Template talk:Proposed deletion notify

Untitled

I think it still sounds a little awkward at the end. "If you remove the tag, it won't be deleted, but it may be deleted," is how it comes across now. Joyous | Talk 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the header because it was causing a problem where when the template was added to a user's talk page the "section edit" button would like to editting the template and not the section on the user's talk page. Peyna 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Hi. I am having a small problem with my signature when using this template. When I use {{subst:PRODWarning|Test article}} ~~~~ - I am getting this:

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Test article, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues I've raised at Talk:Test article. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

TigerShark 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Even when I don't leave a space before the ~~~~, I am still getting my signature put on the next line (ideally I want it on the same line).

I think that this is due to the extra line in the template before the <include> tag. Does anybody have any input on this. I thought that I better check before changing this in case it mucks anything up. Thanks TigerShark 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I've tried to fix it. Deco 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems fine now. Thanks TigerShark 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I had a short discussion with Nickelshoe about this and I have a thought on changing the template. Didn't want to do it in the template itself, though. What do you think?Thatcher131 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article [[{{{1}}}]], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. We appreciate your contribution, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please work to improve the article if the topic meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. If you believe the article is already acceptable, discuss the issues I've raised at [[Talk:{{{1}}}]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but it may be nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Nope. I like the current version beter. You took out the part that says to remove the notice, which is pretty dang important. NickelShoe 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted is exactly what the real template says now. Thatcher131 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You're right. It's Template:Prod that I'm thinking of. Silly me. You're right. Your version is better. NickelShoe 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's late, go to bed. Thatcher131 05:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PRODNote

I've taken the liberty to create {{PRODNote}} (and, incidentally, {{AFDNote}}) for notifying users about deletions proposed by someone else. Sandstein 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thanks. NickelShoe (Talk) 07:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there?

Is there a reason for the folksy "Hi there" at the beginning of the template? Isn't it better to leave this to the discretion of the editor who is placing the template? When using templates, especially when they are directed to new users, I like to soften them with something like "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia." In other cases, such as when it seems clear that the user contributed a hoax article, I'd rather not have to be so cutesy. What are your feelings about removing this? Accurizer 12:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this part originally. The idea was just to be friendly, but I can see your point. Change it however you want. Please don't assume that the user is a new user though - even experienced people occasionally contribute articles that get deleted. Deco 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I always check the user's contributions before I decide how to address them. I'll remove just those two words, and we'll see if anyone comes forward with a different perspective on it. Thanks for being open to my suggestion. I think you've done great work with these templates. Regards, Accurizer 21:06, 19 May 2006

Disputing a prod

A recent edit added the line:

Please do not remove the notice without addressing the issues it mentions (it is considered vandalism).

"Addressing the issue" may be read to imply that the editor must modify the article's content when removing the prod notice, which is not current WP:PROD policy:

If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can ... Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion.

and later:

If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion

I propose removing the line or rewording along the following lines:

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised.

--Muchness 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, so I changed it. Is this roughly what you had in mind? —Dgies^t c 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning Image

Be warned! I have added the following image to the template.--Gavin Collins 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More descriptive section title?

I'd like to change the section title in this template to include the phrase "Proposed deletion of" before the prodded article name. This would help differentiate this template from the speedy deletion warnings which already include "speedy deletion of" in their section titles. Since I know there are bots that may rely on the output this template produces, I wanted to make sure such a change was okay before actually doing it. Thanks! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, at least some of the speedy deletion templates don't include that either, but I think it would be helpful. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is sufficient the way it is ... that's why I changed the warning icon from RED to YELLOW a few weeks ago. :-) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Sentence

Is this section really necessary? The warning template's already longer than a lot of stub articles! :) If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of [[{{{1}}}]] --Deadly∀ssassin 11:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've been bold and removed the sentence. These notes and warnings are only any good when they are readable and don't present people with a block of dense text. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot opt out message?

