This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Just wanted to note that I recently created this template and added it to the list of articles to not summarily delete as it will always appear on the list, if for some reason in the future this needs to be deleted please remove from the list at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion before listing for deletion so as to avoid confusion. Jtkiefer 05:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort, but "blatant advertising" is not so cut-and-dry and doesn't all fit in WP:CSD. -- Netoholic @ 13:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletion on July 17; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Is there also a template for articles that read like religious preachings? On religious subjects, one sometimes finds articles that instead of discussing the subject seem to preach it. See Devi Mahatmyam if you don't get what I mean. I already edited bits here and there, but I feel the article needs a full re-write. Sadly, I don't have the relevant knowledge to do so. Shinobu 13:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be more appropriate on a talk page. After all its just someones opinion and it shouldn't clutter up the article if someone is just being overzelous. The reason I bring it up is that someone pasted it to several locations on the Unisys page and it isn't clear to me what prompted it. --JeffW 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the template was screwed up when I edited the 3D computer graphics software article. It renders wrong, with a red link below the box. I tried to fix with reverting, but that doesn't work either. Please, someone who has extensive experience with template, please fix! — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of this?
-- Sandstein 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous editor and/or Wizardman changed the G11 warning,"Mark blatant advertising for speedy deletion with ((db-spam))", to "If this is complete and total SPAM, it should be deleted immediately by adding ((db-spam))." I've reverted this change, as I believe this wording is needlessly excited and does not conform to the relevant wording of WP:CSD#G11. It's also less than perfect English: "complete and total" is a tautology, and ((db-spam)) does not delete a page immediately; it only marks it for possible deletion by an admin. Comments? Sandstein 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just used this at Oracle Data Mining. I assume this is the right template for press releases and product announcements, because that's what that reads like. — Randall Bart 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What if the ( ! ) in the icon was changed to a dollar sign? - Rocket000 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently cleaning up after a new user who doesn't understand how to use this tag and has added it to about a dozen articles, none of which were "written like an advertisement". This is the second user in a month that I have come across with this problem. Since there is a basic structure to advertisements that is easy to identify, I would like to ask the maintainers of this tag to put together a checklist for users considering adding it to articles. I used to own a broadcasting textbook that contained this very checklist, but that was some time ago. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The template refers to "this article or section" and suggests using ((db-spam)) for blatant advertising. For those not in the know, such as the new user who was trying to get rid of some text at Barclay Littlewood earlier today, this gives the impression that a section within an article can be marked with db-spam in order to get rid of it, which is not the case. Is there a way in which this can be re-phrased? -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
((advert|section))
, which is the correct way to use the template within a section. I'll change the instructions to better reflect this. Waldir talk 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Advertisements should be added to this template so that articles with this template on them go into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurgoth Hellspawn (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
((Editprotected))
Since the article was fully protected in July 2008, the colour of the protection template at the top-right corner should be red; if it were gray-coloured like the semi-protection template is, it may be confusing. SchfiftyThree 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The word advert should point to WP:SOAP. The current link no longer works. I would fix this except that the page seems to be protected. --Rebroad (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page protected? --Rebroad (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
((editprotected))
I've made some edits to the template to bring the style into line with similar tags. Code is at the new sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
((editprotected))
I came across an article earlier in which two or three users had placed this template all over the article. Aside from the misplacing, I believe they were misled, in good, faith by the wording of the last sentence. They obviously decided (again, a matter for another discussion) that the advertising was "blatant" and so slapped a db-spam tag on every paragraph they thought constituted advertising, resulting in a fine mess- I came across it while lurking at CAT:SD. I think there needs to be some kind of clear instruction in the template on the correct use of G11- such as placing the template at the top of the page, its applicability to the entire page etc. HJMitchell You rang? 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This way, the really old advertisement-like articles could be spotted (and possibly sent to deletion).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The template is currently written as, "This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy." Why not have one that is specific for sections, and one specific for articles? I don't see why not. Besides, the current version refers to both articles AND sections in the first part, but only articles in the second. May as well fix that part. I'd have changed it to "article/section" already, but I want to check in case there's some small doubt. Kennard2 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
