Template talk:Advert/Archive 1

src: www.basicwebdesigning.com

Video Template talk:Advert/Archive 1

Hanya catatan

Just keep in mind that I just created this template and added it to the list of articles to not delete it immediately because it will always appear in the list, if for some reason in the future this needs to be deleted, please remove it from the list in Category: Candidate for quick removal before it is listed for removal to avoid confusion. Jtkiefer 05:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What's a quick removal criteria for "flashy ads" below? Morwen - Talk 10:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

In many cases, A3, A4 and/or copyvio. In many other cases, none (and in those cases, articles should go on VFD instead). In other words, this template can be useful but should be used with caution, and obviously it asks for a second opinion from the admin that might delete it. Radiant_ & gt; | & lt; 11:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate this effort, but the "flashy ads" are not very clear and do not fit in WP: CSD. - Netoholic @ 13:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Advert/Archive 1

Nominated TFD July 2005

A template nominated for deletion on July 17; the result of discussion/voice is for Fixed . See relevant entries on Wikipedia: Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

src: digitalinasia.files.wordpress.com

Preaching

Are there also templates for articles that read like religious dakwah? On the subject of religion, sometimes finding articles that instead of discussing the subject seems to preach it. See Devi Mahatmyam if you do not understand what I mean. I've edited the bits here and there, but I feel the article needs a full rewrite. Unfortunately, I do not have the relevant knowledge to do so. Shinobu 13:41, March 3, 2006 (UTC)

Preachiness belongs to two violations of existing rules: "POV neutral" policy, and rules against the use of Wikipedia as a soap box. "Any propaganda or advocacy" includes religious teaching; adding a certain no-preaching rule would be redundant. --ISNorden 00:53, June 26, 2006 (UTC)

src: cortjezter.com

Is this limited to the talk page?

Is not this more appropriate on the talk page. After all it is just some people's opinions and should not mess up the article if someone is just too exaggerated. The reason I am submitting it is that someone pasted it into multiple locations on the Unisys page and it is not clear to me what drives it. --JeffW 07:15, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

This template is meant as a clear warning to the reader. If it's on the talk page, no one will read it, and it will not work at all. If such a warning is not required, there is no need to enter it at all. As simple as that. Bring your concerns with the inclusion of templates in Unisys to the appropriate talk page. Goodbye, Shinobu 17:42, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

Warning about what? The warning is just about the style of the page. If you have questions about whether the facts are true, there are other, more appropriate tags. --JeffW 18:41, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

In many cases the words on the page will make it quite clear that it is written as an advertisement (there are many entities that openly try to use Wikipedia as a free ad service). In cases where something is more ambiguous, and it's just a matter of opinion whether or not an article sounds like an ad, I'd recommend leaving a template on the page, and discussing certain necessary word changes, on the talk page. If someone who has placed a template can not back up on the talk page (within a few days), why they think the template should be there, then it may be safe to delete. Another way to delete a template, simply by rewriting the text in the article so it does not sound like an ad anymore. A good resource is Wikipedia: Your first article. In cases where the template has been placed in bad faith (which looks like what happens on the Unisys page), it is safe to remove it entirely as "Misuse of tags" under WP: VANDAL. - Elonka 19:05, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

As much as I like your answer that this tag is placed in bad faith the text in the tag says that the article "read like an ad" is not an advertisement. If a user really thinks the page is an ad, will not he either delete it, or at least nominate it for deletion in AFD? Tagger has some good points; I just think that if it's a style issue, the points should be discussed on the talk page and do not make what seems like an allegation in the main article. --JeffW 20:31, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

src: webpostingmart.com

Template is garbled!

I noticed the templates were broken when I edited the 3D graphics computer software article. This is wrong, with a red link below the box. I tried fixing it by restoring it, but it did not work. Please, someone with extensive experience with templates, please fix it! - Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, September 21, 2006 (UTC)

src: cdn.colorlib.com

Connecting to CSD?

What do you think of this?

