Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] When do marked articles actually get deleted?

If this shouldn't go here, then I'll delete it with an apology. At any rate, I put up the template for a page to be deleted on 28 November 2006; it's now 5 December, well past the time during which the article should have been taken care of. Is there something else that needs to be done? Will nothing happen at all if an admin decides the article is not worth deleting? Magaroja 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's normally five days, but it can be longer if a backlog occurs. It depends upon how many articles there are & admins available time. If an admin disagrees with the nomination, they would remove the prod template. -- JLaTondre 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] system include prod addition in deletion log?

Any chance of deletion log including line for when {{prod}} flag was added? Example: Deletion log for Supermegatopia saying something like "12:34, 7 November 2006 ExamplePerson added {{prod}}". --EarthFurst 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably not, since that's not really what the deletion log is for, but at any rate it'd require a software upgrade so you'd have to ask the devs on WP:BUG. (Radiant) 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there someplace else that a log of the addition of the PROD tag is available? Not R 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Only if the edit summary is filled in. The edit summary appears in the article's history tab and in the site wide recent changes log. If the edit summary isn't filled out there won't be a log type entry. 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) This comment was added by USer:GRBerry
        • However, once the article has been deleted, the article changelog becomes invisible to non-admins. –Henning Makholm 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The history of WP:PRODSUM will hold a list of prods, but it can be somewhat complicated to extract from there. --ais523 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does this concept apply to AfD articles?

That is to say, if after five days nobody has stated any reasons to keep an article, can it be deleted based on the rationale of this policy even if not enough people to establish a consensus want to delete it? —Doug Bell talk 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. Not if the article ever had a contested prod or prior AFD in the history. Otherwise, I would say that it could be closed as if a PROD had run, rather than as an AFD consensus close. That seems to be the spirit of the two deletion processes, although it probably skirts the line on the letter at the very least. GRBerry 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
i don't think that's really a good idea. AfD assumes a controversal decision, and there's no need to muddy it further, methinks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well here is the AfD that got me wondering. It almost certainly would be deleted at this point if it had been nominated using PROD instead of AfD. It's apparently non-notable enough that nobody cares to comment on it, which is true of many things listed on AfD. —Doug Bell talk 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That specific one has a prod removal in its history, so I wouldn't say it is appropriate to treat the AFD as a prod. I'd relist I guess. GRBerry 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • AFD has heavy traffic, so it's rather unlikely that any article there has not been seen. I don't think we should encourage people to "rubber stamp", so in general if there have been no objections, you could delete it (note that CFD/TFD/RFD also work in this fashion, and regularly get issues that get no objections or other comments). However, if the article had a prior AFD or PROD, this is probably not such a good idea, and relisting would be preferable. (Radiant) 09:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] time for a prod

I've been looking at them every few days, and about 1 in 10 are worth thinking about. But unless a number of people do this regularly looking for different things--(I check for anything possibly religious or political or ethnic, to prevent using prod for expressing prejudice.) -- the 5 days is much too short, especially with newbies. I suggest ten days -- for all prods. It will get rid of just as many. DGG 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that people will be less apt to use prod if they know it takes twice as long as AFD. If the newbie misses the countdown, the article is recreatable/restorable. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed for reasons discussed in the archive. Some people prod, hoping that no one who cares enough to reverse the decision will see it in time. Calbaer 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 days

Even in AfD many people who have other things to do could look at AfD, but only once a week or so. The regulars come every day. This deprives the editors with specialized interest of a chance to look at all the articles. -- but I will bring this up again there.

