Template talk:Advert

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)

Which speedy deletion criteria does "blatant advertising" come under? Morwen - Talk 10:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In many cases, A3, A4 and/or copyvio. In many other cases, none (and in those cases, the article should go on VFD instead). In other words, this template can be useful but should be used with some care, and obviously it is asking for the second opinion of the admin who might delete it. Radiant_>|< 11:09, 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)

TFD Nomination July 2005

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)

Preaching

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)

Preachiness falls under two existing rule violations: the "neutral POV" policy, and the rule against using Wikipedia as a soapbox. "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind" includes preaching a religion; adding a specific no-preaching rule would be redundant. --ISNorden 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Should this be limited to the talk page?

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)

This template is intended as a clear warning to the reader. If it's on the talk page, no one will read it, and it will have no function at all. If such a warning is not necessary, there's no need to include it at all. It's that simple. Bring your concerns with the inclusion of the template in Unisys to the corresponding talk page. Bye, Shinobu 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A warning about what? The warning is just about the style of the page. If there are questions about whether the facts are correct there are other tags that would be more appropriate. --JeffW 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In most cases the wording on a page will make it pretty obvious that it's written as an advertisement (there are many entities which blatantly try to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service). In the case where something is more ambiguous, and it's just a matter of opinion as to whether or not an article sounds like an ad, I would recommend leaving the template on the page, and discussing the specific wording changes that are required, on the talk page. If someone who has placed the template cannot back up on the talk page (within a couple days), why they think that the template should be there, then it's probably safe to remove. Another way to get the template removed, is simply to rewrite the text on the article so that it doesn't 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 is what looks like happened at the Unisys page), then it's safe to remove it entirely as "Abuse of tags" under WP:VANDAL. --Elonka 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I like your answer that this tag was placed in bad faith the text in the tag says that the article "reads like an advertisement" not that it is an advertisement. If a user actually thought the page was an ad wouldn't he speedy delete it, or at least nominate it for deletion in AfD? The tagger has some good points; I just think that if its a matter of style, the points should be brought up on the talk page and not make what seem like accusations in the main article. --JeffW 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Template screwed up!

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)

Linking to CSD?

What do you think of this?

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

• No objections - I've made the change. Sandstein 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• I think that it is unnecessary. Most people who are smart enough to find this template are smart enough to find the db templates as well. Diez2 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that random users who find this template already displayed on a page could find out that it could now be substituted with the new {{db-spam}}. Sandstein 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

Wording of spam warning

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 (rhetoric), 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 agree with your revert, and was considering doing it myself. The current wording is more true to the relevant policy's wording and the formal tone of other cleanup templates. --Muchness 11:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Press Release

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)

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

Icon

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

Abuse of advert tag

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)

Exactly what constitutes the appropriate usage of this tag in your opinion? Obviously not all articles about companies are suitable - Could you provide diffs so that we could get a better understanding of the misuse? Wisdom89 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A misunderstanding has arisen as a result of the use of this template

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)

The template already is prepared for this. That remark doesn't show up if you use {{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)

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

This might be a strange question - but is there anyway that it could be universally used - in other words, if it's placed at the top of the page it would encompass the entire article, but when placed within a section, it would be able to signify that said section is compromised by an advertising or promotional tone? Wisdom89 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean, automatically detecting if it's inside a section or in the top of the page (section zero)? I don't think so. Afterall, if there was a way, it would probably have been implemented by now. Waldir ^talk 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah that's a good point - I suppose that can't efficiency would have been intuitive. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Advertisements

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)

No, Category:Advertisements is for Wikipedia article about notable advertisements, not for article that are written in the style of an advertisement.  Sandstein  06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template protected

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)