From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is part of the process Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

You can propose deletion of any article by sticking this template on it, citing a reason for deletion. The article can be deleted if, within five days, there are no objections to that. People can voice their objection by removing the template, and are encouraged to improve the article while doing so.

If this template is removed for whatever reason, do not put it back. Edit warring is bad form, and a removal implies there's an objection. Controversial deletes are dealt with through other means, presently WP:AFD.

Contents 1 Usage 2 Discussion 2.1 Problem 2.2 Excellent idea 2.3 Link to AFD 2.4 Prod a success?! 2.5 Deletion policy 2.6 Wording 2.7 "Edit this page" problem 2.8 A grave defect in this template 2.9 Should {{prod}} be substituted? 2.10 Remove the concern parameter 2.11 Remove the space before the period at the end!!! 2.12 Improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria? 2.13 Edit summaries 2.14 Two suggestions 2.15 Error message if parameter omitted? 2.16 Down !! 2.17 Attempt to sort by date 2.18 Edit protected request 2.19 Edits 2.20 Oops 2.21 Additional parameters 2.22 Wording update suggestion 2.23 Dated copyvios 2.24 Serious problem with template 2.25 Using it as a destruct timer? 2.26 Including a URL 2.27 About the URL problem 2.28 Substitution 2.29 Prodwarning suggestion 2.30 Miscellaneous Prod 2.30.1 Suggested wording 2.31 Prod warning for User Pages

See also: Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion - for policy discussion

{{Prod}} is fully protected at the moment; use {{ Editprotected }} on this page to propose an edit.

[edit] Usage

{{subst:Prod|REASON}}

Replace "REASON" with a brief statement of the reason you believe the page should be deleted. If necessary, give a longer explanation on the article's talk page. If the reason include an equal sign (=) use {{subst:Prod|1=REASON}} instead. Other special characters and tags can be included using {{subst:Prod|<nowiki>REASON</nowiki>}}.

If the {{subst:prod}} is removed for any reason short of outright vandalism, do not restore it! A contested prod can either be sent to Articles for Deletion or left alone. Prodding is only for uncontested deletions that would likely "snowball" in AfD.

Template:Prod (edit talk links history) is only for articles, not for templates, user pages, and other namespaces. To mark erroneously created pages only edited by one author and requested for deletion by the same author use Template:Db-author (edit talk links history).

[edit] Discussion

Discuss details of the usage or formatting of this template below. Please discuss the overall Proposed Deletion process here instead. Thank you.

---

Congratulations, you have succeeded in pissing off the AfD people by kicking back their good-faith first trial use of "prod", including an article about an undergraduate student that would get speedily deleted in about five minutes. Never mind that prod's ad says prod everything except what is controversial. Ruby 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Context? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 09:15Z

• Ruby nominated two Wikipedia: pages for PROD, and someone else disagreed with that because PROD is intended for mainspace. Apparently this got Ruby upset; he posted a similar note on PROD/talk saying he won't "play our game".. By the way, the two pages ended up redirected. >Radiant< 11:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean by games:[1] Maybe when you figure out the rules you will let us know. Ruby 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing WP:PROD with WP:CSD. The "rules" are clear and stated on the WP:PROD page. >Radiant< 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Is it just me, or is the template not working correctly? The reason doesn't seem to show up. See Furry-paws for an example. Rory096 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's because the URL has an equals sign in it, so MediaWiki is interpreting that template call with the variable "Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url" set to "www.furry-paws.com/ 125,970].". The solution is either to make an alternative named variable, or to stick a "1=" in front of the parameter. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure what that means, but the page was deleted, so it doesn't matter. :) --Rory096 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, so from now on, if the URL has an equals sign in it, let's call it "http://www.example.com/?foo=bar", then you need to use either of the following codes:

{{prod|1=http://www.example.com/?foo=bar}}
{{prod|concern=http://www.example.com/?foo=bar}}

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent idea

This is fantastic. Major kudos to whoever came up with it. Jdcooper 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to AFD

I don't want to encourage newbies to save their precious articles by immediately slamming them from prod to WP:AFD, but shouldn't there be a link in Template:Prod to AFD? I mean, if you're a serious user and you think the deletion should be debated, you'll want the link. Failing that, there should be a link off the auto-generated prod list, so the Prod Patrol can AFD articles. Alba 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod a success?!

I've just done a quick analysis of the number of items coming through AFD. Just a purely day vs number one, no pre-post t-tests or anything fancy. The graph shows the figures for the first 46 days of 2006. The red dots are a day-by-day figures, the blue dots are a seven-day moving average. It looks like there was a major decrease in the number of articles on AFD happened at the same time as the introduction of {{prod}} (the vertical yellow band) or just after and is quite a sizable (though not necessarily statistically significant) reduction. {{Prod}} may be working after all! Grutness...wha? 06:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy

This template didn't link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That seems like it might have been an oversight. When notifying someone that an article is about to be deleted, it appears to me to make sense to include a link to the official policy describing what is and is not deletable (and, therefore, what is and is not includable in our Wikipedia).

