Template talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please unprotect for a while

I just want to improve the formatting a bit, damnit :/ --Col. Hauler 10:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(See also: Template talk:Prod)

Sorry, this template needs to remain protected because changes to it can easily cause a mess. What precisely do you want to change? --CBDunkerson 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit

I have occasionally come across some pages where a user tagged by doing {{subst:dated prod}} which is bad. I think we should alter the dated prod template to (1) include comments at the beginning and end to clearly delineate the code, just in case this template is substed, or (2) add some code to make everything look wrong if the template is substed (the way that prod looks wrong if you don't subst it).

Also, I think the template should be altered to make it show up strangely if no reason is provided: people should be providing a reason in their prods. Mangojuice^talk 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, this should go in Category:Prod-related templates. Mangojuice^talk 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of changes I want to make:

1. Categorize this template into Category:Prod-related templates.
2. In the instructions, a reminder to please not subst: the dated prod template.
3. In the template itself, a reminder that if the prod is removed, it should not be replaced. (I've noticed a lot of editors being confused on this point, replacing prod templates when the article creator has removed it.)

The version I want to replace it with is at User:Mangojuice/dated prod. (If anyone does this for me, please feel free to delete that page afterwards.) Mangojuice^talk 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for the replacing version :) RN 08:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Efficiency

Would it not be more efficient, especially if (as with many other similar categories) this ends up having a backlog, to do the year-month-date format for "Proposed deletions as of..."? That way, category viewing of subcategories is automatically organized from earliest to latest. Rompe 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Subst this template

Some articles are not listed properly in WP:PRODSUM becase this template has been subst'd. Any objection to adding conditional code so that a warning appears if this template is subst'd? (Liberatore, 2006). 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Typos in the notes

Would an admin please fix the following typos in the notes:

"if used incorectly it put the article in" should be "if used incorrectly it puts the article in"

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done (plus fixed another typo "apropriate") (Liberatore, 2006). 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I think you missed one typo -- looks like "incorectly" is still spelled, er, incorrectly. Or perhaps I mean the reverse. Mike Christie (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that one. It is fixed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please make a change similar to this one, which was made to the {{prod}} template. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• How does that look? ♠PMC♠ 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add ~~~~ to the prodwarning bit, so that it can be cut-and-pasted into a talk page (see {{tl:db-bio}} for similar example). Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this template approved for use?

Was this template approved by consensus? If so I would like to read discussion. I personally feel this template is extremely destructive since it allows somebody unilaterally to nuke an article without any checks. Nukes should go through the conventional afd process. Americasroof 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See extensive discussion on WT:PROD. Hmm, nominating the Nukes article to go through the AFD process - interesting idea. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

has the template been changed recently?

it does not link to the afd page for the article in question. why is that?

You're probably looking for a different template, Template:Afd. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-05 02:39Z

Badly needs improvement

The template states "To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." But the "talk page" links goes to Help:Talk page which is marked "...Do not edit this copy." This makes no sense. The "edit summary" link goes to Help:Edit summary, which is also clearly inappropriate.

The template needs to instead link to the debate pages, like Template:Afd does.

Urhixidur 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes

See Template talk:Prod for some changes I made. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 09:48Z

merge to Talk:Prod

I think this page should be merged & redirected to Template talk:Prod (or vice versa). Comments? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 09:48Z

Is this technically feasible now for some reason? These are not simply forks; there was some technical reason why a dated prod system required nested templates. —Centrx→talk • 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Quarl meant merging the talk pages, not the templates themselves. And, er, why should we do this? Sandstein 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Namespace warning

The warning "Please do not use PROD except on articles, user pages and user talk pages" showed up when I put a prod on a user talk page. This doesn't seem right. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Patched it up for now. (I think.) {{NAMESPACE}} and {{ns:3}} disagree on the underscore in "User talk" so the comparison failed. Was the output of these variables recently changed? Femto 12:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Also asked at VPT. Femto 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Implemented NAMESPACEE as per suggestion. Femto 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

De-link PRODwarning

I want to unlink {{prodwarning}} because a new user seeing a prod on their article sometimes wants to delete it, but they follow the link and blank Template:PRODwarning. This happens every couple weeks.

Done --Robdurbar 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please revert the last change, or fix it so that it works - it doesn't at present (see this example of how it expands at the moment). Many thanks.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I wanted to do. Please use the markup that generates this:

{{subst:prodwarning|Template talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 2}} ~~~~

—Dgies^t c 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed ... sigh ... --BigDT 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take offense bit

Could we possibly change the template to make it more like {{prod}}, in reference to the bit where it says "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy"? In the normal prod, this bit shows up larger than the message to the nominator, and so is more visible. It's quite an important part of the message, and ought to be more readable... ConDem^Talk 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This template is part of the Template:Prod system and is not used outside of it. The example at Template:Prod was simply copied from here and pasted there, and here was presumably changed for some reason, which you can find in the page history or possibly above in a discussion. Overall, I don't think making entreaties about being offended is appropriate for an official template. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Code addition