- Sandstein 21:11, November 5, 2006 (UTC)

• No objections - I have made changes. Sandstein 09:10, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
• I do not think it's necessary. Most people who are smart enough to find this template are smart enough to find db templates as well. Diez2 13:37, November 16, 2006 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that a random user who found this template already displayed on the page can see that it can now be replaced with a new {{db-spam}}. Sandstein 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

src: blogs.rsc.org

Recording of spam warnings

Anonymous Editor and/or Wizard alters G11 warnings, "Mark blatant ads for quick deletion with {{db-spam}}", to "If this is complete and total SPAM, it should be removed immediately by adding {{db- spam} } "I have reverted this change, because I believe these words do not need to be excited and do not match the relevant words from WP: CSD # G11. This is also a less than perfect English: "complete and total" is a tautology, and {{db-spam}} does not remove the page immediately; it just marks it for possibly deleted by the admin. Comment Sandstein 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your return, and are considering doing it on your own. The current words are more in line with the relevant policy words and the formal tone of other cleaning templates. - Error 11:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

src: incredibleplanet.net

Press Release

I just used this in Oracle Data Mining. I assume this is the right template for press releases and product announcements, because that's what it reads like. - Randall Bart 01:50, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the proper use of this tag. Hopefully this article will get a complete rewrite of non-COI. Thanks, Ã, Satori Son 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

src: www.5tjt.com

Icon

What if (Ã,!) In the icon changed to a dollar sign? - Rocket000 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

src: cdn.athemes.com

Ads tag abuse

I'm currently cleaning up after a new user who does not understand how to use this tag and has added it to about a dozen articles, none of which are "written like ads". This is the second user in a month that I have encountered with this problem. Since there is a basic structure for easily identifiable ads, I want to ask the manager of this tag to collect checklists for users considering adding them to articles. I used to have a broadcasting textbook containing this checklist, but that was some time ago. Any help will be appreciated. thanks. --Viridity | Talk 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the proper use of this tag in your opinion? Surely not all articles about the company are suitable - Can you give diffs so we can get a better understanding of the abuse? Wisdom89 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

src: www.epicadgroup.com

Misunderstanding has arisen as a result of the use of this template

The template refers to "this article or section" and suggests the use of {{db-spam}} for flashy ads. For those who do not know, like new users who try to get rid of some text in Barclay Littlewood earlier today, this gives the impression that the section in the article can be flagged with db-spam to get rid of it, that's not the case. Is there a way in which this can be repeated again? - Roleplayer (talk) 18:43, January 18, 2008 (UTC)

The template is ready for this. The statement does not appear if you use {{advert | section}} , which is the correct way to use templates in a section. I will change the instructions to better reflect this. Waldir ^talk 15:34, January 19, 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. - Roleplayer (talk) 17:04, January 19, 2008 (UTC)

This may be a strange question - but there are some that can be used universally - in other words, if placed at the top of the page will cover the entire article, but when placed in a section, it will be able to indicate that part is it compromised by ads or promotional tones? Wisdom89 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean automatically detect whether it is in the section or at the top of the page (the zero)? I do not think so. After all, if there is a road, it may already be implemented now. Waldir ^talk 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

yes that's a good point - I do not think that efficiency can be intuitive. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Category: Ads

Category: Ads should be added to this template so that the articles with this template in them fall into that category. - Preceding an unsigned comment added by Kurgoth Hellspawn (talk o contribs) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Category: Ads are for Wikipedia articles about notable ads, not for articles written in ad style. Ã, SandsteinÃ, 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected template

{{Editprotected}} Because this article is fully protected in July 2008, the color of the protection template in the top right corner should be red; if it's grayed out like a semi-protection template, it's probably confusing. Schfifty Three 22:04, October 6, 2008 ( UTC)

Finish ~ L'Aquatique [ talk ] 01 : 01, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

The ad word should point to WP: SOAP. The current link is no longer working. I will fix this except that the page appears to be protected. --Rebroad (talk) 15:41, November 24, 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

Why this page is protected? --Rebroad (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavilly templates used are always protected. ViperSnake151 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Style tweak

{{editprotected}}

I've done some editing on templates to bring up styles with similar tags. Code is in the new sandbox, just need to be synced. Chris Cunningham (not in the office) - 11:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Here I am Here ^{t / c} 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse template

{{editprotected}} I found an earlier article where two or three users placed this template throughout the article. Aside from misplaced, I believe they are wrong, well, faith with the words of the last sentence. They clearly decided (again, the problem for other discussions) that the advertisement was "flashy" and slapped the db-spam tag on every paragraph they thought was an ad, generating a good mess - I found it while hiding in CAT: SD. I think there needs to be some kind of clear instructions in the template about the correct use of G11 - like placing the template at the top of the page, applying it to the all etc page. HJMitchell are you calling? 16:45, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it may take some discussion so I have disabled the request for now. I personally never find the situation you describe, but people will always do unexpected things even if the documentation is perfect. So I think the easiest way would only be to suggest the user in question how to use the templates quickly correctly, rather than changing this one. Let's see what other people think. What words would you propose? --Ã, Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 20:16, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there is always someone who will do something crazy, regardless of all our best efforts.