I added the link in the little explanatory text at the bottom of the template, because I can't imagine a valid objection to this. If you object, though, go ahead and revert me, but be good enough to explain why here. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

"Take this personally" is a regional figure of speech, and a euphemistic idiom to boot. It's confusing to people whose command of English is concrete or marginal. The link to WP:NPA was meant to make the meaning clearer; also, there's no compelling reason not to link to it, it's an important page that everyone should read at least once.

I'm not dead set on the link, but the idiomatic English should go. There's already enough misunderstanding built into the deletion process. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't realize that it is regional and still don't see how it's a euphemism, but rewording is fine if it is difficult to understand. I've changed it to "please don't take offense"; feel free to revise. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-22 05:33Z

Suits me. I think it's clearer now. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Edit this page" problem

I posted this at the main discussion, but that was probably not the right place. An editor informed me that when he attempted to fix Herrmann & Kleine, the link took him to an uncreated article. I checked this, and he's right, it went to Herrmann. I'm guessing the ampersand confuses it? Is there a way to fix this? NickelShoe 15:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only answer I have is that this link works fine, but this link goes to Herrmann as described (see below); if you look carefully, the difference is that one has the ampersand coverted in the URL, and the other doesn't. If your editor was trying to hand-edit the URL, that might have caused it? I had no problems following your link, by the way. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those links work for me, nae'blis, in Ffx 1.5.0.1 on WinXP. They both try to edit Herrman. I thought that using localurl (or fullurl) was supposed to auto-escape problematic characters. I guess I misunderstand something. -Splash^talk 16:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither works for me either. Someone at the main discussion has submitted this as a bug. NickelShoe 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems my attempt to show you what was on my screen didn't work after all. The first one, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herrmann_%26_Kleine&action=edit, is what shows up in my address bar on Firefox 1.5.0.1 on WinXP if I click the 'edit' tab on Herrmann & Kleine, using the Monobook skin. The second one is what happens if I manually insert "&" into that URL in place of the %26 and click Go - I get the Herrmann edit page as described by your user. I have no idea where the difficulty is coming in, and it does seem like a bug of some sort, but the usual edit mechanism works fine. Testing a theory, a redlink to Banger & Mash results in a correct edit page too. I have no idea what's wrong with his attempt. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you go to the page history and check the "edit this page" link from within the prod template? He wasn't using the regular tab, that's why I'm talking about it on the template page. I checked this myself. NickelShoe 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A grave defect in this template

When you use this template to propose that an article be deleted, you are not including a link to the article's entry among pages for deletion!!! Michael Hardy 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no entry among pages for deletion with this template!!! Refer to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more!!! -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)!!!

[edit] Should {{prod}} be substituted?

Can you clarify whether prod should be used with or without substitution? If so, please make a note of it on the template page. Also either way, add it to WP:subst please? Thanks. Thatcher131 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} should not be substituted, from what I understand, as it makes the monitoring script's work harder[2]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Thatcher131 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But as of yesterday, "prod" instances are bringing up a big red message that they must be changed to "subst:prod". --John Nagle 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the template has been totally changed to a dated system. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a good idea? It makes it much harder to remove the prod, which was supposed to be an easy way of expressing objection. Where was consensus to switch to substs reached? Henning Makholm 11:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The template use a little "trick" now, so when you type in {{subst:prod|This article sux}} it actualy expands to for example {{dated prod|This article sux|day=24|month=April|year=2006}}, so looking at the article code afterwards there is still just a template call there, except it's to {{dated prod}} rather than prod itself. The substing trick is just nessesary to make the date thing work properly, otherwise the date change every time the article is edited. --Sherool (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's up with Stroil Timur? There it expanded to a large horrible block of mixed wiki and HTML markup, rather than something resembling your example. Henning Makholm 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed that. I'm guessing that instead of substing Template:prod, they substed Template:dated prod, which does make is all nasty looking. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"You forgot to subst this template" should be something like "You need to subst this template". It would help prevent confusion.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-26 23:49

[edit] Remove the concern parameter

The "concern" parameter should be removed and replaced with just {{{1}}}, because using the template without the parameter concern= sometimes doesn't work; it just assumes that you didn't provide a parameter. It's strange that nothing has been edited on the template between the last time I checked and now, but the message just doesn't work currently.

See #Problem above. —Cryptic (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The template should be changed to this: (please fix if it can be made better)

---

This template will categorize articles into Category:Proposed deletion. See WP:PROD for how Proposed Deletion works.

-- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Because of the #Problem using URLs with = in them mentioned above, I'm not happy to do this edit. However, this is a little bit of a nuisance when the prod param keeps vanishing. Would you be happy to have a template {{prod2}} which is a copy of the current template, and then edit the {{prod}} to King of Hearts' verstion above? Then one could use {{prod2}} when using weird URLs. Stifle 15:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'editprotected' from this page because the requested change would not accomplish the desired goal. The 'concern' parameter is not the problem and removing it would solve nothing. Indeed, using the concern parameter would fix the problem. What is happening is that calls of the form {{prod|http://www.example.com/?foo=bar}} are not evaluated as {{{1}}}=http://www.example.com/?foo=bar, but rather as {{{http://www.example.com/?foo}}}=bar. Because there is an '=' in the URL the text to the left of the equal sign is taken as a PARAMETER NAME with the value of the text to the right. Then the prod template finds neither the '1' nor 'concern' parameter set and displays no text... nor can the odd 'parameter name' be displayed because it could be virtually anything. The only way around this is to specifically set an '=' to a valid parameter name (i.e. '1' or 'concern') -> {{prod|1=http://www.example.com/?foo=bar}}. Everything to the left of the first equal is taken as the parameter name and everything to the right (but prior to another '|' character) as the parameter value. --CBDunkerson 18:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the space before the period at the end!!!

