syntax error when I try to use this snippet. I can't figure it out. I am going to take a break, but if anyone wants to look at it, I welcome the help. Bytebear 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little tired - so I'll have to look later - I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples page. Lets plan to automatically calculate the metric values. --Trödel 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bytebear, you left out the "_ft" bit (unless this has been added since). {{!}} {{{height_ft}}} ft ({{#expr: {{{height_ft}}} * 0.3048 round 1 }} m) }} should have worked. Jɪmp 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Goof

Something went wrong. It is showing #if on the page. I tried to fix it to no avail. I think you will figure it out. I have been going through the pages, and adding the minimum info. I got to #4 SLC. It is slow coming. Bytebear 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

President

What about including the name of the current temple president on the template? –SESmith 07:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose it, but I don't know where you'd get that info. It might be difficult to maintain since the presidents are constantly being called and released. Jaksmata 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The information is easily accessible from the LDS Church magazine Ensign, which are available for free on lds.org. –SESmith 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added this field to the temples A-F and to this template. --Trödel 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible sections?

I am not entirely sure if this idea is even feasible, but I was looking at a few of the temple articles and realized that in some of them, the infobox template takes up an enormous amount of real estate on the screen in relation to the body of the article. A couple of examples are Lubbock Texas Temple and Snowflake Arizona Temple. This is particularly evident on lower resolutions, but even resolutions as high as 1440x900 experience this issue.

I am wondering if it would be possible to identify a few "key" data points that you would want to display by default, and have the rest of them hidden in a collapsible portion of the template? I'm not sure which lines would be "key" but a good few of them are somehwat minor points of interest, such as whether or not the temple has a cafeteria and clothing rental services. If there were a way to hide these by default it might help ease some of the awkward formatting issues that show up in quite a few of the articles.

Thoughts? Shereth 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea; I've heard other editors complain that the infobox is too big / contains too much info. I'm sure it is feasible. Here's how you can create the collapsed portion without showing extra edit buttons etc.:

More info
Announcement	2 April 2000
Groundbreaking	4 November 2000 by Rex D. Pinegar
Open House	23 March – 30 March 2002
Dedication	21 April 2002 (21 April 2002) by Gordon B. Hinckley
Location	7016 Frankford Avenue Lubbock, Texas United States

That navbox would be wrapped into the existing infobox. – jaksmata 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea - I would say that Announcement, Dedication, (Location?), Site, Total Floor Area, Height, Preceded by and Followed by and the links at the bottom - would be a good minimum. --Trödel 16:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I created {{Infobox LDS Temple/new format}} so we can make the proposed changes and discuss them without upsetting the current template use. I'll delete, move, and merge the histories of the two pages after we test and agree on the new design. --Trödel 09:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shereth, I like it - after looking at it I'm thinking we could do without Announcement and Rededication - anyone else have any thoughts out there? --Trödel 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be good to move Announcement and Rededication as well. I think the only reason I might hesitate with Rededication is just the one-off problem with the Apia Samoa temple, and the fact that the dedication isn't even for the existing building .. but since it is a unique circumstance it's not a real problem. Do you have any advice on the formatting? I can't get rid of the padding on the left hand side of the nested table and it's causing a few characters to get lopped off on the right. Shereth 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought to treat the Apia Samoa rebuilt temple differently than the church does, and consider the rebuilt temple as having a new dedication date just like Nauvoo. Along with our current note and listing of the original temple under destroyed it should make sense. --Trödel 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks great - exactly what I was expecting. When I preview it for the Apia Samoa Temple, I don't see anything wrong. If you still want to reduce the padding on the outside of the nested table, you might have to change the cellpadding value for the parent "td", which might have additional negative consequences, so you might want to just leave it as-is. – jaksmata 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the characters being lopped off - but I'll take another look at it. --Trödel 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we do need to address other status temples see User:Trödel/Sandbox1 for the new template in use. The Announced and Under Construction temples look very bare without Announcement and Groundbreaking dates. Also we should not show the additional information box if there is none. thoughts --Trödel 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the announcement date in the additional information box there will always be something there, saving that headache. I'm not particular about what is inside and what's outside the new box... The status is one datum that is available for all temples, you could put that in the additional information box, then it wouldn't matter if you moved the other dates out because something would always be in. I've thought that the status needs to be in the infobox somewhere anyway ("closed for renovations" temples don't usually say so in article prose). – jaksmata 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point - we should have the status in the infobox. I'd prefer optional inclusion of the Announcement/Under Construction dates because when the temples have that status that is the thing you most want to know - if it is announced, how long ago. How long under construction, etc. --Trödel 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I hacked togther a couple of switches that will cause Announcment/Groundbreaking to appear in the main body for temples announced or under construction, otherwise it is in the hidden portion. I also agree that "status" ought to be shown, but I would think that is important enough to merit display by default. A conditional statement could be written to exclude the "More info" section when there is none, I'm just having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around it at the moment. I'd prefer to do it that way rather than have something in there by default. It seems inelegant to me : if there is a piece of data that should always be in the infobox, it should always be displayed. Shereth 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a way to include the "More info" using a subtemplate maybe so the code isn't so confusing.

