Template talk:PRODWarning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Problem 2 Proposed changes 3 PRODNote 4 Hi there? 5 Disputing a prod

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)