Remove the space before the period at the end!!! It's driving me nuts! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. Are you not seeing the external link arrow? NickelShoe 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria?

Perhaps I just have a major misunderstanding of the inclusion criteria, but wouldn't the user reading have to make the subject matter meet the inclusion criteria rather than the article? Even if you have a massive highly detailed article, if the topic in question doesn't meet the inclusion criteria it's not worthy of a Wikipedia page, right? PoptartKing 22:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I do have a major misunderstanding; I was only thinking in terms of notability. Then again, most of the criteria (I wish I could think of a synonym) for deletion involve the topic rather than the article, so point still stands. PoptartKing 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. It's the article that has to be improved, so that it shows the appropriateness of the subject. Right? NickelShoe 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If the subject matter is inherently, permanently unworthy of having a Wikipedia article written about it, presumably the reader of the template text will "consider" improving the article so it meets inclusion criteria. After that consideration, she must conclude that it can't be done. That's why it says "consider." :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to wording to the effect of "improve the article so that the article demonstrates that it meets Wikipedia standards of inclusion". To the effect only, of course, because my wording is horrible. NickelShoe

Well, I wanted to wikilink to the deletion policy in the body of the template, which is why the link "inclusion criteria" links there. I think improving the article is a good idea if any one can do it, and I definitely think that anyone trying to improve the article so that it won't be deleted needs to be able to find the relevant policies about what is deletable and what isn't. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This has struck me as odd about this template for some time. It links "inclusion criteria" (of which we actually have none) to the "deletion policy", which is something of an easter egg link. -Splash^talk 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no inclusion criteria. There is a policy explaining what can be deleted, and how. If you understand what can be deleted, and how, it seems to me that you have a pretty good understanding that everything else is includeable. I certainly don't know where else to send people for a general discussion of what can and can't be included in Wikipedia. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I thought it was weird too. We could say something about improving the article so that it is "acceptable according to the deletion policy." NickelShoe 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

I was bold and updated the template to encourage people to explain why they're removing the Proposed deletion tag. A simple explanation can help avoid an AfD that would otherwise probably occur, and yet a lot of people still remove with no discussion - probably because they don't realize it's a bad idea. Maybe this will help. --W.marsh 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like it's required to state a reason, when in fact none is required by the proposed PROD policy. I would edit this to weaken the language, saying 'consider explaining why in the edit summary,' but it's protected. Removal of PROD is an important part of the entire process and this text misrepresents the conditions under which it's allowed (i.e., any conditions). -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I've made a change to try to address that. It actually wasn't my intent to try to require explanations, but I think we should try to strongly encourage explaining when removing this template... as it really does help a lot. --W.marsh 19:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I like "consider" better than please. I get the feeling that this will encourage people to improperly add prods back on if they're deleted without an edit summary. NickelShoe 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just think we need to make it clear that people should explain themselves, I really can't think of any situation where it would be a good idea to remove the tag with no explanation - it's always going to lead to confusion of some sort. --W.marsh 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the way the current template reads. At one time, it contained an admonition similar to the text on the top of this talk page, to the effect that if the template was removed, it should not be replaced. I believe that should be in the template text. I also don't feel that W. Marsh's revision was enough - it politely orders people to give a reason in the edit summary when removing PROD, when in fact they are not required to do so.

As I understand it, this page is protected because vandalism to parts of the template code (which has occurred in the past - no dispute there) causes the toolserver log for PROD to malfunction. I understand that. However, I do not believe there is any reason for protection of the template text; hence this editprotected request.

1. I'd like the following text added:

"If this template is removed for whatever reason, do not put it back. Removal of the template means someone objects to deletion. Such controversial deletions are dealt with through other means, presently WP:AFD."

2. I'd like the following text changed from:

• Remove this message when you've improved the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion, but please explain why you are removing it in the edit summary.

to:

• You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. You are encouraged to explain the reason for removal in the edit summary.

3. According to the above subsection, consensus also seems to be that

• it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria

should be changed to:

• it is acceptable according to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.

