Hello, everyone! While I welcome any discussion here about the nature of my edits or about how I can help anyone else in any way on Wikipedia, at the same time, within the last couple of months, several people who have posted comments for me here have not taken the time to mention the page related to the nature of the concerns they are expressing. If I can ask this of you all, I'd very much appreciate it if, going forward, anyone leaving feedback here would please specifically mention the exact page and edit about which you have come here to dialogue. And because I have always tried to live by the philosophy that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable, I'd also appreciate it if the discussions here can remain of a civil, polite, and agreeable tone. That will do more to enable me to provide the best feedback I can in response than will any other approach. I appreciate your cooperation with me on this. With that said, let the discussions continue here as needed! --Jgstokes (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[]

My preferred personal pronouns are he/him/his. I am more than happy to refer to each of you, my fellow editors, by your preferred pronouns as long as I know what they are. I have unfortunately unintentionally misgendered people here in the past, and I'd prefer not to make that same mistake ever again. Thanks for your cooperation with me on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[]

The day then month then year used on Dieter F. Uchtdorf article was actually correct the first time as it was always formatted that way in the article. No need to revert that part of the page history. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[]

The addition of the df=y parameter is unnecessary. If you have any objections to my removing it yet again, or want to properly advocate for its inclusion, the proper place to do that is on the talk page of the article itself. Please take any further objections to that page for wider discussion and the formation of a consensus until one forms either for or against that inclusion. Thank you. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for reverting my edit on Elder Gilbert's page regarding seniority in the quorums. I didn't know that it was standard across all of the apostles' pages.

Unfortunately, that means that it's wrong in some details across all of them. Here are the problems I see with the current statement:

• If Seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is correct, seniority is based neither on date of call nor on date of ordination. Rather, "on April 5, 1900, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve unanimously decided that the date an individual became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve was the relevant date for succession purposes, not the date an individual was ordained as an apostle."
• It links to Succession to the presidency but I think it should instead link to Seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles since that's the topic at hand.
• "If two apostles are ordained on the same day, the older of the two is typically ordained first" should be removed since it's not very true. I believe this supposed pattern has only held maybe 5 out of 8 times. As recently as 2015 this was not the pattern. Elders Rasband, Stevenson, and Renlund's seniority order is not their age order. We should just remove the statement. It's also WP:OR, I believe. Besides, if ordination per se is not the criterion for seniority then the statement is irrelevant.
• "Apostolic seniority is generally understood to include all ordained apostles" is also not very true because of all the cases of ordained apostles not being in the quorum. Per the above quote, they are not included among those who have any seniority at all.

Here is my proposed update to add to all relevant pages.^[1] What do you think? Davemc0 (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[]

With all due respect, I see the following problems with your points above:

1a. The 1900 rule applied specifically only in determining the seniority of Brigham Young Jr. vs. Joseph F. Smith, so it doesn't apply to the modern-day practices of apostolic seniority.

1b. Citing a 1900 rule in relation to a Church that believes in modern revelation seems disingenuous. More recently, Bruce R. McConkie noted that "the practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture." So what is "the practice of the Church" now? See point 2.

2. Unfortunately, the Church disagrees with you about how apostolic seniority is determined. In this source, the second sentence of point 2 is illuminating: "Seniority is determined by the date on which a person was ordained to the Twelve, not by age." So the modern practice of the Church is that ordination date (and order) is the relevant factor, not age, and not the date of call.

3. As mentioned in my second point above, seniority is determined by date of ordination, not by age. The anomaly you mentioned relating to Gary E. Stevenson and Dale G. Renlund is addressed in adjusted wording to the notes in those specific articles. Because those two apostles are an exception to the general rule, that is the only approved adjusted wording for that particular case. But the exception doesn't apply to the other 13 apostles, which is why the note is standardized for all living apostles except Stevenson and Renlund.

4. Because this note is featured on the articles for all living apostles, and because the inclusion of that note was supported by consensus (including the exception mentioned in point 3 and noted only on the articles for Stevenson and Renlund), any alterations to the note in question across the articles of all 15 apostles needs to be discussed by the community, not two individual editors on one of their talk pages. So if, after reading this comment, you still want to discuss altering or adjusting that note, I would suggest taking that discussion here.

I mean no disrespect or offense, and I hope none is taken. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi there. Regarding the edit on the Cleveland Ohio Temple template, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page here regarding the en dash vs. a hyphen. I made the edit based on MOS:ENTO and other precedence for date ranges like that, which specifically states "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash". Ultimately, the dates of the open house will be removed from the template so it's not a major issue, but I'm just making sure I understand it correctly for future edits. Looks like the only thing I neglected was the space on either end of the dash ("The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash.") Is there a specific exception for these templates I should be aware of to use a hyphen here? Thanks -- JonRidinger (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Of note, the "Sample Value" column at Template:LDS Temple for the open house parameters use an en dash for the date range. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your thoughtful messages. You are technically correct in terms of the policies involved, but the problem that I have is that more than one individual temple template uses the hyphens rather than the en dash for the date ranges. So editing individual templates to match Wikipedia policies may need to be formally discussed on the temple template page before being implemented across the board. I have no problem with the policies in question that you cited, and with that being the case, the discussion on the temple template may be a mere formality, but since the hyphens have been standardized on the temple templates, I believe a wider consensus is needed before the en dash is implemented across the board on Temple templates. Thanks for stopping by to ask about this. I appreciate the chance to clarify my reasoning for the revert in question. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[]

