Template talk:Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Spam is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] Change

Not that linkspammers speak English or pay attention to what they are doing, but maybe we could include something like "your links will be reverted, which will make your work for nothing. go spam somewhere else". — Omegatron 14:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam brigade

I would like to invite anyone who is interested in streamlining and coordinating efforts to oppose link spam to join my new little effort: User:Jdavidb/Linkspam. I would like to take these three templates (this one, Template:Spam2, and Template:Spam3), make any necessary changes, work out some standards and policies for warning people, and enlist some dedicated admins to help with blocks when people do not heed the warnings. Ultimately I'd like to make sure every link on Wikipedia belongs here and came from someone who was interested in creating a good article, not someone who had an agenda. Jdavidb 20:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The above effort is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam -- Barrylb 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam warning template names

The {{spam1}} .. {{spam4}} warnings should be named {{spam2}} .. {{spam5}}. Please comment at Template talk:TestTemplates —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-10 10:13Z

I have now carried out these moves. This particular spam/spam1 template is not effected. Petros471 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "print or DVD publication"

Why are we publicizing a hypothetical "print or DVD publication" of Wikipedia to spammers? That just sounds like an encouragement to spam in ways that won't get noticed, so your spam can get immortalized in print or on a DVD. It also obscures the important part of the message, which is you're spamming, don't do that. This really doesn't belong in the template. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to WP:SPAM?

Would anyone object to the addition of a sentence along the lines of "If you are unsure about whether or not your external link is appropriate, the guidelines at WP:SPAM may help."? Possibly instead of the link to the Wikimedia page, which is largely discussion and probably not as helpful as clear-cut guidelines? --Icarus 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] promotional websites

The template says Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) - i think that this should be reworded to say something along the lines of "please do not add links to promote web sites (commercial or otherwise)" - It seems like every time i use this template, people see the word "commercial" and they stop reading. They always try to argue that they should be allowed to promote their site because it is not commercial. We don't allow people to promote their non-notable blog, non-notable web forum, or their home page, other personal site - the spam message should reflect this. There also has been a trend of people making a "non commercial" info pages on their otherwise commercial store and then linking to that page in order to game the system. Rewording in a similar fashion would help this out. - Trysha (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what problem you're referring to, and it's one of my pet peeves. On my first reading, I thought your idea was great, but I do have one concern. The template currently explains what kind of link is inappropriate. Your re-wording changes the meaning a little bit, focusing more on the motivation for adding the link. People making vanity/spam links could try to weasel their way out of it by claiming that they weren't trying to "promote" their own site, but rather to "illustrate" one example of whatever the article is about (or some other b.s. about why it isn't a promotion). You may be correct that people don't read past the word "commercial", so another possible re-wording would be to simply switch the elements (i.e. "Please do not add links to your own websites, or to commercial websites").
I think that a better wording may be possible, but we do also have to keep in mind that no matter how we try to convey the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, vain spammers will try to find some sort of flimsy loop-hole in the letter of the law (when they're not outright ignoring it). But again, I do like your idea of at least trying to find a better wording. --Icarus 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] add a category

This template should maybe add a category (e.g. users who have received spam templates) so it becomes easier to locate instantiations. Using "What links here" from the template page has a failure mode if the template is subst-ed. I'd been subst-ing the template until I recognized the problem just now. Phr (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the template is meant to be substed, and the WLH is only useful for identifying unsubsted versions and substing them. What use would be 'Category:Users who have received warnings about spamming' or along the same lines, 'Category:Users who have received a level-3 vandalism warning'? There isn't even consensus about whether or not warnings can be removed by the users who receive them; keeping track through cats is even worse (and violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF in my opinion). --ais523 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This phrasing is misguided