-ikkyu2 (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have implimented 2 and 3, with the only change from your versions being adding the phrase "To avoid confusion" which I don't anticipate being a problem. I am unsure if your suggestion 1 is needed, it seems vaguely like instruction creep... is people re-adding this template really a common thing? I haven't observed it.--W.marsh 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It happens, but I'm not sure it's worth adding to the template. I put a note under Usage aboev however addressing this concern. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Readding the template happens a lot. I leave a message or two a day explaining to people that they shouldn't do it. It's an important element of prod. Get rid of "if debate develops", because I've seen that like once, and change it to Ikkyu2's suggestion. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It does happen quite a bit, and it really shouldn't. I was under the impression that the template used to specifically mention that it shouldn't be re-added - maybe I'm foggy-headed. Thanks for editing the protected template for me W.marsh! -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The part about edit summaries was removed without discussion, but I think it's okay, because I don't think it was actually helping. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two suggestions

First, put the reason for deletion in triple quotes - it gets a bit lost when the template is used.

Secondly, the wording strongly implies that any article can be saved through sufficient copyediting etc. This is not the case for most articles where this would be used - the topic itself is unwikipedic (non-notable, list of slang etc). Some rewording would be appropriate. Stevage 14:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any trouble finding the reason for deletion, and considering the rudeness of many of the provided reasons, I'd not bolden it any more.

What do you suggest for rewording? I think that encouraging them to fix the problem is fine even if the problem is unfixable, as long as you present them with the relevant policies and guidelines. So they'll read the policy looking for how to save the article, and then understand why they can't. Also, sometimes an article appears to be unencyclopedic, but a little work shows that it isn't. It does say if you can fix it. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error message if parameter omitted?

Some editors omit the reason-for-deletion parameter when using {{prod}}. Some appear to have been confused about whether the parameter should be used at all (see here). Until now, I have tried to inform these people using {{PRODhint}}, but the problem remains.

If it is technically possible, I suggest that the PROD template should produce a prominent error message if no reason for deletion is added, e.g. "Please edit this notice to include the reason for deletion like this: {{prod|Reason for deletion}}.".

Making the reason appear more prominently, as suggested above, would also be a good idea. And maybe there is an instruction text around somwehere that mis-informs these editors and should be amended? Sandstein 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible but it creates the new problem of people leaving up prods with the error message, which trust me, would happen. Then someone removes it for having the error message and it has to go to AfD under the "letter of the law" so to speak. I wish there was a way to just require the user to type something before they could use the tag, but I am rather sure the current software does not support that.

My initial suggestion? If you find a PROD without a reason supplied, see if you think the article should be deleted. If so, add a reason to the tag. If you disagree, remove the PROD tag normally. --W.marsh 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with W, but I don't know if having the error message stuck on the page is that bad a deal...it doesn't seem like people removing it for the error message would be any more prevalent than people removing it for not having a reason.

As far as the discussion on Sandstein's talk page, I would assume the person who stopped using it was trying to include a reason involving an equals sign and didn't realize what the problem was. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion of W.marsh is sound... but if anything, it should be mentioned in the policy. But what we are trying to accommodate here is people who are not aware of the PROD procedure at all. They're unlikely to follow your suggestion even if it was in the policy. Since I agree with NickelShoe that having the error message doesn't make an article more likely to be de-PRODded than having no reason for deletion at all, I think we should try it.

On my talk, an editor said:

Well, on WP:PROD, under "Details of the process", bullet one says "you can tag them with {{tl:prod}}". (I didn't actually read the next section, so, well, there you go.)

So I've slightly modified WP:PROD in order to try and prevent people making this error in the first place. Sandstein 04:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you don't know, {{nsd}} contains the technique for warning if not sbst'd. -- RHaworth 08:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I make the request that the warning message please please please be modified to say "Replace {{prod|concern}} with {{subst:prod|concern}}" instead of "Replace {{prod|reason}} with {{subst:prod|reason}})"? For the very good reason that the template parameter is "concern" and not "reason", and if someone has filled out the template as {{prod|reason=blah blah blah}} then what the subst'ing will do is to remove any trace of what the user entered as their reason. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Down !!

Sorry to appear dim, but why does the toolserver being down prevent us doing new prods? Presumably it is not going to be down for an whole five days. Each time it runs, it effectively scans category:proposed deletion afresh, doesn't it? So it won't even "know" it has been down.

Also could someone please define the "hits" column in the toolserver's listing. -- RHaworth 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The devs made some mystical change to make enwiki go faster (gave it stripes, I suppose) that means that the Toolsever no longer receives replication updates from the database. So the list is not going to update until/unless this is fixed. It doesn't just read the category, since the list is sorted by time of application of the PROD tag. At present, categories don't display or sort on that information, so we're a bit at sea. At present, the toolserver is not usable on an indefinite scale. (Which is to say it could be fixed tomorrow, but noone has said that it will be.) -Splash^talk 12:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to sort by date

