Template talk:Advert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just a note[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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?[edit]

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![edit]

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?[edit]

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)


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)

I agree, and suggest that it should be expanded to Article/Section/Example, Where an Example is too much like an ad for that example. This can be common for articles on a subject that only has one current example in existence. Larek (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm a little slow this morning. Kennard2's suggestion has already been done. In fact I can just use "1=example" right now, but the way 'section' added to the template was as an exception. So that the ending text about the 'speedy deletion' tag is always present except for case where '1=section'. I would like to see it only for the case here '1=article' or '1=' instead.
I would not mind a usable custom end note/text too. Like "3=My new ending sentence". If not, and I get another exception; then in the case of '1=example' I would like to see some thing like "Please move any content/advantages/disadvantages of the article that applies to the article topic as a whole, out of the article and into the main article." Larek (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The end sentence is already disabled for |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)

Wording of spam warning[edit]

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 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[edit]

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)


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

Abuse of advert tag[edit]

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[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

{{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)

Yes check.svg Done ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Link broken[edit]

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?[edit]

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

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

Style tweaks[edit]


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)

Yes check.svg Done It Is Me Here t / c 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of template[edit]

{{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)

Hmm, I think this might require some discussion so I've disabled the request for now. I've personally never come across the situation you describe, but people will always do unexpected things even if the documentation is perfect. So I think the easiest way would simply be to advise the users in question how to use the speedy templates properly, instead of changing this one. Let's see what others think. What wording would you propose anyway? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, there's always someone who'll do something crazy, despite all our best efforts.
How about wording it something like ...For an article that appears to serve no purpose beyond advertising an entity, you can use {{db-spam}} to request speedy deletion. Please consider reading CSD G11 first. Sound any good? HJMitchell You rang? 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This should have dedicated categories with month/year.[edit]

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)

Please remove the db-spam notation[edit]

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>


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

This wording has been in place since 2006. Let's give people a chance to give their views before placing the {{editprotected}} request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup templates are self-referential by definition. This isn't the only culprit, and indeed the advice given is often suitable for the articles upon which this tag is placed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - 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)

  • A suggestion to tag with {{db-spam}} is appropriate, as it prompts a less experienced editor that perhaps the article could qualify for speedy deletion; {{advert}} is for salvageable material and an easy mnemonic. Josh Parris 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed. This template's dual purpose is well-established, and I think it's appropriate to continue using the template for both style (the article text is overly promotional in tone) and content (it might be verging on spam). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Requests to "edit this page" are also self-references, but anyone with the ability to actually do so may find such advice useful. Self-references are to be expected on maintenance templates. Reach Out to the Truth 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The policy on self-reference is talking about article contents. The mention of db-spam is fine with me. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (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.

  • Suggestion 1: IF the {{advert}} contains no remarks
  • Suggestion 2: OR IF the {{advert}}+remarks is done by an anonymous #.#.#.# IP user
  • Suggestion 3a: OR IF the {{advert}}+remarks the user has less then 10 edits
  • Suggestion 3b: OR IF the {{advert}}+remarks the user has less then 100 edits
  • Suggestion 4a: OR IF the {{advert}}+remarks user's oldest contribution is less then a month old
  • Suggestion 4b: OR IF the {{advert}}+remarks user's oldest contribution is less then a year old

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.

  • Suggestion 5: IF it is not fixed within 1 calendar month
  • Suggestion 6: OR IF the majority consensus agrees that the page is a blatant advert,

THEN the page should be removed as per {{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 would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

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)
I've just seen this old attempt to start discussion. I'd just make a remark, without studying what's been said: everything in Wikipedia except explicitly sourced statements is an opinion; anyone can say whatever they want; and anyone else can remove or change what's said. In practice this works reasonably well. If any template is blatantly misused it can be removed; if others object they will reinstate it. This is not a significant issue. Pol098 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Per the TFD of Template:Cleanup-spam (which has not yet been consummated), the wording of this template should have been changed by now. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request from Ajeyo, 27 May 2010[edit]


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

X mark.svg Not done You need to detail what changes you require making to the template, we cannot read your mind. Keith D (talk) 20:04, 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 request from Darlene Green, 22 October 2010[edit]

{{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)

template tag application should entail discussion[edit]

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)

Edit request from SYTO Ghana, 2 May 2011[edit]

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

Hello SYTO Ghana. If you have a requested edit to this template, or another question, please let us know. — Satori Son 19:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Change wording[edit]

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:

  • "This article may be written like an advertisement. If so, please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. Please see discussion on talk page.

