Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 17

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Round in circles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On pages where this will likely get used, it just adds to banner blindness.

Like look at Talk:Czech Republic; there are 8 banners on that page. If a newbie who does not know how Wikipedia works and rightfully finds the community verbose and complicated shows up to this page, do you think they're going to read all 8 of those banners? They won't and don't (in some sense rightfully; many of the banners will be irrelevant to them, sometimes banners are about GAs and pageviews etc). Look at the continued repetition on that talk page.

Another example: Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. 10 banners; ridiculous.

Other templates fulfill enough of the role of this template. Users should also point people to the FAQ/archives otherwise. I know repetition is annoying, but adding another banner to like 9 is not a solution.

Also, transclusion count currently is 620; apparently a few years ago it was 5000? If that many uses got removed imo it's pretty telling about how useful people think this is. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we should keep this. I think it should probably be used more often, and that it would be helpful to encourage people to use this template add more specific information (e.g., links to key discussions in the archives). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts on banner blindness? People clearly don't read all these banners grapesurgeon (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My main thought is that we don't need people to read most of the talk-page top matter. For example, I think Template:Talk header is a waste of space, but that's because I've seen it tens of thousands of times. (The code at User:WhatamIdoing/common.css#L-11 now hides most of it for me.) I don't read it (now), but some newcomers may actually read it, and some of them may find it useful.

Ditto for the less-common ones, such as this. Newcomers may read it, and people may read it if they're uncertain about the situation at a particular article. We could change the color on a few of these (e.g., {{FAQ}}) to make the custom ones stand out a little more, but mostly what I want to say is: It's clear that most people don't read all the banners. It's also clear that some people read some of the banners. We shouldn't take beneficial information away from everyone just because only some are getting the benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't take beneficial information away from everyone just because only some are getting the benefit. two thoughts: 1. what information of note is being taken away when other templates or people already fill this role and 2. if a tree falls in the woods...; I think the number of people who benefit from this is so low that it's not worth making banner blindness worse. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: There's already archive searching functionality in both the talk header and archive templates. We don't need to tell people to search archives when there is functionality right in front of them (most of the times where this banner is used) to do just that. This just adds to talk page clutter and banner blindness. TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  We could remove the archive search if you want, but take a look at this template as it's used at the top of Talk:Trans woman. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thankyou for highlighting the example at Talk:Trans woman, it's a common one I see when the round in circles template is in use. It results in unneeded redundancy. TarnishedPath^talk 23:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete after a gradual phase-out: Whatever is currently served by this template would be better served by {{FAQ}}. That this template declined from 5000 to 620 transclusions in just three years is sufficient justification. {{FAQ}} is way more useful because:

1) it explains the issues commonly discussed with a brief summary.

2) it can include links to the particular discussions in question.

3) it could discourage users from spamming the talk page with the same few issues.

4) it does not force users to search for themselves.

All in all, this template is useless and should be manually replaced by explanatory {{FAQ}}'s as soon as possible.

Due to technical limitations, this template cannot be deleted until {{Round in circles}} is fully phased-out, one page at a time. SVG-image-maker (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete per User:SVG-image-maker. In my opinion, we can definitely explore replacing this template with {{FAQ}}. But I also understand why this template was created in the first place (some topics just are more contentious than others), so I think until it is fully phased out, we should keep it for the time being. Duckmather (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This always seemed redundant for controversial talk pages. An edit notice most likely suffices or an FAQ at the top. – The Grid (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and what others in this TfD have said. Being asked to read through old talk page threads is intimidating for newcomers. For talk pages that had or still have high activity, reading them for a comprehensive view of current consensus is wholly impractical. {{FAQ}} works best for what the template is trying to do, providing newcomers with an overview of common arguments and what current consensus is. Outright deletion is preferable, and to address the shortcomings of this template, it is best to place FAQs in talk pages still using this template. ZeroJaguar (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep useful to make people aware before starting a discussion to see previous discussions to check if the discussion they have raised has been discussed before, so users can make judgment based on how long ago it was, and how worthy it could be ETC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete — no one is reading these. The pages they appear are the same pages that have a ton of banners to begin with, i.e. classic banner blindness. Do you really think someone upset about some nationality/infobox/naming etc. issue is going to change their mind when they see this? – Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

delete and replace this with {{FAQ}} where needed, per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I am convinced that this template is ineffective at preventing people from starting the discussions they want to start.—Alalch E. 20:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. This family of templates looks to be an exception to the normal guidelines around single-use infoboxes, primarily because of the lack of needing to be updated but also due to the length. I do not see this as setting any sort of precedent if similar template families exist. I do not see any prejudice against starting a discussion (be it via RM or just informal) to move these pages (keeping redirects) to subpages of the main {{infobox element}}. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The individual element infoboxes listed above are just wrappers of Template:Infobox element with nothing special added to them. Although there has been an initiative to merge infoboxes with similar parameters, these should not even be merged, but instead should just be substituted onto each relevant article. The current situation is like having "Infobox Canada", "Infobox Russia", "Infobox Sweden", and so on as wrappers of "Infobox country". SVG-image-maker (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There is at least one similar example of template consolidation. At one point, we had hundreds of different IPA templates, one for each language. However, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_27#IPA-xx_templates, those were replaced with a single template with a parameter for language. Using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, substituting all of them. No need to have a separate template for each one. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; shouldn't be individual templates. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Ugh, have you considered what it would be like to edit the resulting article? There are about 100 parameters in these infoboxes, and a dozen refs. You'd open the article to fix something in the lead, and the first thing you'd have to do is scroll down through 125 lines of wikitext, just so you can find the first sentence. That's bad enough on my laptop, where it's four screenfuls, but this would be actively hostile to someone editing on a smartphone. We might as well put a sign on the article that says "Thanks, but no thanks: we don't need anyone editing the lead of this article ever again." We should keep these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, now that VisualEditor is default for most editors. It's 2026 and we have the visual editor separate from the wikitext editor, which easily allows one to switch between the two modes. For the "many parameters" argument, there are plenty of counterexamples to this, including compounds such as p-Xylene, military conflicts such as Russo-Ukrainian war, countries like Georgia (country), politicians such as Keir Starmer, and many others. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  What is this "visual editor"? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  The OP has used the visual editor for only 15% of his mainspace edits, and he's never used the mw:Mobile visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok thanks, so it's an opt in editor, not a default. It's WYSIWYG, except templates are form fill-in. But if the template is not documented, full fail. Thus Visual Editor fails to edit the Boron infobox because {{infobox boron}} is not documented, but it works on Hydrogen infobox because of the subst change.

  One unfortunate side effect of unpacking the {{infobox hydrogen}} into hydrogen is the edit of the introduction now starts with a bunch of template. Or maybe this is a benefit, may scare off some editors... Johnjbarton (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as they are a good way to package a chunk of code to make editing easier. Visual editor is already slow enough without having to load a large template call. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Would the nominator SVG-image-maker please subst one of these to show the result. That can be reverted later if the result here is keep. Take, say, the first item {{Infobox hydrogen}} and subst it at Hydrogen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Done. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the previous TfD's in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, what Double sharp said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think that using a single template for elements would reduce maintenance currently spread across 124 templates. For example, we would not need to write template documentation for each individual element template. SVG-image-maker (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can't we just redirect each doc page to tm:infobox element/doc? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I get what you mean, but the rationales for having separate template infoboxes for each element could theoretically be applied to every BLP, every country, every chemical compound, and so on. The principle of infobox consolidation is that infoboxes with similar parameters are best merged into one. As for the argument "it would take some scrolling", the template {{Infobox country}} as used on Armenia has 109 lines of wikitext. Whereas {{Infobox beryllium}}, for instance, has only 92 lines of wikitext. SVG-image-maker (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• If the templates are substituted, they should be redirected to preserve attribution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It does not seem like there actually is any maintenance across the overwhelming majority of them...the content of each is essentially static. Spending time documenting each seems like a waste (though no prejudice against someone wanting to spend their time that way). Further, each is just the specific details against a central template, so the way to help maintenance is to make sure that {{Infobox element}} is documented, in line with Johnjbarton's comment. That would be equally true if all the element-specific templates were subst'ed or not.
  This static nature of the content, unlike many details in many other infoboxes, is an overlapping but specific reason to keep these infoboxes out of the main article. It avoids cluttering up the editor with things that nobody is going to be editing. Contrast that with the Armenia infobox, where my quick glance is that about a third of the fields, which are spread throughout the source lines, are likely to be edited periodically forever. The first general guideline of WP:Template is "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." but this is not content that is likely to be edited, and guideline beats the essay on consolidation. But if we're talking consolidation, that suggests you' like a single template that is passed an element and generates the infobox for the requested element. So that single template would have all the data for every element, which is a lot harder to manage and edit correctly. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they're primarily edited in bulk, wouldn't having them all in one place make that easier?