Would it be possible to specify a parameter for bots to use that would include the opt out message, and have it not be included otherwise? It doesn't seem to make much sense to have the opt out message when actual human editors put the message on someone's talk page. I'd suggest adding a "|bot=" paramter, and change the opt out message to

{{#if|{{{bot|}}}|<small>Do you want to [[Template:Bots#Message notification opt out|opt out]] of receiving this notice?</small>}}

instead of the current version. Bots would then use the template as {{subst:PRODwarning|PAGE_NAME|bot=1}} ~~~~ instead of the current usage. I don't imagine this would be a difficult fix on the part of the bot operators, but I'd like thoughts on it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How the hell is this a warning?

Seems more like a PRODNotice to me. Do you get blocked for having too many PRODWarnings on your user page? Tuxide (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a warning that your article may get deleted. It's not a user warning. --Amalthea 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it's not a warning. But people are gonna see my userpage now and say, "Oh look, Tuxide got a warning!" Tuxide (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't care what people think. :)
But feel very free to remove the notice from your talk page. I usually remove templated notifications from mine. Cheers, Amalthea 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that, I just care more about the name of the template because it's a warning although it really isn't. It is appropriate to care what people think when they get the template; that's why I brought it up here. I don't know if anyone else shares my opinion though. Tuxide (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a warning. A warning though is not neccessarily a demerit as you assume it is. A warning is "cautionary advice about something imminent" according to google. In this case, someone is letting you know that in the imminent future, an article you have contributed to may be deleted.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello. I would like to propose that the welcome message be set to "no" be default instead of "yes". I do not know the statistics on PRODs against new users versus verteran users, but I would assume it happens more against users who have already had a welcome once already and do not need a second welcome.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The welcome message is only placed if the user page doesn't exist at the time of placement, so he won't get a second welcome unless he had his talk page deleted. Amalthea 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that must have been my problem. I usually post a welcome message with my warnings. Great, thanks for explaining it to me.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could wikilinks be carried through?

Would it be possible for wikilinks in the PROD to be carried through to the warning template? With a concern like the perennial "this is an unsourced neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary" it is helpful for the newbie author reading the warning template to be able to click on the links to find out more. I make another edit to the author's talk page to insert the links, but it would be nice to have it done for me.JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Within limits, passing transcluded templates or parser functions won't quite work as expected since they expand, but good enough for wikilinks and external links. Amalthea

Brilliant - what service! Thanks! Why didn't I think of asking before? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Linked article name in section headings

After I noticed that Some Other Editor was linking article names in the section headings of instances of this template on user talk pages, I decided to be bold and modify the template so that it links automagically, like the {{nn-warn}} template does for speedy deletion warnings … I guess that I'm just a little surprised that nobody else thought to do it sooner. :-) Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) _{10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)}

Putting links in section headings is normally discouraged, but I'm actually not sure how important that is on pages outside article space. The only reasoning I find is WP:ACCESS#Links, but that seems a rather weak reason, seeing that it only concerns outdated versions of some screen readers. Amalthea 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While I was aware of WP:OVERLINK, I was not so familiar with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and the caution against linking section headings … I was simply driven by the argument, "If X does it, then shouldn't Y as well?" My only concern is consistency of behavior, and I have no desire to buck WP:CONSENSUS … but whichever way it goes (linked or not linked), it should be consistent for all of the user space deletion warning templates, don't you agree? — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency is good, of course. I don't have a strong opinion on how they should be; since the only reason against links in section header seems to be accessibility (and aesthetics, maybe), I'd say you should ask there if that's still a valid argument or if it is outdated.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support for the shortcomings of legacy systems is admirable, but there are limits based on the size of the impacted community, in this case, the visually impaired … and we are talking about user space rather than article space … I've started a thread here … maybe we can get some verification one way or the other. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I was the "Some Other Editor" who inadvertently started this off. I was concerned about one editor with a history of creating unsuitable articles. Some of them had been deleted, others were proposed for deletion but not yet deleted. I wanted to be able to see very easily, when checking the user talk page for any new warnings, which warnings were old ones to now-deleted articles. I thought linking to the relevant article would achieve this, as the colour of the links would give me what I wanted. After I did this it seemed to me that it was likely to be useful at other times, so when 141.156.161.245 gave me a message saying he/she had made it automatic it seemed OK to me. However, I don't feel particularly strongly about whether it happens automatically or not.

In answer to "Putting links in section headings is normally discouraged", this is done automatically happens with speedy deletion warnings, and I cannot conceive of any reason why prod warnings and speedy warnings should behave differently.