I've added some code that includes the raw, unparsed text of the concern. This should make it easier for admins without javascript-tools to copy&paste the deletion reason, preserving any wikilinks in the summary. Femto 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you know a good javascript tool that does that? I wrote my version, but I am stuck with a HTML formated string which looks quite bad in the deletion log. Or would you mind naming the container of your raw, unparsed text? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea. I just mentioned it to show I'm aware of the {{hidden-delete-reason}} with a similar function but that it wasn't what I needed. If in addition to this, giving the unparsed code its own id attribute could be useful to some tools, sure, go ahead, this is a wiki. Femto 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done If someone is interested, User:Lucasbfr/prodExpired.js adds a tab to expired prods. When you click, it goes to the delete page and fills in the reason. You still have to confirm the deletion, of course. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a one-click (well, you still have to confirm) deletion link to the template itself that doesn't require any JavaScript or additional tools. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Provided one knows the right URL parameters - it's so head smacking simple it's brilliant again. So, remains there a need for the copy-and-paste version and/or hidden-delete-reason template? Is anyone still going to use this code, if not, maybe clean it out? Femto 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We could remove the whole code text also. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The way that this template does (or doesn't) work has led to this entry at CfD. Someone who is more sure that I of the coding should please comment at the linked discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category namespace

Can you allow prods to work on the category namespace, as with Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements_since_April_2005 - this category is now empty, and it's not likely to be contested unless another user reverts one of the changes I made to Chelmsford and/or Sigma Alpha Mu. It's not linked to a specific template either - rather it's based on the date parameter. --Sigma 7 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a specific speedy criteria for empty categories. I'd suggest using that instead. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on that speedy reason, it applies only if the category is empty for 4 days or more, hence the prod. Still, it's nice to know that there's a better alternative. --Sigma 7 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually, these are just zapped per WP:CSD#G6. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help fix an aparent mis-understanding

{{editprotected}} I've seen several cases where users place a {{prodwarning}} message on the PRODed page, in stead of the author's talk page. I think this situation can be fixed by making the following changes:

1. Place the Nominator: Please consider notifying the author(s) of this page using be on a new line.
2. Add a line saying Don't leave the message on this page - only on the author's talk page.
3. Keep this part out if the page is in the User talk namespace.

Od Mishehu 07:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance links

I have to disagree with User:Radiant!, in my opinion such links are useful, since it is an easy way to remind the nominator to let the author know of the prod. The {{prod}} template is never shown, since it is replaced by dated prod when the page is saved. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Template talk:Prod, I have reverted to my version. Tizio 11:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect comma

{{editprotected}} In line 12, please change

|, because of the following concern:|.}}

to

| because of the following concern:|.}}

Removing the comma before 'because.'

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

mbox

{{Editprotected}} We now have a metatemplate that automatically applies the correct style per namespace, no more tricky hacks anymore. It's called {{mbox}}, and I personally think this needs to be switched over to it. ViperSnake151 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What links here

I've noticed that when I try to see what links to a proded article, the results are often cluttered by user pages watching proded articles - meaning I have to adjust it to only show the article-space pages before it is any use. Would anyone object if I added a link near the bottom of the template to view the "What links here" results from the article-space only? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed minor change to the template

{{editprotected}} It would be wise to include the concern that led to the prod directly within the {{prodwarning}} template. But to do that efficiently, this template must be edited as well to include the other template's new parameter within the text to be copied and pasted.

I saved the proposed new version of the {{dated prod}} template at User:Blanchardb/Sandbox/2, and the proposed new version of the {{prodwarning}} template at User:Blanchardb/Sandbox/3. Real-time test substing of both templates can be found here and here.

To avoid disruption of Wikipedia as a whole, the editing of both templates should be done within seconds of each other, with the {{prodwarning}} template being edited first. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to the admin who reads this: If the changes are accepted, please delete User:Blanchardb/Sandbox/1, User:Blanchardb/Sandbox/2, and User:Blanchardb/Sandbox/3 per speedy criterion U1 after the changes are made. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done- please check the edits (1, 2) to ensure that they are exactly what you wanted. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I gave myself a warning in my sandbox about an article I recently prodded. The new version works just as intended. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

typo in output

{{editprotected}}

As currently set up, this template outputs the following, which has a typo.

If you can address this concernby improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page,

As you can see, there's no space between concern and by. Unfortunately, I'm not a template wizard, so I don't know why this line in the template's code:

If you can address this concern{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|,| by [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|improving]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|copyediting]], [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|sourcing]], [[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages|renaming]] or [[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages|merging]] the page, }}

doesn't render correctly. Can someone with more template savvy correct the error? Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ParserFunctions strip whitespace off the ends of their input before they parse it. Using nowiki tags, however, you can force it to be parsed: by replacing the initial space with <nowiki> </nowiki>, I've fixed it. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent—thank you! Esrever ^(klaT) 02:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

changing to seven days

We agreed above to match the AfD time, which has now been changed to seven days. It will be easy to change the policy wording, but we need to change the templates also;it seems easy enough to do, but there are a number of templates. I propose to make the changes, and have posted a note to that effect on Template talk:Dated prod (here) , since this is one of the templates that requires notice. If there are no objections, I will go ahead in a day or two, and do the related templates als, such as the prod notices, DGG (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please change to 7 days

{{edit protected}} The discussion to change PROD from 5 days to 7 days has resulted in the change being approved. See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#changing_to_seven_days. As such this template need updated.

You should be able to accomplish this change simply by undoing the last edit. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a discussion and a half to review!  Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)