What about those words is something like ... For articles that appear to have no purpose other than advertising entities, you can use {{db-spam}} to request a quick removal. Please consider reading CSD G11 first . Sounds good? HJMitchell are you saying? 14:12, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

This should have a special category with month/year.

In this way, articles like really old ads can be viewed (and probably sent to deletion).HeadbombÃ, { ^???? _{? ???????} Ã, -Ã, WP Physics} 01:32, June 27, 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

The current template is written as, "This article or section is written like an ad. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy." Why not have a specific one for the section, and one special for the article? I do not understand why not. In addition, the current version refers to the article AND section in the first section, but only the article in the second section. Hope also to improve that part. I've turned it into "article/section", but I want to check if there is any small doubt. Kennard2 01:51, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and suggest that it should be extended to Article/Section/Example, where an Example is too similar to an ad for that instance. This can be common for articles on subjects that have only one instance at this time. Larek (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I'm a bit slow this morning. Kennard2's suggestion is done. In fact I can only use "1 = examples" now, but the way 'parts' added to the template is as an exception. So the closing text about the 'quick deletion' tag is always there except for the case where '1 = part'. I want to see it only for the case here '1 = article' or '1 =' instead.

I do not mind the ending note/custom text that can be used. Like "3 = My new final sentence". If not, and I get another exception; then in the case of '1 = example' I would like to see some things like "Please remove any content/advantages/disadvantages of articles that apply to the whole article topic, from articles and entry to main article." Larek 16:09 , July 28, 2009 (UTC)

The final sentence has been disabled for | section . If you will adjust everything, you may also just use {{ambox}}. Or, better yet, detailing what needs to be done on the talk page or do it yourself. Disabling edit is protected as this is not an uncontroversial change; Further discussion is required before we get admins here. Chris Cunningham (not in the office) - talk 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove db-spam notation

Hi. I would appreciate if we could remove the reference to {{db-spam}}; this is a patent infringement of WP: SELFREF. I must say I feel a bit sad to try to pull Bank of America to learn more about it, just to be faced with the language of which template to put by the editor on the page. The text will read:

 & lt ;! - {{Advert}} start - & gt; {{# ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{& lt; includeonly & gt; subst: & lt;/includeonly & gt; NAMESPACE}} | & lt; includeonly & gt; [[Category: Pages with faulty template change | {{PAGENAME}}]] & lt;/includeonly & gt; |}} {{Ambox  | type = content  | text = This is {{{1 | article}}} '' 'is written like [[WP: NOT # SOAPBOX | {{## if: {{{2 |}}} | {{{}}} | an ad}}]] '' '. Please help [{{fullurl: {{FULLPAGENAME}} | action = edit}} rewrite this {{{1 | article}}}] from [[Wikipedia: Neutral point of view | neutral point of view]]. {{#if: {{date | |}}} | & lt; small & gt; '' ({{date}}}) '' & lt;/small & gt;}}  }} & lt; includeonly & gt; {{DMCA | Articles with promotional tones | from | {{{date |}}} | All articles with promotional tones}} & lt;/includeonly & gt; & lt ;! - {{Advert}} end - & gt; & lt; noinclude & gt;    {{Documentation}}  & lt ;! - PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWICES TO/doc SUBPAGE, THANK YOU - & gt; & lt;/noinclude & gt; 

{{editprotected}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

These words have been in existence since 2006. Let's give people a chance to give their views before placing {{editprotected}} requests. --Ã, Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning a template is a self-reference by definition. This is not the only culprit, and indeed the advice given is often appropriate for articles that place this tag. Chris Cunningham (not in the office) - talk 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the db-spam notation be part of the {{advert}} template? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestions for tagging with {{db-spam}} are appropriate, for asking an inexperienced editor that the article may be eligible for quick removal; {{advert}} is for saving materials and easy mnemonics. Josh Parris 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. The dual purpose of this template is well defined, and I think it's appropriate to continue using templates for both styles (too promotional text articles) and content (probably spammy). Chris Cunningham (not in the office) - 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• The request to "edit this page" is also a self-reference, but anyone who has the ability to actually do so may find the suggestion useful. Self reference should be expected in the maintenance template. Reach the Truth 19:28, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
• The self-reference policy talks about article content. The mention of db-spam is fine with me. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Ajeyo, May 27, 2010