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)

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)

I've implemented Steve's suggestion with one exception: I left off the sentence about "see discussion on talk page" because there might not be any discussion on the talk page. (I think some of these templates have a special parameter to link to a discussion.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou, looks better now. --Jean Calleo (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks User:MSGJ. Yes, this is a much better template now. To the other editors - I did not realize that this discussion has been going for quite awhile in one form or another. This was breifly pointed out by User:Jean Calleo. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 26 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)

Gives the impression that the problem is external links. --Jean Calleo (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It often is. However, I appreciate that has its own template and that this has a different focus, so I'd appreciate further discussion on ways in which the template could better guide editors into exactly what has to be fixed rather than sending them off to a long page on Wikipedia concepts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:41, 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)

...should it? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"is" vs. "may be"[edit]

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)

  • Support (rewording or parameter). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    "... is ..." is subjective. However I agree that "... may be ..." isn't strong enough, and could also be interpreted as permission (You may write this like an advert if you like). How about "This article appears to be written like an advertisement"? (my emphasis).  An optimist on the run! 12:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I still think "is" is better, but I'll accept "appears to be" as a compromise.—Chowbok 10:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Support "appears to be" Puffin Let's talk! 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done --slakrtalk / 07:03, 29 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)

Please review STOPzilla's page.[edit]

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.


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)

Revise wording[edit]

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)

Please allow some time for others to comment on your proposal before applying the {{editprotected}}. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Support - the wording as it stands is extremely clumsy. Deb (talk) 12:53, 27 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)

I object to the use of the word "may"; if an article is tagged, there is definitely a problem present. Don't dance around the facts, admit the truth. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:20, 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)

Sell as in money?[edit]

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)

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

Any ramifications for deleting the advert notification on a page?[edit]

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)

Usually, if anyone notices, they're glad that someone had the sense to remove a tag that is no longer appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Change template text to complete TFD[edit]

Per the TFD, please change the template's wording to the following:

| 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)

Yes check.svg Done – I bypassed the shortcut redirects and removed the "is" from the message. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 April 2015[edit]

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)

You're in the wrong place. Press on "Contest this speedy deletion" inside the big red banner to explain why the page shouldn't be deleted. Alakzi (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 August 2015[edit]

Simplify the code by replacing {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|an advertisement}} with {{{2|an advertisement}}}. Thanks! – voidxor 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, because {{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)
Hmm. That seems like a bug in the MediaWiki software, and the above if statement a workaround. One would think a null argument is the same as not specifying a parameter at all. Oh well. Thanks for the info. – voidxor 01:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 May 2016[edit]

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)

X mark.svg Not done @009o9: It is fine to discuss there here, but editprot requests are for edits that are ready to go live. Do you have a specific change you want made to this template? — xaosflux Talk 19:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Please review this undiscussed diff [diff]. What I'm asking is a rollback in order and adding protection to WP:ADVERT/Doc Template:ADVERT/Doc? The edit substantially changed the guidance. Thank you!009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as the content of Template:Advert/doc, see WP:BRD; as far as page protection - this page does not warrant protection at this time. — xaosflux Talk 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and Fuhghettaboutit: My understanding is that the page is under indefinite protection, which is how this conversation got started.[1] I'm not seeing the user possessing the Template editor, nor administrator privilege.[2] Not seeing what good is does to protect only half of the template. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Documentation pages are rarely protected, as they are only visible if looking at the template page directly - unlike the actual template, change to which will impact ~17000 pages. — xaosflux Talk 23:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to decide whether a revert is worth a trip to the ANI drama board. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you should think very, very hard before you do that. You have cited the very bad old justification as a reason to remove advert tags from articles you were paid to edit. I am not going to make any drama about that but if you do contest this, or you continue to directly edit any of these templates, guidelines, or essays being promoted to guidelines in a way that favors your paid editing work, I will bring a load of diffs showing you have been doing that. Just walk away. The community will not tolerate this in 2016. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Note on scope[edit]

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)

If an article fails GNG, it's not a candidate for the Advert tag, it's a PROD or a 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 the relevant factor not the intent. The guidance for the tag would be far more instructive if it were derived from WP:YESPOV. Finally, an encyclopedia is a collection of facts, if they are facts and they are RS, they are not advertising. I contend the previous guidance is far more informative. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 01:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There are many articles of borderline notability and those are especially prevalent in the work product of paid editors; above i was giving some examples of the much wider range of situations in which this tag is useful. Much wider. The former description was absurdly narrow. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
IMHO the Advert tag specifically addresses WP:SPAM and the guideline agrees. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
In fact, placing the tag because you have some suspicion about the editor's motives is probably disruptive editing and a personal attack. Again, it's the content, not the intent. This is probably why the guidance was narrow in the first place -- I'd reckon somebody discussed that verbiage. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
the tag is about content. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your edit looks much better, how is this for a compromise? current009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)