This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Proposed deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've spotted this in one of the recent AfD debates. The text in the template says that if themplate is removed, it should not be re-added. The common procedure then is to nominate the article for deletion (AfD). However, this is not written in the template. Therefore, an editor may think that removing the template automatically saves the article from being deleted. So I suggest we mention the fact that a contested prod goes to AfD in case of disagreement. --Tone23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm the person involved in this case. It was the first time I'd decided to try to save an article that had been tagged with this template. The text in the template gives no inkling that despite you doing what the template tells you to do that the article may well end up being AfD'd. This resulted in me accusing the editor of bad faith, which I now regret, but I feel misled by the text. If the text can't be made more correct, perhaps there should be less text and a link to WP:DP. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There's no harm in expanding "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced" to "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced, rather the article should be nominated for deletion or speedy deletion." Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I could support that with one small change: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. However the article may be nominated for deletion or speedy deletion." Otherwise less experienced editors will think that the article should go to AfD even if the problems have been addressed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at WP:MFD pointed out that where WP:PROD says this may be used on articles, user pages, and user talk pages, the template and template documentation both suggest that it is for articles only. This led to some confusion in the MFD, and could easily be a source of further confusion elsewhere. I'd like to propose changing the wording of the template to start:
It is proposed that this article, user page, or user talk page be deleted
- and also to change the first section of the documentation to read:
This template is used to tag articles for proposed deletion. It may also be used for user pages and user talk pages.
(slaps forehead) yeah... that makes sense. It should still be mentioned in the documentation, though -= that still only mentions its use on articles. Grutness...wha?00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think most of us were under the impression that userpages were not prod-able, and if we had known WP:PROD had said that, we'd have removed it long ago. -- Ned Scott06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
poor error message placement
Kind of a nasty rendering error (in rendering an error message, irony of ironies), when this is used on non-article namespace: "It is proposed that this page Please use PROD only on articles. be deleted because of the following concern: " See this edit on the Sandbox. MrZaiustalk 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} - Can has a BR tag? MrZaiustalk15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
editprotected - new "reason" redundant parameter..
{{editprotected}}
Can the code be updated to the below?:
<code>
<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>empty template|{{error:not substituted|prod}}[[Category:Proposed deletion as of unknown date {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]}}{</includeonly><noinclude><nowiki>{</noinclude>{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|month = {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day = {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}|year = {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}|time = {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}|timestamp = {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}}}
<!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" --><noinclude>
{{template doc}}
</noinclude>
</nowiki></code>
I added a new, redundant "reason" parameter. It shouldn't break anything if a similar change is made at {{dated prod}}. It is unlikely to be used, but I just tried to use the parameter and I figure others might make a similar mistake. Why not code it in? It isn't terribly complicated. (Just add {{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}} in place of {{{1|}}} wherever it occurs.) ~ PaulT+/C22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Twice now when I have added external links to my comment, the whole of my comment has been left out after I save the page. Is there a reason for this? PC78 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here and here; not sure if you can tell anything from the first (I assure you I did type a comment), but the latter shows it better as I mistyped "subst" in my intial edit. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I did a little testing on this. If you do {{subst:dated prod|concern =[http:some_external_link.com]}}, it works fine. If you do {{subst:dated prod|[http:some_external_link.com]}}, it omits the external link. I'm pretty pathetic when it comes to template code, so I have no clue why the problem is there, but that's where it is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Date and time display format when using prod template
I've noticed that when the prod template is used, the dates and times that it displays don't obey the user's set preference for date and time display, is there any way to alter it so that they do? (don't know enough about templates to propose a fix myself) TurningWork (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Could it be possible that the message after the "Author(s) notification template:" be in syntax form not the form you see. Eg. at [1], the reason includes a link, but the warning dosent so when I copy and paste it, the link isn't provided on the authors user page. I don't now how this whole template works, The Windlertalk06:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