This is much more the case in prod. Relatively few people do it, and specialized articles will get missed unless more do. I've been coming more regularly now to make sure I see the stuff I think needs saving, but I will probably not be able to keep this up long. To cover the variations in weekly, I would support the suggested 10 days there. I find 1 or 2 in each day's batch that I think needs more discussion, but I think they are usually important ones, and most of the time they survive AfD.
To ask for a reconsideration is rare, and there are few inexperienced editors who do it, and very few people indeed ever go there. I just did for the first time.
Calbaer's argument seems unrefutable--some articles have clearly been listed in bad faith-- not that we have many editors who would do it, but any one editor can do it. DGG 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think extending the period to 10 days will improve the quality and accuracy of the process (that is, more reliably deleting articles that should be deleted, and saving articles that shouldn't be deleted). In my experience, if an article is unwisely PROD'ed, that is usually discovered (by the author or by category patrollers) very quickly. As it is, even 5 days is probably longer than needed for the process to work fairly and efficiently. I mean, what is the driver for this? Have we been inundated with complaints that articles were unjustifiably deleted? Or a sharp increase in Deletion Review cases? I think this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." --MCB 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, it's broke--and what's broke is not the deletion process per se, but the willingness of occasional editors to do meaningful work here, what with the perceptions that there are vandals on one side and overenthusiastic regulars on the other.DGG 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
But what is your evidence of brokenness? What is a useful metric? The things I've proposed are:
  1. A signficant increase in the number of articles deleted that should not have been;
  2. A significant increase in the number of Deletion Reviews requested;
  3. A significant number of complaints about PROD in places like the Help Desk, Village Pump, policy/guideline talk pages, talk pages of deleting admin, etc.
I haven't seen evidence of any of those. Even if we were to add what you seem to be suggesting (editors who quit in frustration because their articles were deleted), why do you believe that has increased? It's hard to support changing policy based on what you'd have to agree is a highly vague and subjective metric. --MCB 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I support extending it to eight days to allow editors who only check once a week to see these. 132.205.93.89 04:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Extending beyond 5 days is a bad idea. Any article deleted via prod can always be undeleted easily, and generally the contributors whose articles get prodded either show up right away and de-prod, or don't show up for weeks. Mangojuicetalk 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons

There should be a more visible list of reasons for the prod template. KevinPuj 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons that the policy exists or reasons for prodding an article? The latter is clear enough: it is appropriate to prod an article iff one reasonably expects that it would be deleted (near-)unanimously if it were to go to WP:AfD instead. Henning Makholm 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Previously discussed on AfD"

Currently the intro says that "Articles that have been previously proposed for deletion or undeleted, or discussed on AfD, are clearly contested and are not candidates for {{prod}}."

I have tended to assume that only applies to AfDs that resulted in "keep" or "no consensus." Is there a more clear way to express this without being wordy? NickelShoe (Talk) 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think such articles should not be prodded. An article that is recreated after a prod deletion should be taken as a sign that someone objects to its deletion -- couldn't the same be true for AfD? WP:CSD#G4 takes care of the bulk of such cases; in the rest, a re-AfD is probably more appropriate. However, articles that have been through AfD and have no mark of it may get prodded anyway, and deleted, because no one notices the AfD; it's not such an easy thing to check for. So, basically, don't bother. :) Mangojuicetalk 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a new reason

There was recently a prod for the reason "contains erroneous capitalisation." DGG 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So deprod it, move it, and explain to the prodder. It's a simple newbie mistake. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I found the article in question, and he said that the organization "fails to assert notability"[1], and you deprodded it because you didn't like his secondary reason? NickelShoe (Talk) 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:prod-2

I suggest adding mention of Template:prod-2 to this policy -- its existence appears to be a little known secret.

I suggest also adding it to

--A. B. (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it is not advertised wider is that it is not part of the consensus-approved prod process. Whether {{tl:prod-2}} is present or absent makes no difference for the deletability of the page under policy. If you think it should make a difference, start by proposing which difference it should make, and we can talk about documenting a changed policy consensus once it is reached. Henning Makholm 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to push the point. I received feedback that I should use this in addition to leaving a comment on the talk page of a PROD'd article. Curious, I looked around. I could find nothing in the standard policy and template list pages referring to this page. That's why I left this note --A. B. (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{prod-2}} is more important to Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling than anything else. Still, there's no harm in putting it as a "see also." Mangojuicetalk 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect lots of people informally peruse Category:Proposed deletion without being aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling, in effect unofficially patrolling PROD candidates. I think mentioning the template in the text of the top of the category page would be especially useful. (For that matter, you might want to mention the patrol). I know we don't like a lot of text in category headers -- I'd think something like this should be sufficient:
  • "Editors that agree with a proposal can note this by adding {{prod-2}} below the existing template."
Finally, now that I think of it, it might be most useful to mention {{prod-2}} on the actual {{prod}} template; possible wording formatted for consistency with the rest of the tag:
Other editors: If you agree with this proposed deletion, you may note this by adding the {{prod-2}} tag below this one"
{{prod-2}} --~~~~
I mention these purely as something to consider; if some major policy change process is required, they may not be worth the effort. --A. B. (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As a prod patroller, I find this template most useful when I agree the article but should be deleted but disagree with or want to elaborate on the reason or want to suggest a post-deletion action to the closing admin. An example of the latter would be delete then redirect... GRBerry 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod for templates idea