{{editprotected}}

Ajeyo (talk) 19:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished You need to specify what changes you need to make to the template, we can not read your mind. Keith D (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwikis

Hi! Since I can not find the interwiki of this template (..and I do not even know where I can find it), can someone add the interwiki to this template in Finnish -Wikipedia? -Henswick (talk) 05:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Darlene Green, October 22, 2010

{{edit protected}} I have changed the text of the article "Halton Hills Public Library" to be more factual and less like an ad, removing the language of bias and the words "what the library offers". Is it possible to have "This article is written like an ad Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." removed from the article, please?

Darlene Green (talk) 20:25, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

template tag application should require discussion

Agree with HowardBGolden above - I propose to add "Please see the discussion on the talk page." text & amp; doc from NPOV template to this template. AV3000 (talk) 14:28, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SYTO Ghana, May 2, 2011

SYTO Ghana (talk) 18:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hello SYTO Ghana. If you have any edits requested to this template, or other questions, please let us know. - Satori Son 19:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Change the words

I propose that the renderings in this template be modified, and references to the delete templates are quickly deleted. I propose that the words be read as follows:

• " This article can be written like an ad, if so please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view Please see the discussion on the talk page

I recommend dropping the rest.

As it stands strong words and comes with certainty rather than the characteristics of what the article may or may be. Personally, I have marked the article as an ad (some time ago), and after discussion on the talk page I realized it was not. In other words, the editor made a mistake in the assessment.

Regarding " use Db-spam to mark a quick deletion. (August 2011) ", this statement seems out of place in the main room of the article. It's like an invitation to continue and ask for a quick removal of any articles you use. If it is an established article, such a statement does not make sense. If it's a new article then a quick removal request would be more appropriate than placing a Template: Ads on a new article. So anyway I see it, this statement seems out of place. So, I think the statement should be removed. thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE FINALLY edit this? See the whole page for this reason. In short: please remove the line "For blatant ads that will require basic rewriting to be encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to flag quick deletion." If the editor has determined that the ad template is appropriate, then "suggestions" are not required. It's also confusing and distracting to people (new) who are looking at templates in articles they create or are interested in. --Jean Calleo (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented Steve's suggestion with one exception: I leave the phrase "see discussion on the talk page" as there may be no discussion on the talk page. (I think some of these templates have special parameters to connect to the discussion.) - Martin (small) (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · speech) 12:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, looks better now. --Jean Calleo (talk) 12:11, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User: MSGJ. Yes, this is a much better template now. To the other editors - I did not realize that this discussion had been going on long enough in one form or another. This is briefly indicated by User: Jean Calleo. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- We can actually do with some additional help text here. Links to WP: NPOV and edit article links are not really sufficient. How about:

Mind? Chris Cunningham (user: thumperward) - talk 12:03, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Gives the impression that the problem is an external link. --Jean Calleo (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Often. However, I appreciate having its own templates and that this has a different focus, so I appreciate further discussion on the ways in which templates can direct editors better into what needs to be fixed than sending them to long pages on Wikipedia concepts. Chris Cunningham (user: thumperward) - talk 14:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I have now driven a slight change in this order. Chris Cunningham (user: thumperward) - talk 11:57, November 4, 2011 (UTC) WP: NOT # SOAPBOX_and_WP: EL "> WP: NOT # SOAPBOX_and_WP: EL"> "is" vs. "maybe"

I do not like how this wishy-washy template now sounds that we have changed from "is" to "maybe". Every article on the entire site is "probably" written like an ad, but what I add this to is is written like an ad. That's why I added them. Can we at least add parameters for those of us who prefer the old words? - Chowbok ? 20:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

• Support (rewording or parameter). --Ã, JeraphineÃ, Gryphon Ã, ^(talk) 20:44, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

  "... is..." is subjective. However I agree that "... maybe..." is not strong enough, and can also be interpreted as permission (you can write this like an ad if you like). What about "This article seems written like an advertisement"? (My emphasis). An optimist on run! 12:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

• "Apparently" is the best of both worlds IMO. If there is no objection that the words I will update the template. Chris Cunningham (user: thumperward) (talk) 12:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I still think "is" better, but I will accept "seems" as a compromise.-- Chowbok ? 10:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support "seems" Puffin ^{Come talk!} 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ã, Finished - slakr ^{\ Ã, talkÃ,/} 07 : 03, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Spam-clearance

Is there a consensus to incorporate the Template: Clean-spam into this one? It looks like from a history of editing and Wikipedia: Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 1 # Template: Clean-spam consensus is to keep them separate... Osiris (temp) (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I canceled editing. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 14:26, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Please review the STOPzilla page.