The caution at Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links not only applies only to outdated versions of some screen readers, but also explicitly states that the potentially harmful effect is to stop such screen readers from reading any more of the heading after the link; however, in the case of prod warning headings the link occurs at the end of the heading, so this problem does not arise. I am not aware of any other problem this might cause.

As I said above, I do not feel strongly about this, but on balance I think it may sometimes be helpful and can't do any harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, they will read only the first item, be it text or link. So in this case, it wouldn't read the name of the article, but only "Proposed deletion of". Amalthea 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On further inspection of the page in question, I note that some templates, like {{Adw}} do not link the article, while those generated by CorenSearchBot (and probably others) generate the link as the only text in the heading … to reiterate, I feel that WP:PROD, WP:CSD, and WP:AFD warnings should have a consistent presentation … even though it's a minority situation, I agree with JamesBWatson's argument that it improves information gathering during a quick scan, and I would estimate that this kind of situation outnumbers the visually impaired users who would also encounter it. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's been verified that JAWS no longer has the problem, so does anyone object to adding a linked section heading to {{Adw}} so that they're all similar in appearance? (To be on the safe side, I think I'll ask on its discussion page first. :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

When leaving several prod warnings on a new page at the same time, it has the welcome message with every one. This may be a Feature, which can be compensated with the familiarity I lacked of the template until 5 minutes ago, but maybe someone with the code-know-how can fix it? Rehevkor ✉ 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Vand patrol

The template was vandalized early this AM (UTC), so that at least one editor unknowingly posted it with an unacceptable graphic substituted. If someone has a bot for this, stop me, but i'm using Category:Proposed deletion as of 21 July 2010 to check the ProD time of the 85 pages, and looking at the ProDers' next few edits to see anyone they warned, in case someone other than the one i stumbled on got the bad version. (But i have a vague recollection that a bot will post warnings if the ProDer doesn't? Can some one check any log kept for that, for the time frame covering ProDs posted 02:24 to 03:17 inclusive. I'll list here the ProDs in that range, starting with

02:36:57 Alie Basma (huh, apparently got good version from cache at 02:37; i will check beyond 3:17!)

02:38:38 The Acting Studio at Edgemar Center for the Arts (ditto, 02:38:39)

02:39:26 Rocky Mountain cuisine (ditto, ...)

02:58:15 Brandology (disambiguation) (a.k.a. Brandology (Disambiguation)) (user got bad one at 02:58:18, fixed by Jerzy ... never mind the long story)

03:16 Michael Howell (caught by the ProDer)

03:45 Alexandre Dumond (no sign of problem)

04:09:02 El Pino (The Pine Tree) (ditto)

--Jerzy•t 19:32 & 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed icon change

Please see Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg), Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, no consensus achieved, RfC initiated: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Move from PRODWarning

The article text has not been changed to reflect the new template name and is thus confusing. Where was the concensus to move the template? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

no reason for prod? no welcome?

Hallo, I found that this template had been used at User talk:DVMt when I prodded Neuromusculoskeletal (using Twinkle, in case it's relevant), and was surprised that it didn't include the reason for the PROD. It only says "because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion", which is far too vague - and as the message comes out above my signature, I rather object. The template page says that the text will be "The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.", which goes part way to being helpful, so the template and its documentation are out of synch.

I also thought, and so it reads from the conversation above, that the template would add a Welcome message where the user talkpage was previously nonexistent. It didn't here - I added one manually to this user's talkpage.

So while I welcome the more user-friendly template, it looks as if it needs more work. PamD 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Came here because the template has a comment claiming it to be this one, but now realise that was all wrong - the discussions above are old and not to do with current trials. Total confusion. PamD 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Jabbar Abbasi (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC) please allow me editing

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose rewording

The current text of this template comes across as a little hostile. In particular "While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated..." is a bit supercilious, and there's no need to reference WP:CSD, since WP:AfD would be the normal escalation after a failed PROD. I'd like to suggest we change it as follows, to make it gentler and more concise:

• remove "While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons"
• remove "the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and"
• after "allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion" add ", according to the reasons why an article may be deleted" before the period

› Mortee _talk 00:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)