I was feeling bold so I have re-made this template modelted after {{nsd}} and {{nld}}, unfortunately this does not affect already tagged articles as the template now must be substed for the date stamping to work (old nominations can be found in Category:Proposed deletion as of unknown date 2006), but if people follow the big red instructions to subst all articles tagged from now on should end up in the sub category of the current day. New sub categories can be created in one click by following the "create it" link I put on Category:Proposed deletion. Hope this works as a fallback, if the toolserver come back online the tool should work as always as the articles are still categorised in the main cat also. --Sherool (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you just broke the Category's sorting by date, and reset all the PROD ready-times. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. -Splash^talk 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah dang, I missed that. Last I read that talk age people seemed to think modeling it after the "no source" subcat per day system was a good idea, so I set to work to implemented it. Must have missed the paralell attempts to use an alternate system :( --Sherool (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with a wiki, huh? ;) -Splash^talk 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I still think the subcat per day system is better and more robust what what we currently have though, the only downside is that someone have to click the "create new subcat" link once a day to create the category. For one thing it does not reset every time someone edit the article (unless the manualy fiddle with the date parameters). Additionaly it seems less daunting to clear otu a day's worth of prods rather than browse though the main cat to find them. But maybe that's just me though. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I said similar stuff on the other talk page. -Splash^talk 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How does the prodkey thing work anyway, everyting seems to be sorted under X now, and as far as I can see X = 2006 so everyting added this year will also be sorted under X, how can we tell if someting was added last month or 2 days ago based on this? Or does it simply put the oldest articles first or something. Guess that would work, except as I understand it if anyone edit the prod template for any reason all articles will be set to the current time again... --Sherool (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, both cl_timestamp and cl_sortkey are buggered now, it's a good thing the toolserver isn't up. ;) It looks like the sortkey for most of the articles are now the same, with the result that you can't view the full list with the on-wiki category viewer now... the "next" link eventually uses the same URL that you're currently on, and you can never really go to the next page. Can somebody fix? --Interiot 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so it's not that I was incapable of browsing categories? I thought I'd just gone stupid when there were different results starting at the end and working back than starting at the beginning and working forward. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is that the thing with them all being stamped as the same day makes the next function on the categories break down because it all about what sort key the cat starts with. Right? So this wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't thrown this all together just now and articles were actually sorted by date. (Somewhat explained at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Category:Proposed_deletion now sorted by date/time of last edit). NickelShoe (Talk) 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be reverted back to the date sorted version. Whatever it was that was wrong with it, it has to be better than the current version. I deleted about four articles from the category before I realized that the system now is quite unworkable. Pepsidrinka 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Need to revert to the second to last revision, as PRODKEY simply does not work. I'll take care of the substing. --Rory096_(block) 17:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't the policy page be updated to reflect this substantial change? This change to the template is actually a change to the process, you know. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's only temporary until the toolserver comes back up (which should be soon), because PRODKEY is borked, and otherwise the whole process is useless. Once the toolserver comes back we can revert to the pre-toolserver dying version. --Rory096_(block) 00:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about the policy page, but I think it would be prudent to keep the dayly subcat system in paralell to the toolserver as a backup, even after the current problem is fixed. The toolserver might go down or experience exessive replication lag in the future too, and hastily re-implement something like this as a temporary patch every time would be quite messy. There is not that much of an administrative overhead, someone just have to create a new cat every day and delete the old empty ones. What we do need is a "central" all in one category to make database querries as easy as possible on the toolserver, but that's easy enough to re-add without reverting the whole thing. IMHO anyway. --Sherool (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected request

The sort key for:

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{CURRENTYEAR}}{{CURRENTMONTH}}{{CURRENTDAY}}{{CURRENTTIME}}{{PAGENAME}}]]

is wrong. This sort key should be changed to:

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This could be simply [[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]], I guess. Any objection? - Liberatore(T) 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All the other maintainance templates seems to be sorted by {{PAGENAME}}, so I think that's the way to go. Done. --Sherool (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This was actually a copy-paste error by me in the old {{prod}} which Sherool copy-pasted into {{dated prod}} :) —Ruud 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's sorted by {{PAGENAME}} because that chops the Template: off, otherwise they would all be Template:whatever in the category, which barely sorts it. ({{FULLPAGENAME}} includes the namespace, if anybody cares) --Rory096 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone also add <span class="plainlinks> and </span> around the "edit this page" link – the link spans two lines and the image gets lost in between them. haz (user talk) 18:00, 12 May 2006

I'd like to request that someone categorize this into Category:Prod-related templates. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I just made some minor changes. I added some instructional text, and categorized this template (obviously sorely needed). I think I took out the line breaks, so the {{dated prod}} will go all on one line, which makes it more obvious how to remove it from the article. I also changed the template so that if no reason is included, "{{{1}}}" will show up as the concern... this doesn't go as far as having an "error, please give a reason" message, but it will remind seasoned editors that they forgot a parameter. (This page was recently unprotected, per my request.) Mangojuice^talk 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as {{dated prod}} (or whatever it is that adds an article to the final category) is fully protected, it should be fine. The cl_timestamp field will be important if toolserver gets working again. --Interiot 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I suggested this template for deletion without fully understanding the purpose and policy behind it. This action has already been reverted. Now I understand it; thanks for your overflowing patience. The Crow 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional parameters

In order to automatically generating a list of prod'ed articles, I'd like to add the following dummy parameters to this template: time={{subst:currenttime}} and user=~~~ (using the usual trick to avoid substitution in this template). Any objection? Any idea about how to generate the user name instead of the three tidles (the signature may be incorrectly nested, which may break the template)? (Liberatore, 2006). 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Added the time (was rather uncontroversial, I think). Still waiting suggestions for a way to subst the user name (if no way exists, I think it may make sense to ask for a new feature at bugzilla). (Liberatore, 2006). 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording update suggestion