Hi there,

I am an iS3 employee, developer of STOPzilla. I recently worked to clean up the language pages that might appear as ads. I have listed its features and include product reviews, both positive and negative. I would appreciate if we could remove the ad tag from the top of the page. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at aradcliffe@is3.com.

thank you

Aradcliffe1 (bicara) 13:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording

I did a double-take when I saw how the wording of this template has changed recently. It reminds me of the signs that you see at the pub - "The person who appears to look under 18 will not be served." There is nothing wrong with saying "This article is written like an advertisement" for the word "love" has to convey an element of uncertainty. "This article appears to be an advertisement" would be a clear alternative. Deb (talk) 19:12, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Any consequences of abolition of the notification ads on a page?

What happens if you delete the ad notification at the top of the page if you feel you have corrected changes to make it objective and reliable? Thanks Joepugfan (talk) 20:52, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Usually, when someone sees, they're happy that someone has a taste for deleting an inappropriate tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

Revision of words

The term "maybe" seems unclear to the context of this template.

In addition, this also brings more in line with the language type used by WP: NOT (where the ad is part of the promotion). ViperSnake151 Ã, Talk 02:38 , March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Please wait a while for others to comment on your proposal before applying {{editprotected}}. Thanks - Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 18:09, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

1. Support - his words are so clumsy. Deb (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think ViperSnake151 and Deb are correct that this can be rewritten for more clarity.

I'd also like to see her join a little-used {{cleanup-spam}}, which says:

I prefer the "Help for" style of language, and I think it is worth mentioning "rewrite" and "delete", as both may need to be done. I would prefer not to use the word ad , or at least not by itself, as there are ways to promote products that do not include "Buy now!" ad language. What other ideas do people have to improve this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "maybe"; if an article is tagged, there must be a problem. Do not dance around the facts, acknowledge the truth. ViperSnake151 Ã, Talk 18:20 , October 20, 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind

How about this? This is a compromise between the two. ViperSnake151 Ã, Talk 19:25 , October 20, 2014 (UTC)

Message ad tag should be changed to reflect that it is an opinion

I recently had an article, "Nix package manager," tagged with ads tags. I am questioning the words of this tag, which states "This article is is written like an ad (emphasis added).I think the text of this tag should explain that a user has added this tag and that tagging is the user's opinion This should prompt the user to discuss this on the talk page Marking a page with tags is an opinion Therefore, the words should clarify this.For example, > Cleanup-spam templates use the words, "This article may contain spam..." (emphasis added) Something similar really belongs to all the tags that express opinions about the article. may be written in a way that opinion (whatever it is) is presented as fact . I will look at other tags and suggest certain words that I believe will promote dialogue, not war editing - HowardBGolden (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just seen edits of Feb to Xenix and commented on the fetch page "written like an ad".

In a nutshell: It seems very strange to me that a user #, #. #. # IP, may be bored and sit on a free airport internet console can annotate a page an "Template: ads" tag without give reasons, and without discussing points on the talk page.

• Suggestion 1: IF {{advert}} contains no comment
• Suggestion 2: OR IF {{advert}} comments made by an anonymous #. #. #. # IP users
• Suggestion 3a: OR IF {{advert}} comment that the user has fewer than 10 edits
• Suggestion 3b: OR IF {{advert}} commented that the user has less than 100 edits
• Suggestion 4a: OR IF {{advert}} leave comments, user's oldest contribution less than a month old
• Suggestion 4b: OR IF {{advert}} comment, the oldest contribution of users less than a year ago

THEN migrate tags to the talk page with a link to the original contributor (e.g. diff).

And then ask {{advert}} back with a link only if the majority consensus agrees to tag its ads, and needs to be fixed.