No problem. I posted a reply on the Template talk page about the date format consistency, which is somewhat related. Just a quick check, though, several temple templates already do use en dashes: St. George Utah Temple, Logan Utah Temple, Manti Utah Temple, Idaho Falls Idaho Temple, Bern Switzerland Temple, Los Angeles California Temple (which is also used for the sample value column in the main LDS Temple template), Hamilton New Zealand Temple, London England Temple, Oakland California Temple, and that's just a quick glance, so I don't think a mass change would need to be discussed since many already have it, plus like I said, the template example itself already uses en dashes for dates and follows the MOS format. I can certainly understand wanting to avoid a mass change, but it doesn't appear that would be needed here. I regularly update articles across Wikipedia to replace hyphens with en dashes where they are required by the MOS. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Your points are well taken, but I'd like to note that none of the temples you mentioned were more recent ones where the standard has been a hyphen, not a dash. And if your goal is conformity across the board, those massive changes should be agreed upon on the template talk page, which is why I recommended that. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Can you point to a discussion or consensus where it was agreed on to use a hyphen and not the MOS standard of an en dash and to disregard what Template:LDS Temple has for its examples? I'm not seeing that, or any justification to ignore the MOS standard for date ranges. My point is that it is currently not consistent at all (I just stopped after listing all those examples, so there are likely dozens of temple templates that already use the correct format), so no "mass changes" would be needed. The fact that it's an earlier temple only serves to question why the newer ones aren't following that simple standard to the point you felt you needed to revert it. I'm not looking to make a bunch of changes right now (I only was looking at the Cleveland temple since it's my closest temple and could see it was an incorrect hyphen), but when we see that a hyphen is being used, it should be corrected to an en dash, just like it is in many other non-temple cases for dates, sports scores, and other numerical ranges. As I said, I do that on articles all the time, especially sports related ones (scores), schools, and city articles. The fact that more recent temples have used a hyphen is more likely just a simple case of using a keyboard or not being aware of the standard. I'm honestly baffled by your opposition to this, and now I've wasted all this time discussing a simple en dash that not only dozens of temple articles already use (including the template itself), but is the standard for Wikipedia articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[]

After taking a few days to prevent myself from eliciting a knee-jerk reaction to your comments above, I think it is a good idea for both of us to be reminded to assume good faith about each other's edits. I have worked extensively on the temple templates for more recent temples, almost all of which use the hyphen rather than the en dash for date ranges, and have even created more than a few of those newer templates myself. I recognize that I do not own any of these articles I created. I also recognize that your edi here was made in good faith to be consistent with the Wikipedia policies you cited, and I can't argue with that. But I do think discussing the matter on the temmple template page was a good idea as well, since it gives those involved with these templates the chance to see what needs to be corrected in terms of all of the relevant articles for temple templates. I have edited Wikipedia in general and articles about the Church (including the articles about individual temples and their associated templates) for over 18 years, and admittedly, there is a lot that I still haven't learned about Wikipedia policies, practices and procedures. So the edits to the single temple template (which didn't include the explanation you gave here about using the en dash vs. the hyphen) raised red flags for me. I honestly can't remember why that was my motivation for the revert in question, but I was trying to suggest a good way to resolve the wider problem in this regard, and I was doing so according to my understanding of what the proper procedure was to implement these changes across the board. If my wording here suggested anything less than that my intentions were in good faith, or that your edit was in good faith, I offer my profound apologies.to you for that. Thank you for being willing to dialogue about this issue with me here on my talk page and for your willginess to also discuss the wider problem on the temple template talk page/ User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@JonRidinger, according to my further reading of MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:DATEOVER, DMY is an accepted and perfectly acceptable date format. For that matter, it's even used on Wikipedia when comments like this are left on a talk page. Further, according to my understanding of Wikipedia's project guidelines, individual projects have wide discretion to decide the date format that should be used across the project.

That's precisely why I suggested weighing in on the page for temple templates, and why I'd further suggest taking this matter up at the manual of style for articles about the Church, since many other templates (such as those used for prophets, apostles, and other prominent Church leaders) also use the day, month, year format.

So unless you are willing to take this up on those pages, or unless there is something in those pages I cited that proves me wrong here, I'd strongly caution you against trying to assert the correctness of your preferred date method on individual articles about the Church, as you did at the template page for the Cleveland Ohio Temple.