{{done}} I changed {{prod}} and {{dated prod}} to address this complaint. The template now works with that functionality if you do not use a parameter. For example, if you simply type in {{subst:prod|This article should be deleted because of [[WP:N]]}} the fix works. However, if you use concern= or reason= the template won't work. No idea why it works with one and not the other, may have something to do with the bug Fabrictramp noted above. --PhilosopherLet us reason together.10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while this template appears to work perfectly on new nominations, its code changed enough to break current nominations. I'm doing an AWB run to make the current nominations compliant with the template. --PhilosopherLet us reason together.10:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just found a PROD template on a user space page, which is a mistake, as PRODs do not apply to user space pages. The notice displayed by the template therefore shows in large red letters the words "Please use PROD only on articles or file description pages". However, this is wrong: WP:PROD says "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process" (Section Nominating, subsection Before nomination, point number 4). Can the wording shown by the template be changed to bring it in line with policy? That is, replace "Please use PROD only on articles or file description pages" by "Please use PROD only on articles, lists, or disambiguation pages". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not deal with the point I raised. When the notice does show up, as for example on user-space pages, the wording shown contradicts that given in the relevant policy. It is true that "articles, lists, and disambiguation pages" may be taken as meaning "articles (including lists, and disambiguation pages)", but a file description page is surely not an article, list, or disambiguation page. Does a PROD apply to a file description page? If so, then WP:PROD needs rewording; if not then the notice displayed by the template needs rewording. I should have thought that WP:PROD, being the official policy, should take precedence, and the template notice should change, but surely one or the other needs to be changed, unless I have missed something. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If possible, please fix up NAMEOFNOMINATOR, DATEOFNOMINATION, and NOMREASON so they are auto-created at the time the article is PRODded. If that's too much work, just put in the text as above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Copy & paste error by the user, he placed the code there manually. Notice that each of those prods has the same timestamp parameter, "20091230214917". He changed year and day, but missed the rest. Amalthea17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning these up. I suspected user error, since all of those pages seems to relate to American football. Cnilep (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Using "prod" on non-articles
I accidentally uploaded a wrongly named file and put the "prod" template on that file to ask that it be deleted. In big red letters, I was told to please only use the PROD template on articles; but no alternative tag was suggested for non-articles. Could someone fix this so that users are given an alternative? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The link behind "deleted" leads to WP:PROD, which lists all the deletion processes. The best alternative depends on the circumstances anyway, in your case WP:CSD#G7 would have been the correct hint. And almost all editors who know to use PROD will know about the other, more standard ways of deletion already, I'd say. Amalthea17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
When one attempts to use this template on a non-article namespace, an error shows up saying to only use this template in articles. That error message would be much more useful if it pointed to {{mfd}} (or others you might find relevant as well). What do you think? --Waldirtalk11:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wooops. sorry about that :) But still, are there that many alternatives for deleting a non-article page? There could be a namespace-detecting code to point to the relevant templates in each case, plus the applicable speedy deletion templates. For example: "Please do not use this template in non-article pages. For categories, you can use use {{cfd}}, {{db-category}} or {{anotheroption}}" (of course, the examples are all made up). --Waldirtalk22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Do you have any opinion on my spacing tweaks in the sandbox? Also, do you know if/why we need the month/day/year/time parameters because the timestamp includes all of these in one? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made the edit. I'm going to try and update the other template so we can remove those redundant parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the dated version of this template {{dated prod}} to a subtemplate of this one. I'm also proposing to rename this template to Template:Proposed deletion as its meaning would be clearer. The current name would remain as a redirect of course. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten the /dated template so that it only uses the timestamp parameter and so the time/day/month/year parameters are not needed. I've made a few other updates as well. The code is on /dated/sandbox and there are some examples on /testcases. Any comments appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have now implemented this and it seems to be working okay. I've also notified Twinkle and DumbBot just in case it affects those processes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I just applied a prod with Twinkle and it produced a big red "{{{1}}}" in the upper corner of the template. Is this a fluke or a problem that was caused by the recent edits to this template? ThemFromSpace03:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. Perhaps this template can serve as a meta-template for the other prod-like templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the red bold text for prods over 7 days has been abandoned? It's handy to administrators to be able to see which prods have expired at a glance without having to read the template. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just trying to tidy up the template and reduce the amount of different formatting. (This is one of my pet hates.) However if it's useful then you can have it back :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen some very long rationales added to this template. For example this one. In these cases the copy/paste code to notify the author takes up too much space. Perhaps it would be better make this section collapsible. If we were really clever we could use Template:Str ≥ len to make it collapse when the rationale is longer than, say 100 characters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The recent changes have broken WP:PRODSUM-- see User talk:DumbBOT I and other admins patrolling prod rely on it. Please revert the relevant changes until you can get them fixed together. This is so important that I shall revert them myself tomorrow if you do not get to them. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand that PRODSUM is a useful tool for editors patrolling proposed deletions. However I have been working to improve this template and have done all that I could to notify the operator and explain the problem. At the end of the day, the bot operator needs to be responsive. I'll have a go at emailing User:Tizio to see if we can get a response. If you can at least find out whether it's the new template name that the bot doesn't like, something connected to the date parameters which have been removed, or something else entirely, then we could look at partially reverting. In the meantime, does Category:Expired proposed deletions not help? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It still seems to be broken -- please revert the template to a working version asap, as it's impossible to deal with prods in a timely fashion without the summary listing. The category you mention doesn't give enough information to enable admins to deal with prods in areas with which they are familiar with the relevant notability guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have not yet had a reply from Tizio to my email. Perhaps I could try to re-add the other parameters (time/date/month/year) and see if that fixes the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please restore the bot functioning ASAP. It's impossible for me, and probably others, to deal with prods at the moment because of your tinkering with the template, which seems to me to have cosmetic value only. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The PRODSUM page is working again; however it will take a week for the changes to filter through all the articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that in your proposed version the parameter is always passed to the main template. So in most cases we would have |demo= taking up an extra line in the article when it is not necessary. You should be able to test the template by passing the demo parameter to /dated directly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be working fine. So no objections from me. We've lost some of the spacing and the code is harder to read, but that doesn't really matter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected|Template:Proposed deletion/dated}}
Put includeonly tags around this code:
{{cat handler
|all={{#if:{{{timestamp|}}}
|[[Category:Proposed deletion as of {{#time:j F Y|{{{timestamp}}}}}]]
|[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|U{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}[[Category:All articles proposed for deletion|{{mod|{{#time:j|{{{timestamp}}}}}|10}}{{PAGENAME}}]]
I don't believe this would fix the problem because the /dated subtemplate is included on this template so includeonly would not prevent the categorisation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}
Can the date or timestamp of when the article was prodded by displayed in the text of the prod, like it use to a few of months ago? This will make it easier to list prods in Deletion Sorting pages as having to open the edit window to the article to get the timestamp is a huge hassle. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
However {{prodded}} will accept a timestamp so perhaps it's simplest just to display that at the bottom? How does it look now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
can we obviate the need to scroll when using this template?
I have just placed a prod template on Joel D. McKissack, and the display is extremely wide, causing it to spill towards the right side of the screen. Any way this displacement can be alleviated by limiting screen width? --Ohconfucius¡digame!04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Notify author:
I propose adding Project to the notify message, "Notify author/project:". Nearly every article I have had occasion to prod in the last few months has at least one project listed on the talk page. Many of the authors have long since left Wikipedia and posting to the projects talk page, gives the prod more exposure. Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea, similar to what we already do at AfD. Unfortunately, some projects are much less active than others, but we can't help that. Though it's been interesting learning about the thinks that wouldn't otherwise interest me that show up in patrolling prod, people who actually know what the articles are about, what's important in that field, and what likely sources are available, would do it better and more efficiently. They would know, for example, what unsourced sports BLPs are so thoroughly non-notable that it's not worth the time to try to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Make it obvious that it's business as usual and nothing to be upset about
I'd like to suggest that the following words in the template be highlighted(yellow) or the words be the same size or larger than the rest. If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. Or even change this template from something forboding to something more inclusive that shows a process is happening and you need to do something along the lines of tl:dr --Narracan3824 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
bug with "previously nominated for deletion"
On Malibu Chili Cook-Off, I prod'd the article. Later, an editor sent it to AFD (I guess it would be expected that the editor should've removed the prod then, but..). See history. Now, the prod notice on the page has a notice that "This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibu Chili Cook-Off exists."
