Template talk:Dated prod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Please unprotect for a while
2 Requested edit
3 Efficiency
4 Subst this template
5 Typos in the notes
6 Edit Request
7 Was this template approved for use?
8 has the template been changed recently?

[edit] Please unprotect for a while

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

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)

[edit] 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. Mango juice^talk 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

A couple of changes I want to make:

Categorize this template into Category:Prod-related templates.
In the instructions, a reminder to please not subst: the dated prod template.
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.) Mango juice^talk 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/t/Template_talk%7EDated_prod_6ce0.html"