• Suggestion 5: IF was not fixed in 1 calendar month
• Suggestion 6: OR IF consensus majority agree that the page is a prominent ,

THEN pages must be removed according to {{db-g11}}, {{db-spam}}, {{db-promo}}

See Also: Wikipedia: Speedy_deletion_criteria # General paragraph G11:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and need to be rewritten basically to be encyclopedic. Note that having only a company or product as its subject is not not qualifies the article for this criterion.

• {{db-g11}}, {{db-spam}}, {{db-promo}}

NevilleDNZ (talk) 01:12, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

This is my voice:

I just saw this old effort to start a discussion. I'm just making a statement, without examining what has been said: everything in Wikipedia unless explicitly sourced statement is an opinion; anyone can say whatever they want; and anyone can delete or change what is said. In practice this works pretty well. If any template is clearly misunderstood, it can be deleted; if others object they will return it. This is not a significant issue. Pol098 (talk) 14:24, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

In accordance TFD Template: Cleanup-spam (non-enhanced), the words of this template should have been changed now. ViperSnake151 Ã, Discussion 14:47 , February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Sell in the form of money?

Is this only appropriate for commercially related stuff (which should be a document link to sell)? As seen in my edit: [fetching ads] in Google Chrome Frame. That and free Internet Explorer as in beer. However IE is proprietary software even if it is free. Google Chrome is free software, not sure about Frame based on like Google Chrome, which is proprietary at no cost. Is the template appropriate for someone to sell you with an idea (for free)? or in this case discontinued? comp.arch (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this is when an article is openly written by a company that makes it and reads more like an ad for it (ie more like "Google Chrome is an award-winning web browser by Google that improves your browsing experience" - type language). ViperSnake151 Ã, Talk 19:10 , March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Modify the template text to complete TFD

Per TFD, please change the template words to the following:

  {{Ambox  | name = Ads  | subst = & lt; includeonly & gt; {{subst: substcheck}} & lt;/includeonly & gt;  | type = content  | class = ambox-Advert  | issue = This {{{1 | article}}} is' '' contains written content like [[Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not # Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional tool | {{# if: {{{2 |}}} | {{{}}}} | Advertisement}}]] '' '.  | fix = Please help [{{fullurl: {{FULLPAGENAME}} | action = edit}} increase it] by deleting [[WP: SPAM | promotional content]] and inappropriate [[WP: EL | external link]], and by adding encyclopedic content written from [[Wikipedia: Neutral point of view | neutral point of view]].  | cat = Articles with promotional tones  | date = {{date}}}}  | all = All articles with promotional tones  }}  

ViperSnake151 Ã, Talk 19:00 , March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Done - I went through the redirection shortcuts and removed "is" from the message. Yours sincerely, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:12, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests by template on April 15, 2015

Please do not remove the Ellipse Institute of Information Technology page as it includes information about companies trying to increase IT coverage in Nepal. We just want to improve the IT field. Parashagrawal (talk) 01:33, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place. Press on "This quick takedown contest" inside a large red banner to explain why the page should not be deleted. Alakzi (talk) 01:37, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on August 25, 2015

Simplify the code by replacing {{# if: {{{2 |}}} | {{{2}}} | ads}} with {{{2 | ads}}} . Thank you! -a, void xor 23:30, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

No, because {{Advert | 2 =}} will then generate "This article contains content written like [[Wikipedia: What Wikipedia does # Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotion tool |]] ." Alakzi ) 23:36, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like a bug in the MediaWiki software, and the above statement if there is a solution. One would think the zero argument equals not specifying the parameters at all. OK. Thank you for the info. -Ã, void xor 01:44, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

​​â € <â €

Question: Are these edits approved? diff Looks like adding a link to WP: PROMO would be better to stick in the current policy version. There was no discussion of the talk page about the change. I am a paid part-time editor, I believe edits are made to support alternative ideologies. This editing was made some time after changing the template. diff According to the old guide, the template was abused and some editors did not like that I pointed it out. Thank you! 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 18:54, May 22, 2016 (UTC) 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 18:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done @ 009o9: No problem to discuss here, but editprot requests are for ready-to-serve edits. Do you have any specific changes you want to make on this template? - xaosflux ^Talk 19:23, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Please review this diff diffusion [diff]. All I ask is rollback in order and add protection to WP: ADVERT/Doc Template: ADVERT/Doc? The edits substantially changed the guide. Thank you! 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 19:44, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