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please can the wording "please don't take offense" be changed to "please don't be offended" per WP:COMMONALITY (offense is US spelling). Also note that despite this template being protected, no lock symbol is shown. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed edit: What if the tag is removed with no further comment?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Currently the template states:
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
It asks for the rational to be explained. I suggest the last sentence should read: If this template is removed, it should not be replaced unless reasoning for the removal has not been provided. The current language does not appear to forbid mass removal of prods while providing no reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. What's important is addressing the problem, not saying that you've addressed the problem. So if an editor puts things right then the reason for deletion becomes irrelevant, even if no explanation has been given. Obviously it makes sense to describe the change, but a lack of this isn't a justification for deletion. Bazonka (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was counting improving the article as a response. I mean those who remove the notice without reason without having any further input on the article. I count a response as improving the article, leaving an edit summary or a message on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, everyone, what happened after IRWolfie's last post? The policy hasn't changed, and I didn't see any discussion on the policy Talk page (did I miss it?). This inconsistency between the tag and the policy came up at this AfD. At this point, my suggestion is we change the tag language to be consistent with the policy language. Changing the policy language may or may not be a good idea, but it's gonna be harder to do. In the interim, the tag should match. If others agree, I'll propose - or someone else can - some language to use instead of the current language.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the disparity you are seeing? Wikipedia doesn't have hard rules. and further, a removed tag just means that the PROD needs to go through AfD. PROD is only supposed to be an uncontroversial way to propose deletion. Any opposition regardless of followup discussion means that the next step for someone wishing deletion is AfD. - jc3704:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following language for the tag to better track the policy language:
You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, your are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.
I explained my confusion at the AfD link in my post. If you have trouble following it (it's kind of wordy), let me know and I'll try to clarify. Bear in mind that you should try to read the language in the tag as if you'd never seen the language in the policy. If you're familiar with the policy, you're far more likely not to be confused by the language in the tag. In any event, why not just make the two match? I see no reason for the differences.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The disparity is that the policy explicitly states that the tag is not to be added after removal, where the tag says that it should not be added after removal. The tag suggests some leeway or editor discretion in re-addition, where the policy offers no discretion. In what case would it be acceptable to add a PROD tag to an article that has already had a tag removed? Maybe in the case where it was removed by a banned user. The wording of the tag and the policy should match. As a minimum for the sake of clarity I think that the wording of the tag should be changed from "should not" to "must not". This is more related to the wording, not trying to make removal justification mandatory. Perhaps it should be in a new section. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What I did in the proposed language was correct the language that confused me (the second sentence) AND incorporated the language that Kelapstick noted was also misleading (the last sentence). The change to the second sentence tracks the "not required"/"encouraged" language in the policy, and the "must not" instead of "should not" in the last sentence tracks the strong, bolded language in the policy, "do not replace it". Regardless of what one thinks of my confusion, I don't see how there can be any objection to making the language in the tag clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Indeed, there's no reason not to bold it just as it is bolded in the policy. I will change the language blockquoted above to incorporate the formatting (the first part is in italics in the current template) so everyone can see precisely what it would look like.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think changing the wording from "should not" to "must not" is a great idea and should happen as soon as possible. Though I imagine that it will play a part in Bbb23's RfA, so we should probably wait until after that has finished before making a change. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, we should move ahead with implementing the change, while I'm not sure about bolding it, clearly the language should be changed, and as I don't want perfect to get in the way of better, I would support any of the four combinations discussed, "must not", "do not replace it" or the bolded version of either. I don't think we need to wait for the RFA to end either, someone can just make a note about the change there. Monty84514:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the RfA issue (I'd already thought about it). My RfA shouldn't stand in the way of improving something that benefits the community. I can easily add a note to A12 in my RfA once the tag language is actually changed so no one is confused. As for which version, I'll let others pick.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No one seems to be commenting since Monty, so I thought I'd propose the same language as before with one modification. I'm going to reduce the bolding. It won't match the policy bolding, but the bolding looks okay on the policy page, whereas, aesthetically, it's a bit much in a colored box. So people won't have to look up higher, here it is:
You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, your are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.