I know things along this line have been discussed before, but I think there is a need for, and fair way to implement, a 'prod like' system for templates. Prod is effectively a 'speedy deletion' criteria... if an article has been marked 'prod' for five days with no objections an admin can delete it without discussion. The same concept has recently been extended to user-pages of people with no 'non user space' edits... again, basically a speedy deletion criteria (user page with no encyclopedia contribs) which includes a pre-notice requirement. There are thousands of templates out there which have been around for months but are not used anywhere... thousands more which are virtual duplicates of other templates and only used on a handful of pages. I'd like to suggest that we expand prod/csd to allow deletion of templates if they have zero active transclusions (either because they were replaced or if they never had any) and no objections to deletion for a month after being tagged. It would give people plenty of time to notice and object, standard 'undelete on request' would apply, et cetera... and it would help to clean out tons of stuff which isn't worth flooding TfD over. --CBD 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that there is a need for this (in fact, I was typing a proposal for this over at WP:TfD before I found this). The only issue I have with CBD's suggestion is with the length of time that the template is on PROD. A month seems too long; I'd suggest something more like 14 days. Mike Peel 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
re: {{prod}} Thanks for the 'heads up message' Mike Peel!


I have to presume this came out of some of our email discussions, CBD, on revamping the TfD deletion criteria. I can support such provided we be careful with the notification procedure to anyone significantly editing the template function... such would exclude BOT edits for this and that, and interwiki's and such. You and Mike probably have a better handle on that than I, but that sort of wide notice for your 'objections' satifaction criteria. (Might explicitly require any of those installing or altering WP:DPP code, as they saw something there for it, or wouldn't have spent the energy and time. Perhaps the thing is subst'd as a rule. The history and links wouldn't show that, and such cases need a tag probably, as well!)

As I understand you and others like Mike Peel want to eliminate spurious 'creations', not in fact used, and that makes sense. Send me a link of what list you guys are peeking at! (So much to learn, so little time, such a bad memory, so many distractions! <G>)

On the other hand I have a suspicion that many of the problems of something not being used in the past is a side effect of
    - a - Inproper categorization
    - b- Insufficient documentation of purpose and usage on the face page.
    In short, something ain't going to get used unless it's known and easy to find. Hence, if either of those pertains, I'd prefer a first notice template that the template needs to be documented using WP:DPP and properly categorized, or would be susceptable to Speedy deletion as a first step, or perhaps that's an alternate criteria... if the sad-sack doesn't care enough to fit it into the system, it should be speedy-D'd in the near term. I can go with Mike's two week time limit there, and am I correct in assuming there would be a tag similar to the tfd tags for the template page itself?

We'd also need some other kinds of fences&#58;
  1. Reference templates, like {{ASCII}} and the Maps project reference LCTNAS table aren't ever going to be transcluded, but are handy to those doing the grunt work. Probably ought to have a template tag for those as we do now on a fair number of wikipedia administration and tracking categories.
  2. I'm about to propose (indeed, have a draft email pending time to finalize, unsent to you CBD on such!) an template self-substing schema, generated from the aftermath of respective Tfd's on interwikitmp-grp and macro 'W2' hence taking {{tl}} as a case in point where a /page can be set to auto-subst the template. A global peram might be coded in as well, assuming the pieces can be made to work at all.
  3. This would be a limited scope in that such a subst would only occur if the trigger page was 'True', and the page was edited and saved, but in the long run, said template page would not show transclusions, but look like this for prod... -- all talk pages. It would also eliminate the server loading issues with such handy macro types of templates. (I see no reason for {{Tl}} to not be subst'd, it is, like {{WD}}/{{W2}}/{{W2c}} just a useful macro time saver for us overworked editors. So ((WP:DPP}} might even be more important in self-substing code!
  4. 'Objections' having been made, I presume the template is then susceptable still to the normal TfD procedures, which is acceptable. As CBD knows, I've some gripes with that, which I'll be raising once I free up more time for such politiking! Best regards // FrankB 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Add this excerpt from Mike Peel's talk:


... does raise another point... nothing should be challengable (by Prod) until it's been around at least a month... maybe two. Some of us (Me, Mel Etitis, David Kernow for some sure one's) need to park wiki matters now and again for lengthy periods. Email notification, or an attempt to do such should be a Prod requirement too. Actually, I want such in all the Xfd's, save perhaps Afd... I've already discussed that cynical pragmatism in the draft Tfd changes I've got unfinished somewhere. At least I know I've also got that saved offline! // FrankB 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a big list of unused templates at Special:Unusedtemplates, but looking at it a fair few of those are redirects to templates, so it's not actually as bad as it seems. It would be interesting to see how many of those are actually templates, and not redirects, and of those how many are subst'd only.

