Wikipedia talk:Spam
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY. — Goszei (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC) — Goszei (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
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.