I also included the status - I placed it between the name and the image and included it only if it isn't operating so as not to have it get buried in the image caption, if there is one and to give it higher visibility. If operating I don't think we need the status. --Trödel 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the status. I'll keep my hands off while you work on a subtemplate idea. Shereth 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Failing that, I think I have another way of doing it, but again, I'm holding off for now. Shereth 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm giving up on the subtemplate idea - I think that it inserts <p> code into the test somehow if you use the template which then makes it nearly impossible to test for the value that is coming out - I've tried text and numbers. check my contribs if you want to review and try something else.

But the good news is that the IF statement I constructed seems to work just fine and although it looks a little messy in the template it properly hides and shows the additional information line as needed. --Trödel 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The giant conditional statement works just fine, so I see no need to change it. I guess we're just about wrapped up with this then - am I really the only one who sees the cut-off text? I lose the closing bracket and part of the "w" in the [show], and on your sandbox page, when I expand the info for the SLC temple, I lose half the 0 in the zip code. Shereth 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the w going beyond the closing bracket, but the zip code wraps to its own line for me. What browser are you using - this might be something to report on MediaWiki talk:Common.css if it isn't a common.css problem people there should be able to help you figure out which css file it is etc. I'd research the issue a little before posting there because they tend to take newb questions less than well if you just show up and say fix my problem :) --Trödel 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a browser issue - I use IE at work, but FF at home. It seems to display just fine at home. Alas, for the IE folks. Shereth 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I use FF usually, but I also have IE installed and I can see the cropped letters in IE. Comparing them side-by-side, IE uses a different font face and size, but the box is the same width - maybe it's a CSS thing. It's not just one computer. I'd suggest coding the font and size into the table's style property. – jaksmata 01:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the inside box's width is coded in units other than %, or the sum of the cells' width + the padding add up to more than 100% of the parent infobox's width. – jaksmata 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

Are there any objections to implementing the new format? (as an aside, Shereth thx for taking the Phoenix Arizona Temple picture) --Trödel 01:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the way it turned out, but maybe we should look into the IE width problem first... IE is popular. – jaksmata 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I reduced the width to 94% and it seems to fix the problem when using IE. It doesn't look noticeable in FF. I checked it in Safari (on a Mac) too, and it looks good. – jaksmata 02:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It cuts off on the left side a little - I am wondering if anyone else is using collapsible styles inside an infobox - if so it should be fixed in css rather than but manually adjusting the % width - I wish the box would be left justified, the uncentered nature of the box in Chrome looks weird. --Trödel 02:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ready to be implemented. We can/should still work on this problem, though. – jaksmata 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's ready to go. The minor formatting issues can be worked on while the template is live. Regarding the pic for the Phoenix temple - I figured I had put it off long enough :) Shereth 14:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

<-I went ahead and deleted, moved, and merged the histories of the new format page with this template - noticed that Efforts halted temples like Adam-ondi-ahman needed required a tweak to the template, which I made - there are probably going to be other little tweaks needed as we review the impact on the different pages. --Trödel 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the hard work, folks :) Shereth 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - thx for the suggestion - it makes the temple Infobox so much better.