I've also just found out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates exists, although it doesn't seem to be too active.

I like the idea of self-subst'ing templates, although that would require the coders of mediawiki to implement. A possible quick-and-dirty method would be to have a bot keeping an eye on the recent changes list, and whenever prespecified templates are used it would make an edit to subst them. However, I think that there was a bot that did something similar one time, but it wasn't liked by the community. Anyhow, this isn't really related to PROD, so shouldn't really be discussed here.

I'm not so keen on the suggested requirement for emailing the creator of templates that are put up for PROD, for the following reasons. 1) a lot of people don't provide emails, so they can't be emailed. 2) How do editors prove that they have emailed the creator? 3) A message left on the user's talk page will usually be sufficient; if it isn't, then the user can always request that their template be undeleted, or ask for a copy of the page's wikicode, from an admin. Mike Peel 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

emailing issue


(1) Part of the problem, imho. An initiative like this can start to change that old holdover problem in our society; which feature is a prequisite of all others I've encountered, this being a unique place allowing posts without such—Just try posting a reply to any blog post or talk forum like NFL.com, etc. without one!
(2a) I'm willing to AGF, such that when {{Prod-t}}ing a user talk page, one switch adds in additional text '~~~ attempted an email notification about the administrative state of this matter.'
{2b}}Wiki-email now includes capability of having copy sent back to self... so that can be used and kept in a side folder, produced if necessary, etcetera.

(2c) Since the email and any notification (of the creating editor) should 'go on' prior to actual tagging of the template, one begins that edit, navs to history, navs to user talk (creator), opens edit (bottom post), opens email this user. Then forks behavior of the pending two edits based on that case -- no email... Prod-t 30 days per CBDunkerson's proposal, if email, Prod-t 15 days (I can agree with 'fair' as 'a definition for this' as even down to as little as a week), the key to me is making an effort to be fair.

See no reason to just shortcut the 'ask for copy part, and just create a user page (again a courtesy) for the template now being deleted. Actually, as an alternative, just nesting it in a nowiki block and adding it to the user talk page would be a good notification that it's been removed. That pulls in all the comments as well. The user can then dispose of it... if they edit again someday. Gotta run. Regards // FrankB 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The thing is that TFD used to work on the principle of "no objections = delete" (as did RFD and CFD and MFD). There have been a few people pushing for bureaucratic relistings, though. Of course it does tend to backlog, and TFD closing is a rather lengthy procedure. But overall there may not be need for this. >Radiant< 10:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a fourth step

The current three-step procedure tells readers how to propose deletion. I propose to add another step to tell them why (not) to propose deletion. It is step 1 in the following (steps 2, 3, and 4 are the present procedure):

  • If you think that an article is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion:
    1. Consider whether the article might be better on a different Wikimedia project. Many articles that violate WP:NOT are perfect for Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource, or another sister project. Do not propose deleting these; instead, propose transferring them through the Transwiki process. After the transfer, deletion is often non-controversial and can be handled by proposed deletion.
    2. Review the article's history to confirm that it has not been recently vandalized. If it was recently proposed for deletion before, nominate it for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you think it should be deleted.
    3. Add {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the main article page. Use an informative edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
    4. Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ for this.

Fg2 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • IIRC our transwiki processes are rather backlogged. At any rate, PROD appears to be mostly used on non-notable people, bands, neologisms and linkspam, none of which would qualify for a sister project. >Radiant< 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't find a reference for it now, but I believe that transwiki to Wikinews wasn't allowed (something to do with the licensing. So if this line is added and if my remark is correct, then the mention of Wikinews should be removed. Fram 11:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So someone told me today. I'm crossing it out. Fg2 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod bot

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Prod bot. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor tweak

I think the line "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason..." would be better if it read something along the lines of "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason (or for no given reason)..." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts, and removing prod

A reality-based hypothetical question. As the page says not to reinclude the prod tag, even if it's removed in bad faith, it can be listed in articles for deletion? By removed in bad faith, I mean ignoring the tag, sweeping it under the rug et cetera, even if the article is blatantly non-notable...