((editprotected))
|section
. If you're going to customise the whole thing, you might as well just use an ((ambox)). Or, even better, either detailing exactly what needs to be done on the talk page or doing it yourself. Disabling editprotected as this isn't an uncontroversial change; further discussion is needed before we get an admin in here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Hi. I would appreciate if we could remove the reference to ((db-spam)); this is a patent violation of WP:SELFREF. It must say I found it rather saddening to try to pull of Bank of America to learn more about it, only to be confronted with language about which template an editor should place on the page. The text would read:
<!--((Advert)) begin-->((#ifeq:((NAMESPACE))|((<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE))|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|((PAGENAME))]]</includeonly>|))((Ambox | type = content | text = This (({1|article))} '''is written like [[WP:NOT#SOAPBOX|((#if:(({2|))}|(({2))}|an advertisement))]]'''. Please help [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) rewrite this (({1|article))}] from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. ((#if:(({date|))}|<small>''((({date))})''</small>)) ))<includeonly>((DMCA|Articles with a promotional tone|from|(({date|))}|All articles with a promotional tone))</includeonly><!--((Advert)) end--><noinclude> ((Documentation)) <!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS --></noinclude>
((editprotected))
Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Should the db-spam notation be part of the ((advert)) template? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
((editprotected))
Ajeyo (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Because I can't find interwikis from this template (..and I don't even know where I can find them), can somebody add those interwikis to this template in Finnish -Wikipedia?-Henswick (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
((edit protected)) I have changed the text of the article "Halton Hills Public Library" to be more factual and less like an advertisement, removing biased language and the wording "what the library has to offer". Would it be possible to have "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." removed from the article please?
Darlene Green (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with HowardBGolden above - I propose to add the "Please see the discussion on the talk page." text & doc from the NPOV template to this template. AV3000 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SYTO Ghana (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the wording on this template be changed, and reference to the speedy delete template be dropped. I propose that wording read as follows:
I recommend dropping the rest.
As it stands the wording is strong and comes across with certitude rather than characterizing what the article might be or possibly is. Personally, I have characterized an article as advertisement (awhile back), and after discussion on the talk page I realized it wasn't. In other words, editors do make errors in judgement.
Pertaining to "use Db-spam to mark for speedy deletion. (August 2011)", this statement seems out of place in the article main space. It's like an invitation to go ahead and request speedy deletion for whatever article this is placed on. If it is an established article that kind of statement makes no sense. If it's a new article then the request for speedy deletion would be more appropriate than placing the Template:Advert on the new article. So anyway I look at it this statement seems to be out of place. So, I think the statement should be removed. Thank you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone PLEASE FINALLY edit this? See the entirety of this talk page for the reasoning. In short: please remove the line "For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use ((db-spam))
to mark for speedy deletion." If the editor has already decided that the advert template is appropriate, then that "advice" is unnecessary. It's also confusing and distracting for (new) people who see the template on an article they made or are interested in. --Jean Calleo (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
We could really do with some additional help text here. A link to WP:NPOV and an edit article link doesn't really suffice. How about:
Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now pushed this slight change in wording. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Should [[WP:NOT#SOAPBOX perhaps read [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion? And [[WP:EL|external links]] as [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]]? — Robert Greer (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't like how wishy-washy this template sounds now that we've gone from "is" to "may be". Any article on the entire site "may be" written like an advertisement, but the ones I'm adding this to are written like advertisements. That's why I'm adding them. Can we at least add a parameter for those of us who prefer the old wording?—Chowbok ☠ 20:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Was there a consensus to merge Template:Cleanup-spam into this one? It seems from the edit history and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 1#Template:Cleanup-spam that consensus was to keep them separate... Osiris (temp) (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I undid the edit. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey there,
I'm an employee of iS3, developer of STOPzilla. I've recently worked on cleaning the page of language that might come across as an advertisement. I've listed its features and included reviews of the product, both positive and negative. I'd appreciate it if we could remove the advertising tag from the top of the page. If you have any questions please feel free to email me at aradcliffe@is3.com.
