Talk:David Rumsey Historical Map Collection

Untitled
This claim appeared on the original article and needs to be supported to justify inclusion: "The website has come under considerable criticism for being overcomplicated, slow and difficult to use."Elijahmeeks 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Template:Ad
The editor who added the template may not be aware that the online version of this collection has been utilized extensively by Wikipedia editors, and the maps in the linked Commons category are frequently singled out as being among the highest quality map images at Commons. I removed the template because I believe it is inappropriate and is intended for articles added to Wikipedia by for-profit entities who are promoting sales or individuals who are promoting their careers. However, in this case the Wikipedia article links a website at Stanford University Library (which surely as Wikipedia editors we recognize as a neutral source and a not-for-profit organization) which informs the reader that they have made a notable acquisition of this map collection. The Stanford article also links the private database of high-quality digital copies of the maps. The website is not-for-profit and provides these high-quality digital copies at no charge. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Ad is not exclusive to articles created to advertise, but may also be used for articles currently written in a promotional tone. Your claims about the collection having been utilized extensively by Wikipedia editors and having provided among the highest quality map images at Commons is not an excuse for the article to be written in non-encyclopedic language. Stanford is no doubt a great point of WP:RS, but my reason for adding the template has mainly to do with the two cases of external links inline, as well as claims of "one of the world's largest", "more recently", "new [...] tool has been added", "most popular being...", "doesn't require any special plug-ins or software", "[examples] and more", and "covering the entire world". Please keep in mind that these phrasings can be true, while still being written in a non-encyclopedic way (e.g. "expanded to include the rest of the world" is more neutral than "expanded to cover the entire world". "From 2007 to 2015" (dates made up) is more encyclopedic than "more recently"). Simply removing the ad template with no explanation other than "incorrect" is not an appropriate way of action. Cilidus (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great job incorporating my suggestions and expanding on the article! While I may have come across as condescending, I thought it strange of you to, (a) remove the template with no explanation, and (b) cite the usefulness of the website as an 'excuse' for the promotional tone of the article. I greatly appreciate your ability to seek out and replace additional vague wordings (such as issues with MOS:RELTIME) and I hope my initial response didn't come of as too harsh. Cilidus (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, it clarified for me what you thought were problems with the article, so it was helpful. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)