So if the prod tag stays for five days, the article gets deleted without a discussion? So it's sort of halfway between speedy and AfD? Can one nominate for AfD directly after a prod tag is removed, if it's clearly not notable? </trainofthought> --Dane ~nya 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I have prodded articles, then when the original author challenged them I took them to AfD, which resulted in a delete vote. This seems a perfectly acceptable way of doing things to me - you're starting off by asking those with a vested interest in the article if it's notable, then if you and they disagree you ask for input from the community at large. If it goes through AfD with a keep vote, then end of story (at least for a few months). Mike Peel 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you. Just needed that cleared up, because I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, and proposed deletion in particular. --Dane ~nya 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. By PRODding an article, you're basically saying "I don't think anybody objects to deleting this". If someone removes a PROD, that means they're saying that yes, they do object. So you have a disagreement, and it's not unreasonable to seek wider input on that disagreement. That would be AFD, where the article is examined and discussed by more people. >Radiant< 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article can only be PROD'd once ... right?

I thought that WP:PROD used to say that if an article had been PROD'd but anyone removed the PROD tag, that article could never be PROD'd again. Anyone wanting to get the article deleted after the PROD had been removed once would have to go to WP:AFD.

But I don't see that mentioned on this page anymore. Was it intentionally removed? --Metropolitan90 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Never mind, it's still there in the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are editors allowed to remove a prod tag?

Are editors other than those who left a prod tag on an article allowed to remove it? This sounds like a cut-and-dried yes but there is debate on this going on at User_talk:Madchester#The Amazing Race, User_talk:Evrik#The Amazing Race and Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. Can someone please advise me on this so we can stop the argument? Thanks! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but doing so without addressing the concern which lead to the prod is unhelpful. However if there's disagreement, you can always take it to WP:AFD- prod is aimed mostly at uncontroversial deletes. Friday (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with Friday's explanation is that it presumes the concern which led to the prod was a valid concern. If someone thinks the prod tag was invalid, then simply removing it is OK. As you say, if the original tagger (or anyone) wishes to pursue the matter, they can take it to AfD. Johntex\talk 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I thought I had done it correctly. Next time I'll post my comments before I remove the prod. --evrik (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific prod templates: PROPOSAL

We have speedy templates {{db-bio}}, {{db-empty}}, etc. Maybe we should have some prod templates for frequently-used reasons: {{prod-hoax}}, {{prod-bio}}, {{prod-bollocks}}, etc.

  • Advantages:
    • Easier for experienced users to prod articles with common problems
    • Encourages use of prod over AfD
    • The templates will have more complete explanations than the typical prod reason, which makes it easier for new users (or non-editors) to understand why their/an article has been prodded
    • Better user warning messages (like {{nn-warn}}, but for prod)
  • Disadvantages:
    • People may overuse these templates, much like {{db-context}} is currently overused.
    • Some users may not realize they can supply their own explanation.

Comments would be appreciated. --N Shar 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some standard reasons to my user-script prodder a while ago, and then removed them again. I just wasn't using them enough; prod reasons are a lot more varied than speedy reasons. --ais523 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created {{prod-nn}}, which I think is preferable to just giving a reason of "nn"... Addhoc 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd reaction

At User:Biimaal I tagged it here but had to put the links for the differences outside the prod. With the next edit I was able to move them inside the prod. If you try to include the links in the prod template in one edit you get this. Any ideas why? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the character = in a template parameter unless you quote it using 1= (or 2= for the second parameter, etc.) before it. For an example using {{show1}} (which just returns its argument):
  • {{show1|test}} produces test
  • {{show1|test=test}} produces {{{1}}}
  • {{show1|1=test=test}} produces test=test
so you'd want to write {{subst:prod|1=reason including = signs}}. --ais523 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days

Is this category broken or something? Today, Magnetic Events inc includes this category, but when you go to the category page - the article is not listed. (I hazard a guess, the same applies to other articles it's just that Magnetic Events inc is an article I prodded myself).

Any idea what's wrong? Garrie 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because the job queue was backlogged when you checked the category; it's fine now. (The job queue is sort of like a backlog for Wikipedia's servers; the categories don't change instantly, but have to wait for the servers to get round to it.) It's also possible that the servers didn't notice the change in prod-status of the page because they didn't have to reparse the page between when the article was prodded for less than 5 days and when you looked at it (most likely because nobody edited it and the cached version was used for views). Hope that helps! --ais523 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed policy: Template prod

From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgiestc 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion after contested proposed deletion?

The policy states that a contested proposed deletion should be listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if one sees a case, but also that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence over WP:PROD, This does not explain clearly whether or not a page can still be nominated for speedy deletion after the prod tag has been removed. --Tikiwont 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, yes, the policy should say that articles where prod has been removed can still be speedies (in the same way an article on afd can still be speedied). Tizio 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EProposed_deletion_3d2a.html"