I'm a bit unsure about the present wording. Issues:

1. Its unfriendly. Its better to say "An editor has suggested this article is a candidate for deletion" (or similar) than the more formal but rather stark: "It is proposed this article be deleted."
2. Some of the grounds listed (style edits, current lack of cites, and the like) are not grounds for deletion. There's better ways we could word this, that make clear what exactly is being said about the article when it's tagged with {{prod}}.
3. It doesn't place the emphasis enough that this is a review of the article against given criteria, and that's why it is proposed for uncontroversial deletion. It implies at present to a new editor that the writing of a better article is enough. But if the article doesn't meet WP:DP, WP:NOT or similar, then no amount of rewriting is relevant.
4. Even though it tells people not to take offence, the existing wording does feel rather personal when read. A different wording would reduce that feeling, by emphasizing the above, and probably not hurt would-be article-creators' feelings as much.

Can I suggest an improved wording something like this for the template:

An editor has suggested this article does not meet Wikipedia's content criteria and is a candidate for uncontroversial proposed deletion [for the following reason:]

If you believe that the article can be improved to make clear that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusions or has a good reason not to be deleted, then please edit this page and do so, or discuss on the talk page why you feel the article is incorrectly identified as a deletion candidate.

You may remove this message if you improve the article, if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason, or to obtain a full length discussion under articles for deletion, although you should explain your reasons on the talk page or in the edit summary. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days (This template was added: DATE).

If you created the article, please don't take offense. It may be other editors don't understand why this article is significant. Consider reading the deletion policy again and improving the article so that it is more clearly acceptable.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like this ("to make clear that it meets", particularly), but instead of "although you should explain your reasons", I'd say: "Please explain your reasons". It sounds more polite and breaks the long sentence up. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Changing it to say "An editor has proposed this..." could be more accurate and clear (what if several editors agreed on it?). It is already true that anyone at all can remove the template for any reason at all, or no reason, there is no need to bring it down another level to always suggest that it was proposed by some random guy they had an edit war with last week.

2. Citing sources is something that would resolve deletion concerns about notability and verifiability. As for style, cleaning up the article is certainly something someone should do if their article is prodded. The template doesn't need to list grounds for deletion or other policy minutiae ("uncontroversial proposed deletion"), it tells the editor how to improve it. I am not sure that renaming needs to be mentioned.

3. Yes, I think it should point to WP:NOT or something about notability and content policies, because oftentimes people prod with cryptic concerns like "NN" that may be inexplicable to some random editor, and doesn't tell them how to fix the problem.

4. This isn't a personal message. It straightforwardly tells the person what is going on and what to do about it. Somewhat like the previous point, the problem lies in the concern the prodder gives. If the concern is "This article sucks" or "Please explain how this person is notable", the tone is changed entirely. The template should be as short and simple and straightforward as possible.

Also, I think there was a lot of discussion about proposed deletion for months by many people, and that the current template may be the result of a lot of consideration by a lot of people. —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the above wording change (subject to minor points raised by NickelShoe and Centrx)? Or is it broadly agreeable as being an improvement, subject to small tweaks of wording? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the template should essentially remain as it currently is, with the addition of a reference to WP:NOT and/or something about Verifiability, OR, or notability. Or some total revision of "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." Everything else in the template I think is fine as it is now though. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dated copyvios

Would someone who was involved with the contruction of this template check out User:Centrx/Sandbox/Copyvio and Template:Dated copyvio. I am trying to create a similarly dated template for copyvios, but preserve the identical functionality for cases where the copyvio is not subst'ituted (backward compatibility). Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get rid of the errant "[[Category:Possible copyright violations as of {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]]" at the bottom. Thank you for your help. —Centrx→talk • 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious problem with template

"You may remove this message...if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion..." What point is there in having a tag with a matter of utmost importance (validity of existing) if it can be deleted without discussion? That does nothing but merely promote edit wars and coerce users into using stronger, more urgent tags to ensure that discussion happens. It defeats the whole purpose of having a less serious tag for deletion, in that, while it should allow opposition more time to make its case, it in actuality allows an unruly editor to merely delete it without even addressing the issue. In short, this tag has a loophole that makes it damn near useless. 66.229.160.94 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If somebody removes the prod tag, the page should be either kept or be discussed at WP:AFD. As there are more than a hundred pages deleted per WP:PROD every day, evidently the tag is useful despite this "loophole". Kusma (討論) 08:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see why this tag is useful. I just didn't focus on the benefit of not having to argue for a deletion if one could get away with it. 66.229.160.94 23:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using it as a destruct timer?