Thanks
Aradcliffe1 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I did a double-take when I saw how the wording of this template has changed recently. It reminds me of those signs you see on pub doors - "Persons appearing to look under 18 will not be served." There was nothing wrong with saying "This article is written like an advertisement", because the word "like" already conveys the element of uncertainty. "This article appears to be an advertisement" would be the obvious alternative. Deb (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
What happens if you delete the advert notification at the top of a page if you feel you've corrected the changes to make it objective, reliable information? Thanks Joepugfan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term "may be" seems unclear for the context of this template.
Additionally, this also brings it more in line with the type of language used by WP:NOT (where advertising is a subset of promotion). ViperSnake151 Talk 02:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that ViperSnake151 and Deb are correct that this could be re-written to be clearer.
I'd also like to see it merged with the little-used ((cleanup-spam)), which says:
I prefer the "Please help" style of language, and I think it is valuable to mention both "re-writing" and "removing", because both might need to be done. I'd sort of prefer not to use the word advertisement, or at least not by itself, because there are ways of promoting a product that do not include "Buy now!" advertising language. What other ideas do people have for improving this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
With that in mind
How about this? It's a compromise between the two. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently had an article, "Nix package manager," tagged with advert tag. I question the wording of this tag, which states "This article is written like an advertisement (emphasis added). I think the text of this tag should make clear that a user has added this tag and that the tagging is a user's opinion. It should ask the user to discuss this on the talk page. Marking pages with tags is necessarily an opinion. Therefore, the wording should make this clear. For example, the Cleanup-spam template uses the wording, "This article may contain spam..." (emphasis added). Something similar really belongs in all tags which express an opinion about the article. The tags should not be written in a way that the opinion (whatever it may be) is presented as a fact. I will look at other tags and suggest specific wording that I believe would promote a dialog, not an editing war. — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I just spotted an Feb edit to Xenix and commented on the take page "is written like an advertisement".
In summary: It seems very strange to me that an anonymous #.#.#.# IP user, possibly bored and sitting at a free airport internet console can annotate the page of an article the "Template:advert" tag without giving a reason, and without discussing the point on the talk page.
THEN migrate the tag to the talk page with a link to the original contributors (eg diff).
And then have the ((advert)) moved back with a link only if a majority consensus agrees tag the is an advert, and needs fixing.
THEN the page should be removed as per ((db-g11)), ((db-spam)), ((db-promo))
NevilleDNZ (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are my votes:
Contribution | Contributor | Action | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Suggestion vs Vote | 1: no remark | 2: anonymous | 3a: edits<10 | 3b: edit<100 | 4a: user<1mth | 4b: user<1yr | 5: 1mth grace | 6: remove blatant | |
1. | Strong Agree | Agree | Agree | Abstain | Agree | Abstain | Agree | Strong Agree | NevilleDNZ (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
2. | |||||||||
3. | |||||||||
4. | |||||||||
5. | |||||||||
etc. |
Is this only appropriate for commercial related things (that is should the doc link to selling)? As in see my edit: [took out advert] on Google Chrome Frame. That and Internet Explorer are free as in beer. IE is however proprietary software even if free. Google Chrome is however free software, not sure about the Frame that is based on in similar to Google Chrome, that is proprietary without cost. Is the template appropriate for someone to sell you on a (free) idea? or in this case a discontinued one? comp.arch (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the TFD, please change the template's wording to the following:
((Ambox | name = Advert | subst= <includeonly>((subst:substcheck))</includeonly> | type = content | class= ambox-Advert | issue= This (({1|article))} is '''contains content that is written like [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|((#if:(({2|))}|(({2))}|an advertisement))]]'''. | fix = Please help [((fullurl:((FULLPAGENAME))|action=edit)) improve it] by removing [[WP:SPAM|promotional content]] and inappropriate [[WP:EL|external links]], and by adding encyclopedic content written from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. | cat = Articles with a promotional tone | date = (({date|))} | all = All articles with a promotional tone ))
ViperSnake151 Talk 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please donot delete the page Ellipse Institute of Information Technology because it includes information about a company which tries to increase the scope of IT in Nepal. We only want to increase field of IT. Parashagrawal (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simplify the code by replacing ((#if:(({2|))}|(({2))}|an advertisement))
with (({2|an advertisement))}
. Thanks!