Again, I am happy to dialogue more about this, but I believe that the best place for that dialogue is MOS:LDS. I mean no disrespect or offense, and I hope none is taken. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 02:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I decided to simply follow WP:BOLD since my edits aren't based solely on personal preference, but are supported by the MOS, the template's documentation, and dozens of other established temple articles and templates as I have already explained. To review:

1. MOS:LDS is specifically about how to name certain things and articles related to the overall movement. It does not specify or require (or even mention) a preferred date format or require anything different from MOS:DATE and MOS:DATERANGE.
2. Whether other LDS-related templates use DMY is fine, but if you're going to make that argument, the temple template specifically uses MDY in its documentation (when you created the Cleveland Temple template you included that language in the template as it still says for future dates, like for a rededication: "Date of rededication, use "January 1, 2000" format"), and discussions about that on the main temple template talk page have only shown there's no requirement or preference to use one format or the other. Again, that comes from the master template and the template in question.
3. Yes, MOS:DATETIES allows for local preferences (though also mentions that MDY is preferred in the US), but that doesn't mean all temple templates have to use one or the other. *That* would require a discussion and consensus on the LDS WikiProject since quite a few, and the older more established articles at that, already use MDY and en dashes. Otherwise we simply follow the the MOS says, which is to be consistent within an article. Personally, I think US temples should us MDY and non-US temples should use DMY, which is fairly standard for Wikipedia articles (which also includes using British vs. American spellings or listing imperial or metric measurements first). Outside Family History documentation, even within the LDS Church, DMY is not standard in the US. Even LDS sources most often use MDY.
4. Let's not forget the origin of this discussion was because I replaced a hyphen with an en-dash in accordance with MOS:DATERANGE and you reverted that saying it was "not appropriate". Saying it was not appropriate implies I wasn't following the MOS or some kind of specific policy for the project or the template (and why I reached out since I'm still confused by your reply). None of that is true at all.
5. No discussion or consensus is needed to apply MDY or en-dashes at individual temple templates or within individual articles; at no point have I indicated we should do a mass change to one or the other or stated I would do it. That said, when I find templates or articles with inconsistent date formats (either the template itself is inconsistent or the template has one format but the article it's in has the other), I'll definitely fix that per MOS:DATEUNIFY. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[]

You forgot to account for what it says here, as that particular section states either format is acceptable. Given that the DMY format is used in templates for Church leaders and for most of the newly-created temple templates (for which I have not been the sole creator, I should add), there needs to be a broader discussion (rather than two editors' back-and-forth exchanges on one of their talk pages) on this matter.

To that I will add that the relevant manual of style is still subject to revisions and additions, which is why I suggested that as the appropriate place for the discussion of the date format. I see you initiated a conversation there. But until that conversation yields formal policy decisions specific to that MOS, we shouldn't be going back-and-forth on the date formatting until the issue is decided, in order to avoid either an edit-war or a violation of Wikipedia's 3-revert rule.

Aside from that, I wanted to note that I appreciate your commitment to following Wikipedia policy as you understand it, and I am committed to doing the same. Hopefully the discussion on the MOS can settle it. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[]

I didn't forget that at all. I've stated multiple times here and on the discussions I've started that both formats are acceptable; it's a matter of consistency with not only the template, but the project itself and the MOS, and the project coming to consensus about how to apply whatever is decided consistently. Please point to any instance where I said it has to be MDY across the board. The discussion, though, isn't for the MOS, it's for the project, which is where I put the most recent attempt to get consensus (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Date format consistency). I don't have a problem with any aspect of MOS:DATE; the issue is the massive inconsistency within our project on how it is applied in the various articles and templates, and in this case, the temple templates. It's especially obvious for the temple templates since they not only show up in the lists, but within other articles like the temple article and the article on the church within a specific country or US state. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[]

I saw that you started a discussion on that, and I will weigh in on that as I have the time to do so later this evening. In the interim, since a majority of templates on articles within the Latter Day Saint movement use the DMY format, that would suggest that the temple templates that use DMY are the outliers, rather than the other way around. But I will make that argument on the project page for sure when I can. Thanks for setting that up, by the way.--User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[]

"DMY has been the preferred format for recently created templates, so updating to that format is appropriate for all dates here." Please show me the discussion and consensus that determined this, especially since, as I mentioned, the template language you copied specifically states to use MDY. I have posted multiple attempts to get some kind of consensus for any kind of consistency and neither post has generated any discussion, but is clearly something you and others have an opinion on to keep changing it. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Please remember to assume good faith about your fellow editors. The substance and tone of your response above comes across as slightly passive-aggressive, which will not lend itself to a resolution here, let alone a satisfactory one. It takes more than a few hours for people to read up on these things and respond, and everyone is on different schedules of availability, so please remember, per Wikipedia policy, there is WP:NORUSH for a resolution here. In the meantime, the temple templates should be kept as the WP:STATUSQUO until such time as a consensus is reached, which is why I made the adjustments to the template for the Cleveland Ohio Temple. That template has used DMY style from its creation, as a result of which, DMY is that template's status quo. So I would strongly advise you to leave that as the status quo until the conversation you opened yields a consensus. In either case, there is no rush, and until others do weigh in, which may take some time, we should avoid an edit war and a violation of established policies. User:Jgstokes ()—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[]