Does anyone have any input on using prod as a countdown timer? Here's my example: (1) Article goes for AfD. (2) Result is merge and If the merger is not completed promptly... is tagged. That was about 4 days ago. So would putting a prod on Dust Devil (musician) be inappropriate - I see it as putting a fuse on the AfD decision. Comments? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh uh. Prod is for uncontested deletions, where you want the actual result to be a deletion. Make a to-do list for yourself, and date that with links to the articles that should be merged (or, just do the merge, I suppose). -- nae'blis 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Including a URL

I was just trying to add a PROD tag where I linked to a Google result (to show that an article was a likely hoax). The result was a frustrating failure [3]... something seems to be wrong with the nitty gritty of the template? I have no idea how to fix it. --W.marsh 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is at the top of this page. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the URL problem

I know I know, it's explained at the top of the page. Still, this is a big pain and I have a hard time believing that this cannot be fixed in some way. At the very least, it should be written clearly on the template page that this is an issue and administrators should be made aware of it. On two occasions I have inadvertently had this problem and found that admins remove the prod (since it appears no reason is given) and the refuse the reinsertion of the prod on the grounds that prods cannot be re-inserted! Pascal.Tesson 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution

Does anyone know if there's some way to just redirect to the {{subst:prod|reason}} template rather than giving that notice to substitute? Thanks. --DMG413 23:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, whatever template on the page, the outermost template has to actually be substituted for the dating system to work. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodwarning suggestion

Could the following be considered for addition to the template? This would bring it in line with {{db-bio}}

<small>''Please consider placing <n0wiki>{{subst:prodwarning|</n0wiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<n0wiki>}}~~~~</n0wiki> on the User Talk page of the author.'' </small>

(Sorry - I had to substitute zeroes into the nowiki tags to get it to display properly) — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Netsnipe ► 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have worked. See Miscellaneous Articles of interest which I've just tagged. Should it go in the {{dated prod}} template instead? — Tivedshambo (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A way to display the actual <nowiki> tags could have been to type:

<nowiki><nowiki>{{subst:prodwarning|</nowiki></nowiki>Template talk:Prod<nowiki><nowiki>}}~~~~</nowiki></nowiki>

-- kenb215 talk 17:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a good idea. CSD can be done over the objection of the creator, whereas prod cannot. If, for example, no one other than the vanity creator thinks an article should be kept and the two experienced users who tag and then execute the prod think it should, it should be deleted. They are able to contest it any time after it is deleted anyway. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that {{prodwarning}} shouldn't be used? I would regard this as common courtesy, particularly if I'm prodding an article from a newbie. I regard prod not only as a method of deletion, but also to get a border-line article improved so that it does become acceptable. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it shouldn't be on the template that goes on every prodded page, as normal and recommended. If someone wants an article improved, obviously they contact the author. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous Prod

At the moment, the prod template is worded so that it only applies to articles. There are a number of user and miscellaneous pages which could be proposed for deletion if the user or author (or someone else) can change the page concerned so it meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies, rather than have to go through MfD. This is what I designed (it probably will need tweaking...)

What do other people suggest and should we implement it as an alternative to MfD nominations for most miscellaneous pages? --tgheretford (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Given the sheer amount of user pages we currently find at WP:MFD that are uncontroversial deletes, I think it would be useful to find a way to get rid of them that doesn't require rubberstamping. Thus, I think extending PROD to userspace could be a good idea. I am as yet unconvinced regarding Wikipedia namespace, and believe using PROD on cats, templates and images is probably not such a good idea. (Radiant) 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with an extension to user space, and am also unconvinced that extension to Wikipedia space is necessary. Can we have a namespace warning on {{dated prod}} that makes it fail with an error message and a REMOVEME category on Templates (where PROD is a really bad idea)? Kusma (討論) 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the waiting period should be a little longer than 5 days for user pages, though. Kusma (討論) 12:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do you think that is necessary? (Radiant) 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think user pages are less likely to be PROD-patrolled, and the page owner (who might not check in every day) is probably the only person watching it, so we should make the process as little WP:BITEing as possible. The thing is, if we only use prod to delete the type of pages that is currently unanimously deleted at MFD, all will be fine. The question is how to prevent extension to harmless personal sandboxes and notes pages. Perhaps extending the time isn't the right answer to this (as of now hypothetical) problem. Generally we should avoid deleting any page that would survive MFD no matter how long a PROD on the page has expired. Kusma (討論) 13:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • As long as it's there's a requirement to explicitly notify the user for prod tags in their user space, the five-day requirement should be sufficient. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I propose we introduce user-space specific criteria for this new prod. To start off, I think user pages of editors who have less than 5 non-deleted contributions after 3 months, and whose content is nothing more than a list of external links or just a "see my webpage at www.somesite.com" blurb would be uncontested at MfD and make good prod material. Kimchi.sg 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe you're thinking of CSD, which needs strict criteria. PROD doesn't have any set criteria other than that nobody must disagree with the nomination. That said, a CSD would also be a plausible way to get rid of MySpace-like or advertising user pages of people with no useful contribs. (Radiant) 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... yes, "criteria" would be more suited for CSD. But looking at most of the current bunch of user page MfD nominations, a key metric we've been using to determine a user page's fitness for MfD is how long ago the most recent edit of the editor was, in addition to the content of the page.