I've updated the formatting for the Additional Information section and tested it with Chrome 4.203.2 and IE 8.0.6001.18702 - I believe I've fixed the IE anomaly of going beyond the right margin. I came across a new one also where it split the two main columns 50/50 on the screen rather than not wrapping the left column and making the right column (well 2 columns) as wide as possible. So I inserted a fixed width for the left column and 100% for the right column - and it seems to make the infobox behave in IE as it does in Chrome without changing its behavior in chrome. --Trödel 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Style/design parameter question

Actually, this is a two-parter.

First of all, what do we think about possibly linking this parameter to Temple architecture (LDS Church)? I understand that, by convention, many temple articles link there in the "See Also" section, but to a casual reader gleaning information from the infobox, terms like Classic modern, single-spire design convey very little information. An explicit link to the arcitecture article may prove useful to readers unfamiliar with these terms.

Second, how are we (if at all) standardizing these entries? Best I can tell, we seem to be emulating whatever ldschurchtemples.org has to say as far as the design is concerned, but I wonder if this isn't glossing things over any? That classification scheme lumps Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple and Spokane Washington Temple together in terms of design. I suppose this is technically accurate but it seems to sacrifice precision. Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples tells us to use names referencing the architecture article, but we don't seem to be using a lot of those.

Am I just making a lot of noise here? Should I just be bold and go about changing the ones I think need changing? :)

As a bit of an aside, I wonder about the disinct style and design parameters. It is somewhat confusing as to what the difference between them is. It would make more sense to me if they were named design_short and design_full, rather than style and design. But I suppose those of us maintaining the templates understand this distinction for the most part and it'd probably be more hassle than it is worth to change all the references to them, anyway. Shereth 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The architecture part of it has always been an area that needed improvement, so thanks for bring this up. I think linking to Temple architecture would be great - I'm the one that suggested we use the same terminology that is in that article, so it would be great if we linked to the appropriate section of that article. I would be in favor of having one design variable - I can't even remember why there are two - It may have to do with how the list article was first designed (similar to how the compare article is now) so we may have asked for a short design description for that purpose - which is no longer needed since the list format is now better suited to longer descriptions (and we can specify a width for the compare article that makes sense - there are very few screens that article will display on without having a horizontal scroll bar).

I say go for it - pick one of the parameters (I'd vote design - but don't care that much) and I'll help delete out the old ones and update the Temples project instructions.

FYI, although I was the primary author of the temple instructions, I tried to document the decisions that were being made on the List article. So feel free to be bold on that page as well as my purpose was to document what we did with the data templates in case I wasn't around. The data templates were used so that the average user could edit without having to wade through all the table formatting (and usually messing it up) and has the added bonus that all four places the data is used are updated with one edit. I think that it has been successful as the temple article data pages are regularly updated by IPs and new users woot-woot :) --Trödel 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was the original intent, but while I was considering "standard" design types I think I realized some utility in having a separate "style" parameter. "Design" would be useful for coming up with a set of standard design-types that can be wikilinked to the architecture page, suitable for displaying in tabular format. It would stick to a standard list of designs, such as Castellated, Adapted structure, Spireless, Standardized small design and so on. Style could then be used to refer to the architectural style rather than the physical design of the building. For example, the Mesa Arizona Temple could have design = Spireless while style = Patterned after Solomon's Temple. Newport Beach California Temple could have design = Modern single spire design and style = Traditional Southern California, and Manti Utah Temple could be described as design = Castellated and style = Gothic Revival. I'm not sure if that was the original intent, but if it was it's clearly been lost. I can still see some use for it. Shereth 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Any way to include multiple pics?

With the recent announcement that the Ogden temple is going to be renovated, is there any way to put a "before and after" picture in the infobox? I tried but it didn't work. Any suggestions? PS the new "after" pic is: file:Med ogdentemplenewsmall1 17Feb10.jpg Twunchy (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to do that the way this template is setup now. I suggest adding the second picture to the temple article itself, and in the caption you can mention that it illustrates pre/post-renovation.

It probably wouldn't be practical to change this template to allow more than one picture. – jaksmata 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, fair use pictures are not allowed anywhere except article space, so you can't put it in the template anyway (see point #9 under the Policy heading on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). – jaksmata 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Are coordinates part of this template? It appears to be a standard but it looks awful in a Google search. How is it helpful for a Google search if the results for Atlanta Georgia Temple return:

"Atlanta Georgia Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Coordinates: 33°55′54.24239″N 84°21′44.77319″W / 33.9317339972°N 84.3624369972°W / 33.9317339972; -84.3624369972 The Atlanta Georgia Temple (formerly the ... "

Is anyone searching for an LDS Temple hoping to find "33°55′54.24239″N 84°21′44.77319″W"?