As far as the Template content: Advert/doc, see WP: BRD; as far as protection of these pages does not guarantee current protection. - xaosflux ^Talk 20:50, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Fuhghettaboutit: My understanding is that the page is under unlimited protection, that is how this conversation started. [1] I do not see a user who has Template editor, or administrator privileges. [2] Did not see what was well done to protect only half of the template. 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 23:33, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

The documentation page is seldom protected, as it is only visible when viewing the template page directly - unlike the actual template, a change that will impact ~ 17000 pages. - xaosflux ^Talk 23:40, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to decide if the return is worth the trip to the ANI drama board. 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 00:09, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have to think hard before you do it. You've cited a very bad old justification as an excuse to remove the ad tag of the article you paid for editing. I will not make any dramas about it but if you do this contest, or you continue to edit directly any of the templates, guides or essays that are promoted to the guidelines in a way that benefits your paid editing work I will bring load diffs show you have done that. Just go away. The public will not tolerate this by 2016. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Notes on scope

It's silly to limit this to:

Add this to articles that need help from other editors because they sound like ads. For example, they might tell users to buy company products, provide price lists, provide links to online sellers, or use inconsistent or meaningless keywords.

The ad tag is for articles that directly try to sell the product to our readers. Do not add this tag just because the material in the article shows the company or product in overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of product features. This template adds articles to Category: Articles with promotional tones.

Some articles in their presence are simply advertisements for companies or products; anyone who patrols with new articles or spends time viewing ads for paid editing on sites like Upwork knows that paid editors or otherwise create articles all the time for companies, people, or products that fail GNG for a mile, and the goal of the article is to get the company , people, or products included in Wikipedia to make them more visible to the public . In other words, ads . This tag is appropriate for articles that are the result of this activity, and the relevant sections of the policy should be cited here. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

If an article fails GNG, it's not a candidate for the Advert tag, this is PROD or G11, so GNG has no relevance to this tag. I also fail to see the relevance of Upwork here, or the "purpose" of the article, the content is a relevant factor not the point. Guide for tags will be much more instructive if coming from WP: YESPOV. Finally, the encyclopedia is a collection of facts, if they are facts and they are RS, they do not advertise. I would argue that the previous guides are much more informative. 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 01:01, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles of infinite borderlessness and that is very common in paid editor work products; above I provide some examples of the wider range of situations in which these tags are useful. Much wider. The former is very narrow. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, Ad tags specifically address WP: SPAM and agreed guidelines. 009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 02:49, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, placing tags because you have suspicions about the editor's motives may be annoying editing and personal attacks. Again, that's the content, not the point. This is probably why the guidance is narrow in the first place - I think someone is discussing those words. 009o9 ^Disclosure (Talk) 02:59, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

tag is about content . Jytdog (talk) 03:03, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Your edits look much better, how does this compromise? current009o9 ^Disclosure (Speak) 04:10, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

​​â € <â €

Can someone add {{subst: tfm | Spam-request}} to the top of the template as it was nominated to be merged by KATMAKROFAN P p p e r y 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contribution) 14:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

​​â € <â €

I just closed tfm as a snow holder, and now someone has to remove the tfm box at the top. P p p e r y 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Completed - JJMC89 (T Ã, Â · C) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on February 9, 2017

Please remove the "advert" template from this entry. I have added additional veirfied sources and can see that other shaving is done since the flag is raised. I'm sure 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)

Unfinished: Ged Ladd This is where the request for changes to the template does not change to where it is used. You did not mention a article but you may be able to remove it yourself. Cabayi (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

{{subst: tfm | Cleanup-PR}} . Nominated for merging. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Completed --Ã, Train2104Ã, (tÃ, Â ° c) 03:39, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Could someone not include a TFM template? Spam on the template used to flag spam is ironic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:05, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can someone add a parameter:

 | image = [[File: scales.svg | 50x40px | link = | alt =]] is not balanced  

to template, to match other NPOV templates? KMF (talk) 17:31, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: Unfinished: please create a consensus for this change before using the template {{edit -protected }} template. Scale images are only used in templates where the first connected word is neutrality . It's not clear enough to me that the scale of the image would be right here to make this change without discussion first. --Achch ( TALK PAGE ) 17:57, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

{{COI}} using a scale, and the first linked word is close . Also, the ad says "... and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." KMF (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia