Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 7

July 7

Template:Uw-gamingX

Template:Uw-gaming1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-gaming2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-gaming3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-gaming4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-gaming4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User warning templates, to be useful, must inform the recipient of the problematic conduct and guide users to relevant policies and guidelines on the subject. Unfortunately, this warning series, which warns the recipient against "gaming the system", isn't very effective. It is so broad an idea that it cannot provide the recipient any meaningful specifics about what the problematic conduct might be. The guideline it links to offers 19 entirely different examples of what "gaming the system" might be. Nearly all of these examples are insidious behaviors likely to come from experienced editors, for which a user warning template is unlikely to be an effective way to engage the recipient. Cross-references to the guideline in other policies are undeveloped: At the higher levels of the series, it threatens a block, but Wikipedia:Blocking_policy does not mention gaming the system. Also, the template series is listed under Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace#Vandalism, but the gaming the system guideline never describes it as vandalism, and we take pains to distinguish vandalism from disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Design guidelines#Multi-level templates for disruptive editing) so that editors know where to find the correct intervention. I think we would be better served by using more specific templates that clearly identify the actual conduct and a more precise reference to a guideline or policy covering it (many of which already exist), using the disruptive editing user warning template series in situations in which the conduct falls within the meaning of that term, or by directly engaging with the user. Bsherr (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I have done to try and address the concerns since reading this:

I've edited the {{Uw-gaming1}} template to address the issue of the warning not being specific enough by pointing out some potentially problematic behaviors that could be interpreted as gaming the system, providing links where necessary, and provided a link at the end to WP:GAME for people to read. This is done so as to make sure that the editor is aware of the guidelines surrounding WP:GAMING. This template series was mainly directed at users who are newer or less experienced, for whom these warnings may prove effective. I don't expect it to be used to warn more experienced and respected editors since this template series wasn't really made with them in mind.
I've added a disclaimer to all the templates in the series using <noinclude> tags asking people to use a more specific template if they can find one.
I have adjusted the wording to levels 3 and higher to specify that gaming the system disrupts Wikipedia, which can be worth a block depending on what exactly was being done. I've edited the templates for levels 3+ to avoid mentioning blocking specifically, and instead they now say sanctions in general (like a t-ban for instance).
After posting this I'll go ahead and move the entry at the template index to the disruptive editing category.

This is my first time making a user warning template and I am unsure how best to edit the templates to avoid implying the user could be blocked in situations where they probably won't. Thoughts on how I can improve this further would be appreciated. Gommeh 🎮 00:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Battles of the Frankokratia

Template:Battles of the Frankokratia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Summary: I tried to fix this campaignbox today, but it has so many issues that I think it needs a community review. Deletion is my default option, but if we can agree to a substantial overhaul, the campaignbox might still be kept in an altered form (my suggestion is splitting it up in 3 campaignboxes, but I'm open to other proposals). Although TFD is not cleanup, I noticed that in this and many other related articles and talk pages, there barely is any discussion, and there are lots of undiscussed moves. I don't think me being WP:BOLD would help in this case. So I think WP:CENTRALised discussion is necessary to establish consensus first, and TFD seems a good place to do it with this template.

Rationale:

This campaignbox fails WP:TG #3, 5, 8.
This campaignbox does not comply with WP:NAVBOX #1, 2, 3, 4.
This campaignbox does not comply with WP:NAV-RELATED #1, 2.
This campaignbox might meet WP:TFD#REASONS #2 for Deletion because of significant overlap with the "History" section of Template:Frankokratia. (Nevertheless, many of the same issues identified above and below may apply to Template:Frankokratia itself. A follow-up might discuss whether that template can be brought in compliance as well).

Explanation: Byzantine–Frankish conflicts of the Frankokratia very poorly explains what the template's function, usage and scope is, which is not documented anywhere. The article Frankokratia has a very poorly defined scope itself: it can basically refer to any territorial possession of a "Frankish" (Latin/Catholic Christian/Western European) polity on any former territory of the Byzantine Empire from 1204 to 1797. Besides, "Byzantine" can refer to any polity claiming to represent the Byzantine Empire in that same period, such as the Latin Empire (although that is counted as "Frankish" here), Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Thessalonica, Empire of Trebizond, Despotate of Epirus, Despotate of Thessaly, etc. For the Struggle for Constantinople (1204–1261) section (originally "Nicaean-Latin Wars", an WP:OR article title that has been turned into a redirect), it seems that all conflicts between "Byzantine" factions on both sides (and "Frankish" factions on both sides) have been excluded, except perhaps the Battle of Pelagonia, where the "Byzantine" Despotate of Epirus joined forces with several "Latin" states against the "Byzantine" Empire of Nicaea, so that overall, the battle can still be considered a "Byzantine–Frankish conflict". This is really stretching things, and tantamount to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Which brings me to the objections of WP:NAVBOX #1, 2, 3, 4, and WP:NAV-RELATED #1, 2:

There is no Wikipedia article on the subject of the template, namely Byzantine–Frankish conflicts of the Frankokratia, there is only Frankokratia;
Byzantine–Frankish conflicts of the Frankokratia is not a single, coherent subject;
this subject is not mentioned in every [linked] article;
the linked articles do not all refer to each other, to a reasonable extent, certainly not between the 5 sections of the campaignbox;
the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, certainly not between the 5 sections of the campaignbox;
Articles included in a navigation template should be more than loosely-related, but may include tangentially-related topics (...); in my opinion, the 5 sections are loosely-related, and especially the 5th section Wars with the Venetians, Catalans, and others is essentially a catch-all for any battles any "Byzantine" state had with any "Frankish" state that cannot be grouped with any of the other 4 sections above it.

Proposal: Therefore, I think the most reasonable alternative to deletion is to split up this campaignbox into 3 separate campaignboxes:

Sections 1 and 2 may be split off as a Campaignbox Struggle for Constantinople (1204–1261), with Constantinople (1203) and Constantinople (1204) as a prelude (tangentially-related topics).
Section 3 may be split off as a Campaignbox Achaean–Byzantine conflicts (1263–1375) if this does not violate any of the campaignbox guidelines (since it does not have a main article, but it does have two clear belligerents)
Section 4 may be split off as a Campaignbox Angevin–Byzantine conflict (1270s–1281) if this does not violate any of the campaignbox guidelines (since it does not have a main article, but it does have two clear belligerents)
Section 5 should just be removed, because it is a catch-all that will still violate the campaignbox guidelines on its own, and cannot be merged into the other 3 proposed campaignboxes.

But if we cannot reach agreement on that, or another overhaul that anyone else might propose below, then deletion remains my preferred option. I'm interested in hearing your feedback. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas, Commenenian, Srnec, Koopinator, Greco22, and Go-Chlodio: For your information. You seem to be some of the most relevant editors in this topic area, and I think your perspective might be helpful here. Feel free to leave feedback here if you like. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama Cooperative Extension System

Template:Alabama Cooperative Extension System (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've nominated the main ACES article for deletion for issues of promotion/spam/COI (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Cooperative Extension System), so the associated template would also need to be deleted Shredlordsupreme (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Hungary

Template:Culture of Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Covered sufficiently by navbox (and attempts to duplicate content from it), doesn't need a sidebar. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SIP Library

Template:SIP Library (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sidebar templates are a way of connecting closely-related content, not advertising books. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to dispute this nomination. Firstly, it’s not advertising. These are three examplars of open children's stories, that were created by Social Publishers. There is no advertising here, the books are free to download and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Secondly, Wikipedia is concerned with providing every single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge. This project is teaching basic skills so that they can read, and use Wikipedia. Thirdly, if this is seen as advertising of books, then how do you justify the existence of this sidebar? Template:Bible sidebar Derek J Moore (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content isn't necessarily a problem. I just think it would be better contained in the external links section of Book Dash than in a sidebar. Other than Book Dash, this sidebar only appears in African Storybook, and there I find the information to be extraneous. The title of the sidebar is a red link, which is somewhat problematic for readily identifying what the sidebar is about. --Bsherr (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for adding this to a template to a particular category Literature_sidebar templates. That was helpful. If I may summerise. I cannot see consensus. Avertising is not a problem and neither is content. Fair point about the location of the template. I can move it to the bottom of the page. The title of the sidebar is a red link, because other editors deemed that social impact publishing was not notable. The easiest solution then is to remove the link (which I have done). It won't look good for Wikipedia to be deleting free and remixable children's books, especially when the country where these books are produced (South africa) has an extremely poor record of reading. If you are worried about use of the template, that will change, as other language versions see the idea and choose to incorporate it into their pages. But we are very much still at the beginning of a Wikipedia journey. Derek J Moore (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atarimania

Template:Atarimania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While I like this sites archival information and very dedicated research, it features emulation of the games it links to. Which would be against WP:ELNEVER and WP:VGs standards on linking to external (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#External_links). Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state an example where you see a copyright violation? Matthias M. (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly seen this link related to Atari 2600 games. But the link on the Air-Sea Battle page clearly link to the site where you have links to either "Download" a ROM or play the game in-browser. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be similar to Template:archive.org with

Air-Sea Battle is available for free viewing and download at the Internet Archive

then. I think it is overkill to delete the whole template, but maybe remove the link on that specific article if the game is still copyrighted and there is no permission. Matthias M. (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. Its very hard to decipher what is on archive.org that is legal, and what isn't though. I feel weird even removing a link stating that it offers downloads to copyrighted material as its basically just re-announcing its got copyrighted material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to balance that out though as Internet Archive is a gigantic page with over a million games 14 million films. This is a significantly smaller site where nearly every game listed has the ability to play in browser or download a emulated file of. Is there a significant level of pages that do not offer them? I've searched around, and only found a few, but mostly that the dumps of games were "missing" implying that they will be added when available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]