Wikipedia talk:Spam

To discuss promotional edits of specific editors and articles, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spam page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 366 days

Archives

Dec 2003 – Sep 2006 Nov 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – March 2009 April 2009 – May 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Discussion on Zach Iscol talk page concerning applicability of advertising assertion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:E82A:7668:3088:CA29 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised today to read the WP:SPAM#Source soliciting section, particularly the first two sentences:

Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation are inappropriate.

I have definitely posted messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. I've used the template {{refideas}}, which has over 13,000 transclusions. Is this inappropriate? Does the word "anonymous" in the second sentence mean that it's OK for a logged-in editor to do this, but not for an IP editor?

I looked in the archive and it seems the last time this was discussed was in 2020 in Archive 5 (the thread that begins "The current consensus", which I can't figure out how to link to because of the brackets) by Glades12 and WhatamIdoing, with WAID explaining the section was moved from WP:CANVASS in 2007 by Trialsanderrors.

Does anyone think this section accurately describes current consensus? If not, should we remove the section, or rewrite it? Levivich 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I still don't know what it means, I have no idea whether it describes current consensus. (When you can't make a link easily, switch to the visual mode and make Parsoid figure it out. It usually works, and if it doesn't, then we can file a bug report.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand the bug number is now phab:T303572. @Matma Rex, you might be interested in this bug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Levivich 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object if I remove the section? Levivich 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps revise to: Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously when soliciting editors to use a specific external source to expand an article.

A concern over 'anonymity' seems better phrased as a concern with a failure to disclose a COI, and particularly WP:PAY, which would also seem to more clearly reflect current consensus. There is a link to the COI main page at the top of the External link spamming section, but it seems helpful to also add relevant links within the section. Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a much better idea, thanks! I will make that revision if no one objects. Levivich 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with a few minor changes. Thanks everyone! Levivich 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'd object to it being removed. I wonder if there are RfCs supporting the previous wording, "The current consensus on Wikipedia...". --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:Promotional has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 8 § Wikipedia:Promotional until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:PROMOTE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 17 § Wikipedia:PROMOTE until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The opening lines say "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced". This occasionally seems to get interpreted as requiring editors to know the actual intentions of the accused refspammer. I think we are more concerned about the appearance or result. That is, if you cite the same source in 100 articles, we're going to be concerned about that because it looks like spamming even if your intentions might be as pure as new snow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]