There should be no policy against adding one's own commercial or other websites to External links sections. Instead, the policy should say that one should not add such a link ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE of promoting such sites. Obviously, nearly every article about a corporation has a link to the corporation's web site. The question of weather the person adding the link is or is not a principal in the corporation should not be considered important. What should be considered important is whether the link improves the article. If it's ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE of promoting the external site, and does not improve the article, it should be considered linkspam and deleted. Michael Hardy 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If a link is appropriate, you don't use this warning template. I don't see the problem here. Femto 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments were occasioned by the discussion at talk:Barbara Branden. Instead of saying that someone had added a link to the external links section of Barbara Branden ONLY for the purpose of advertising that site, they said simply that someone had added a link to his own web site. It was a link to his own web site. But it shouldn't be regarded as spam, because in fact it improves the article. It was not added ONLY to advertise the external site. In fact, it was probably not added even in part to advertise the external site. This policy should not forbid such additions. Michael Hardy 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, not a single external link, ever, was added ONLY for advertising—just ask the people who added them—of course they always somehow improve the article. Problem is, opinions differ on whether a link improves the article, and the owner of a website is hardly neutral in judging its usefulness. The policy on 'personal' neutrality exists independently of the guidelines on 'commercial' linking. If someone can't wait to establish the usefulness of their own website on the talk page with other editors, it's linkspam by default, and for good reason.
If you endorse a link, so add it. If you as an unbiased editor don't regard a link as spam, then it's not spam. (Provided you don't override any other consensus—default should be no link, until determined otherwise.) If nobody challenges a link, the definition of whether it's spam or not is moot. In all other cases, you use this template to say what you think of someone's links and to invite to the talkpage for further discussion. Femto 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed it slightly to replace the word 'advertising' with 'attracting visitors' - i've been in numerous arguments with people who say "my site is not commercial" - i think this phrasing will help eliminate that argument. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trysha (talk • contribs) .
I don't think the recent edits help. The phrasing of this template mustn't be too specific, or it's useless. As soon as you begin arguing about the 'purpose' of an added link, you've already lost. Femto 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Wikipedia:External links guideline says that you should never add your own site, even if it is good. At present the template says that you shouldn't link to your own site "for the purpose of attracting visitors". The text should likely be changed a bit so that it just says not to link to yourself ever. Perhaps a new template would be better than branding these attempts as "spam"? -- cmhTC 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But this template doesn't even call it "spamming" yet, Spam2 is the first. It doesn't have to explain or define any policies in detail, just be a friendly but determined first pointer to them. Femto 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's when it's ONLY for the purpose of attracting visitors to the external site, rather than also for the purpose of improving the article, that it should not be done. Arguing about the PURPOSE is appropriate: all arguments about editing articles are about whether they serve the PURPOSE of improving the article. Michael Hardy 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the links to be avoided section of Wikipedia:External links: A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. In this case, it isn't about the purpose. -- cmhTC 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping the template the way it was before these recent changes, per Femto's reasoning. If it gets too specific as to what intentions are and are not acceptable, that just gives spammers a built-in excuse for why their spamming was okay (when, obviously, someone disagrees or they wouldn't be seeing this template.) If they want to defend their link, they can discuss it on the appropriate talk page and have someone else add it to the actual article if that's the consensus. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording the templates

There's some discussion about possibly rewriting the spam templates at WikiProject Spam, and anyone is welcome to comment or submit a proposed wording for this template here. Wmahan. 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit requests

The thing at the bottom incorrectly states that {{advert}} is appropriate for articels, where the more appropriate one (That deals with SPAMming) is {{cleanup-spam}}. Also, the formatting should probably be changed to use {{tl}} as opposed to the current piping. 68.39.174.238 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been changed. JDtalk 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The formatting on the page is bad. With a smaller browser window, the two tables below the template overlap and are nearly illegible. Please modify that so they do not overlap. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't overlap on any size of browser window on IE6. What browser are you using? --ais523 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox, and I have my bookmarks pane open. It's overlapping. If you want a screen shot, I can provide one. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It might be something to do with clearing floats. One suggestion to the admin who deals with this is to try inserting {{-}} just before the {{TestTemplatesNotice}}. --ais523 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
When I cared about this request enough to try fixing it, I tried that, but it creates a lot of whitespace and doesn't look too good. JDtalk 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I get the amount of whitespace that clearing floats would imply without the {{-}} on the page (using IE6). There's something strange going on with the CSS. --ais523 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Tableproblem.png
Here's what I see.

I think it's like that because <noinclude>{{spam-nav}}</noinclude> is above the text of the template. If we move it down with the other table, perhaps there wouldn't be a conflict. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I moved it around at the problem is still there. It's in all the spam templates that have {{TestTemplatesNotice}}, so that probably needs fixing. Any suggestions? Thatcher131 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording inconsistency

The {{spam}} template results in a posting to a page that includes the sentence If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. But the Template:Spam page says This template is for use on user talkpages. Those two sentences seem completely contradictory - what article? Would someone mind fixing this? Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steering editors away from link-only contributions

This proposal is the result of a discussion at the spam project. Recognizing that spammers typically add only links to articles and that link-only additions are typically not that helpful in creating encyclopedic content, the following series of escallating warnings would be helpful in the spam templates:

  • {{spam1}} – Adding external links and references to articles to which you have not contributed is considered unhelpful.
  • {{spam2}} – Adding external links and references to articles to which you have not contributed is considered inappropriate.
  • {{spam3}} – Adding external links and references to articles to which you have not contributed is considered rude.
  • {{spam4}} – Adding external links and references to articles to which you have not contributed is considered rude.

See the complete discussion at WT:WPSPAM#French warning. Thoughts? ✤ JonHarder talk 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus over at WT:WPSPAM, so this will not move forward. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved documentation

Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Spam/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did in [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory|Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links]] nor should it be used for advertising or promotion.  Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.  See [[Wikipedia:External links|the external links guideline]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam|spam policies]] for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.  If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:Spam --><noinclude>
{{protected template}}
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks. +mwtoews 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)