WP:USER being as vague as it is, I suppose any prod for user pages should be accompanied by specific reasons for deletion, similar to the article-space deletion policy, or we could end up with people returning from a half-year wikibreak to find their half-finished drafts gone. Kimchi.sg 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• What a splendid idea. The MFD page is full of countless no-brainer deletes. Dar-Ape 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• As a PROD patroller, I can support this for user pages. It seems inappropriate for Wikipedia pages, and is clearly wrong for template pages. Image pages already have a prod-like process for orphaned fair use; I don't see any reason to expand that right off the bat. But I think there should be some serious explanation of what sorts of user pages are uncontroversial at MfD; my impression is that MfD doesn't have as many participants as AFD and thus its standards are not as widely known. GRBerry 12:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There was talk about a month ago about allowing speedy deletion of pages in userspace that were not recently made and where the user has negligible contributions to the encyclopedia. This debate died down, but it's a start. If an account hasn't done anything useful but has just created a userpage and left, there's no reason for us to keep it. (Radiant) 12:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, as most of the deletable userpages out there are due to unambiguous WP:NOT concerns. MER-C 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• As one who's made dozens of no-brainer user-page deletion nominations, this strikes me as a fine idea and a great time-saver, as long as there's some sort of assumed waiting period BEFORE the tags can be applied. It doesn't have to be a rigidly specific amount of time, just something that confirms that a user really is trying to use Wikipedia as a free webhost or advertising medium and isn't here to actually contribute. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Just to be clear, I am referring ONLY to "User:" space, not "Wikipedia:" space.) --Calton | Talk 06:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, to go by consensus here, should I edit the template above to say "user" space, so as to differentiate it from "Wikipedia" space pages that can also be nominated for MfD? --tgheretford (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• My only thing now is whether pages nominated should go to Category:Proposed deletion or placed into a separate category? --tgheretford (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested wording

Pages in the User and User_Talk namespaces may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contribution to the encyclopedia.

This should use the same tag and category as any other kind of PROD, unless there is significant objection from the PROD patrollers, in which case we should create a new tag and category.

(Radiant) 13:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ehhhh. I'm on the fence about this; on the one hand, there's lots of no-objection deletions on MFD of userpages these days. On the other hand, what is "recent"? Where is there an exception for talk pages that are actually being used as encyclopedic talk pages, as opposed to blogs? Where's the evidence that MFD is overwhelmed by the current nominations? It sounds like we're talking about a CSD criterion more than a prod; especially since prod would technically allow for uncontested undeletion if the user ever came back, which would lengthen, not shorten, the process. -- nae'blis 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whether it's overwhelmed is up to debate, but more than half of the pages currently on MFD are allegedly-inappropriate user pages. So yes, prodding them would help. Would you prefer "no edits for at least a month" over "no recent edits"? (Radiant) 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For mouldy user pages, I'd say no contributions in 50 days to be prodded. MER-C 10:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not make it a nice two months (60 days)? Kimchi.sg 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Because two months add up to anything between 59 and 62 days. (Radiant) 12:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't we just say "two months"? Kimchi.sg 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

60 days exactly? MER-C 12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said "no recent edits". Any strict cutoff point we might think of is arbitrary. We're not really supposed to set seemingly-bureaucratic limits, especially not with PROD which is not supposed to be about rules but about the pages themselves. (Radiant) 12:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it I agree... indefblocked users may have their stuff prodded quicker than whatever time we've been proposing here so it's quite arbitrary. Kimchi.sg 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<return>Since application of a PROD tag is essentially a judgment call, a rigid deadline seems misplaced. Some things are more obvious than others, such as the user page for User:Wittenberg, containing his only two edits, both in May:

Meet Ben McCullough:

Candidate for State Representative, Ohio 74th House District

Image:Ben3bw op 445x600.jpg

Born and raised in Edon, Ohio, a town of about 900 in Williams County, Ohio, Benjamin Patrick McCullough knew early that he wanted to make a difference. As a child he was active in soccer and baseball, and in a number of school activities. High school brought further pursuits of education, developing interests in history and our American system of government. He also continued baseball and played basketball for Edon Northwest school. As elected president of his high school classes freshman through junior years and president of National Honor Society senior year, Ben understood... <blah blah blah for 1,019 more words. You can check.>

That kind of thing, I hope we agree, needs to go sooner rather than later. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. I've added wording along these lines (without strict deadlines) to WP:PROD; please copyedit as necessary. (Radiant) 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  The only thing remaining is to change {{dated prod}}, which still says "it is proposed that the following article be deleted because of the following concern"... MER-C 11:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • • I could make it say "page" instead. There's also some trick to get the namespace name, I believe. (Radiant) 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go:

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|{{ns:0}}=Main namespace
|{{ns:2}}=User page
|#default = <font size="+2" color=red>Wrong namespace! </font>
}}

MER-C 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've changed the template, please check if it's ok now? (Radiant) 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod warning for User Pages

I've taken the liberty of creating a (okay, copying and modifying an existing) template for notifying users whose user pages have been tagged with {{prod}}, just to clean up the inappropriate language. You'll find it at {{Produserpagewarning}}. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can code the {{PRODwarning}} template so that the template can tell if an article or user page was nominated, and adjust what it says then someone should do so, who has knowledge of coding. If not, then I support this template and it will need to be added to the Nominating a proposed deletion section in the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion page. --tgheretford (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)