  One approach could be to create a wrapper template that has one big {{#switch}} parser function invocation that maps the number, symbol, or name to the whole hard-coded template call for each one. Editing any individual element's information is just a matter of using Ctrl+F (or equivalent) to find the target element, and then editing the template usage as usual.

  Alternatively, we could create a Lua module that has a "table" (mapping) for each property, then uses them to fill in each of the parameters. This would have the benefit of allowing us to easily repurpose the data for display in other ways, such as creating sortable Wiki-tables of their properties.

  If someone puts all of the template invocations in one file, I'll be happy to make regexes to convert into and between these formats as desired.

  Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per DMacks who provided a lucid and convincing explanation of why these infoboxes are helpful—they contain complex yet static information that would only obfuscate the article wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note that none of these were tagged. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Infobox element after subst to preserve attribution. Information at the infobox for Jupiter is unlikely to require frequent update, but dedicating an wrapper to it would require one for every article that uses Template:Infobox planet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per previous TfDs. The argument that "it would reduce maintenance" doesn't seem particularly compelling when the editors who are performing said maintenance all oppose this change. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per what Double sharp and others have said. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete these are all single use templates and there is no reason to keep them as they currently are. Doesn't help anything or anyone. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep all, per all previous discussions about the same thing. These greatly facilitate management, reduce vandalism, cleanup the lead, and many, many more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all, per Headbomb and DMacks. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and merge, per other keeps, merge cause there are way too many for each specific element. – KaijuEditor (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  There's one infobox per element. There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, the benefits of substituting these infoboxes into their respective articles (easier reference re-use, potentially being able to update parameters) are outweighed by the downside of all this information that is highly unlikely to change being frontloaded into a set of highly visible articles, making editing potentially harder. As already stated the transclusion of "infobox country" and the like makes sense because this information is likely to change. Element infoboxes are mainly edited to change the header image in current times. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all. This is a unique case. I find the keep arguments here and in the three (!) prior discussions convincing. The essay Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation makes good points that surely apply in many seemingly similar scenarios but many editors have how the maintenance burden and other typical considerations either do not apply or are actually better handled by the current setup. Deleting these does not represent a material improvement and is likely to create more problems than it solves. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Template:ModeratePage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was nominated for WP:G3, but I don't think this is vandalism. However, I think it does fall under WP:DEL10, and possibly WP:DEL13 as it doesn't really follow Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as navigation aids, formatting, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors should not appear on article pages – use the article's talk page or other non-article namespaces. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 17:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, we already have similar templates like Template:Very long that are more useful and coherent than this. The ridiculous color contrast and the "Pls Dont Make Big Edits" kills any chance of this having any real use in articles. Lynch44 17:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And we have the creator making lovely edits like . I stand by my original G3 nomination. Lynch44 18:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this pure nonsense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is the revision (on Siege of Chaves) where it was used. It was allegedly adapted from an external Paw Patrol wiki that likely has very different policies than we. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as an unused template. (Also, when I was seeing this in the ToC, I initially thought it would be a template that makes a call to "moderate" (as in perform content moderation) on a page, not a template that signals that a page is of "moderate" length, so the template's title is misleading too.) Duckmather (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.