Keep the coordinates in the articles but out of the search results. Put it lower on the page. I don't see it on the edit page or I would have already made the change. I'm sure it would be changed back within minutes. Any thoughts? Matthew R. Lee 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You've posed an interesting question. Although the coordinates appear on many articles that way (see New York City for example), the coordinates don't appear in Google searches for those. It's Wikipedia's HTML rendering that puts the coordinates at the top of the page, not this template, plus, this template has the coordinate-generating code near the end, not the beginning.

When you compare the rendered HTML for Atlanta Georgia Temple and New York City, both have the coordinates listed before the beginning of prose; therefore, I believe that it is Google's parsing of the HTML that causes the search results to look that way, and not the contents of this template (or the temple's page).

Additionally, Bing and Yahoo don't have any trouble parsing the HTML. When you search for "site:wikipedia.org atlanta georgia temple" on either of those search engines, there's no coordinate information shown in the text preview like there is on Google.

In short, the contents of the Google search preview are probably outside of our control. – jaksmata 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jaksmata. Matthew R. Lee 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Embedding other infoboxes

Currently the article for the Kirtland Temple has two infoboxes, the LDS Temple one and another for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). I think it would be best to embed one into the other. Usually the NRHP infobox can be easily embedded into another infobox, but it's a little different with the LDS Temple infobox. I was able to embed the NRHP infobox into the temple infobox in my sandbox, but the embedded infobox is hidden in the collapsible section. Can this be changed so that embedded inboxes are not hidden?--Mangoman88 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What the heck?!

Ok so I'm guessing this is just a relic of the old ways... But is there a reason that this template is still done the way it is? Currently every page that uses this infobox, calls its own template and pulls the data from their. That completely 100% defeats the purpose of having a template... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08: RTFM at Template:LDS Temple. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox conversion

Hi y'all. I took some time to convert the infobox to use {{Infobox}}. You can find it at Template:Infobox LDS Temple/sandbox. If you see any issues, please let me know! I plan on merging it in maybe a month. To test, go to a church page and append the template invocation to use /sandbox. SWinxy (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking good! I think one thing i noticed though is that the Preceded by / Followed by sections don’t link automatically anymore Bluealbion (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. I have adjusted Template:Infobox LDS Temple/testcases to account for the way that this template is actually used in articles. I recommend finding a few unusual temple articles and copying them to the testcases page, and make sure that the test cases use all available parameters at least once. I notice that the "edit data" link is missing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I added more to the testcases page, as well as updated the infobox to include the edit link. I added a random sample of them, rather than looking for the unusual ones. SWinxy (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I modified it so that it looks like {{Infobox album}}, and now links to the page. I don't know how best to label it, so I just put "Church chronology" lol. SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That looks really good! Bluealbion (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have poked at the sandbox a bit to try to auto-add a comma after the year in MDY dates. It works on the testcases, but there may be edge cases out there that cause a comma to appear when it should not. The live template is missing a comma after every MDY date, e.g. "May 1, 1999 by John Smith" is missing a comma after "1999". – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

For me, the Bern Switzerland Temple image and the Washington D.C. image are too small on the testcases page. I have not investigated why that might be. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's just the input data. I allowed it despite MOS:IMAGESIZE. Should manually setting the size in pixels be removed? SWinxy (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think so. MOS says to use the default size, which is frameless. I have removed the image size specification, and the images all look good to me. |upright= is available for images that need to be scaled up or down from the default for some reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool. SWinxy (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jonesey95 and Bluealbion. Are there any other problems/concerns? If not, are you two both OK with an early merge? SWinxy (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

All of the testcases look good to me, and there are a lot of little improvements. I think we should make it live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Bluealbion (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I made one small change, I put the arrows above the temple name to make them always be aligned. If you guys don’t like the looks of it feel free to change it back. Bluealbion (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Color change

I made a change in the sandbox to make the infobox color a darker navy blue to match the LDS and BYU navboxes. I think it looks more polished and will standardize colors for related topics. Any objections to changing the infobox color? Bluealbion (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)