– voidxor 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
((Advert|2=))
would then produce "This article contains content that is written like [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|]]." Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Question: Was this a sanctioned edit? diff Seems like adding a link to WP:PROMO would be preferable to pasting in the current version of the policy. There is no talk page discussion about the change. I'm a part time paid editor, I believe that the edit was made to support the alternate ideology. This edit was made moments after changing the template. diff According to the old guidance, the template was being misused and a couple of editors did not like that I was pointing that out. Thanks! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to limit this to:
Add this to articles that need help from other editors because they sound like advertisements. For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords.
The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features.
This template adds articles to Category:Articles with a promotional tone.
Some articles by their mere existence are an advertisement for the company or product; anybody who patrols new articles or spends any time looking at ads for paid editing on sites like Upwork knows that paid or otherwise conflicted editors create articles all the time for companies, people, or products that fail GNG by a mile, and the purpose of article is to get the company, person, or product included in Wikipedia in order to make it more visible to the public. In other words, advertising. This tag is appropriate for the articles that are the result of this activity, and the relevant part of policy should be cited here. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please add ((subst:tfm|Spam-request))
to the top of the template as it has been nominated for merging by KATMAKROFAN
Pppery 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just closed the tfm as snow keep, and now someone needs to remove the tfm box at the top. Pppery 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the "advert" template from this entry. I have added additional veirfied sources and can see that other shave done so since the flag was raised. I believe the problem has now been solved. Thank you, Ged Ladd. Ged Ladd (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Ged Ladd (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
((subst:tfm|Cleanup-PR))
. Nominated for merging. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Could someone noinclude the TFM template? Spam on a template used to tag spam is ironic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone add the parameter:
| image = [[File:Unbalanced scales.svg|50x40px|link=|alt=]]
to the template, to match other NPOV templates? KMF (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
((edit template-protected))
template.. The scales image is only used on templates where the first linked word is neutrality. It's not obvious enough to me that the scales image would be appropriate here to make this change without discussion first. --Ahecht (TALKWhen I put the advert template in while using Visual Editing mode, it gives me two variables:
August 2018
I get it to take Aug or August for the first one, but 2018 nor '18 works with the second, and it gives me a catch case for calling something with only two curly braces.
Any ideas? Or am i just using it wrong.
Cheers! --Elfabet (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we return to using this template for articles that are written like adverts, rather than for anything with (even mild) NPoV issues? We have other templates for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
How often do you think this issue should be discussed on the talk page? 86.29.64.45 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The 'Advert' issue. Let's say if you added this template to the article, should you discuss it on the talk page? 86.29.64.45 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pkannetwork (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Advert has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delete the template because if someone sees content that is written like an advertisement, I am pretty sure they can change it themselves. 2604:3D08:D180:4500:864:C6BF:BCC7:E296 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 2604:3D08:D180:4500:864:C6BF:BCC7:E296 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could the "external links" wikilink be changed to Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest to direct it to the relevant section of the page? ViperSnake151 Talk 06:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I think it would be better if this template said "text", "prose" or "material" rather than "content". The template is only applying to text anyway, because it says "written like". I am personally not fond of the word "content"; I think it devalues writing and other works. While that is part of why I am suggesting this, I do think that regardless of my personal opinion of the word, it's not really necessary to use it here anyway. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this change, and which word you think we should use instead. You can also suggest another word than ones I have given. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I am re-posting this as it was archived, but I propose that the wording of this template be changed to avoid the word "content". While I have an issue with the word "content" (I feel that it degrades writing and other works), I think this wording could be an improvement regardless of that. Does anyone have any comment on it? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there no such template for the German-language Wikipedia? --WiseWoman (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see the below example for a proposed change to the wording of this template. I dislike the word "content" – I feel it devalues writing and other artistic works. However, regardless of my personal opinion of it, I think that using "material" is a better choice. For one thing, it sounds more professional. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Example
|
---|
This article may contain material intended as an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing material appearing to serve as an advertisement and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view.
|