Anyone who agrees can make the edit request. If someone wants something different, they're free to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It appears that discussion as stopped on the immediately above change, with sufficient support to implement it. Monty84514:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the feature in the template db-a9 where the template suggests the closing admins have a look at the talk page before deleting if the page is not empty. Is this something this template should include? --Bensin (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page need not be mentioned in the template, besides being an general accepted good practice, it is a functional requirement as the admin needs to open the talk page to delete it as part of the process. Jeepday (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DEPROD
Per Wikipedia:DEPROD, once removed a PROD must not be restored. Currently the template reads If this template is removed, it should not be replaced., I propose changing that to If this template is removed, it must not be replaced. to better reflect policy. If no one objects I will make an edit request. Monty84513:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Monty, please see the section above, where I have proposed new language for the template and see what you think. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added the references in the article, all the information in the article is correct and I'm writing this article on the behalf of Bushra Rahman. She has read and approved the article. Can I remove Proposed deletion tag ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaira jamil (talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please wrap the paragraph starting with "If you can address this concern…" in <p class="verbose">...</p> and add |class=mbox-prod to {{mbox}} invocation, so that the template can be reliably styled with CSS. Keφr14:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been searching a while now to find the right template to propose the deletion of an image. I finally came to the conclusion that this is the closest it gets - but when I paste it, it gives big screaming red letters not to use it on non-articles. Could you please suggest in those same big red letters also what else to use? I somehow get lost... effeietsanders12:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Is it possible to change the timestamp on PROD and BLPPRODs so that it is a UTC timestamp, just like the one used in signatures? Because at the moment I see PRODs that say they should have expired yesterday, but ofcourse they don't because I'm 13 hours (12? I can't remember) ahead of UTC. Signatures and history show the right times because I have the UTC time preference set. We have the technology, I have tried changing it in the template sandbox, but it looks a bit complicated for me and I would probably botch it up, but I'm sure someone will be able to do it. -- Patchy1REF THIS BLP09:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Some consistency would in fact be appreciated, so no concerns with the change. (I don't know if you're also seeing issues with templates that should be in expired categories that don't get there, there are subtleties about environmentally-conditional template inclusion that roughly means that categorization of articles by these templates is sometimes out of date. See User:Joe's Null Bot, which more or less daily kicks all the BLPPROD'd articles into being more or less up to date on their categorization.) --j⚛e deckertalk15:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So what exactly is the difference? I was expecting to see exactly the same timestamp as used in signatures, so 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC), which in code is 22:18 4 February 2013 (UTC) and displayed to me as 11:18 am, Today (UTC+13).-- Patchy1REF THIS BLP22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It used to show
Timestamp: 20130201210050
It now shows
Timestamp: 20130201210050 21:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The format of "21:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)" is exactly the same as the format of the time/date in a user signature. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Aha! I see where the change is now, I was looking at the expiry date, but it's the start date that you have changed, no wonder I was getting confused. Is it possible to change the expiry date so it appears as the better timestamp, and so it gets automatically changed to my timezone like signatures? -- Patchy1REF THIS BLP23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The user preference gadget sets it to (UTC+13) for me so no need to worry about that. But that change you have made shows up as the UTC timestamp but it isn't automatically changed, and that's what I wanted so I wouldn't know whats going wrong. Thanks for your help anyway. -- Patchy1REF THIS BLP10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The template {{Proposed deletion/dated}} is still used, and I assume should also be substituted. I've caught one instance where it was not substituted, so that template page may need a documentation page to let people know that it must be substituted. The doc page {{Proposed deletion/dated/doc}} is already in place, so the following change to the very end of the /dated template is proposed:
I see now that I was confused about the subst: of the /dated template. The /dated/doc page has been updated by editor Keφr and should be added to the /dated template. – Paine (Climax!) 11:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
When a PROD template has been on an article for over seven days, the template will say that "This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice." I'd like to request that the wording be changed to say "This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice." I'm requesting this because "and so" makes the sentence look like a run-on, while a comma is considered to be a better usage of grammar. (Yes, I'm a grammar freak.)
Writing Enthusiast(talk | contribs)00:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I object to this change. The Speedy deletion Wiki exists, but there is no reason for us to promote it. Moreover, we don't control it and it could cease to exist at any time. DES(talk)04:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Special:Diff/717019867 (check if |help=off. If so, hide the "Nominator:" message at the bottom of the template. (This is similar to how we're already doing it with Template:db-meta.) Note that this also hides help for administrators as well (all it is is a delete button).
Validation: see testcases here (I added 2 new ones at the bottom)
Other changes include updating the documentation pages to include mention about |help. Side comment: May be helpful to update Twinkle to use this new |help=off if Twinkle warns the user automatically. Is this something to initiate?
If this change is approved, I think the editor should handle changes in both templates at the same time.
Proposing another minor change in behavior of help=off
I'm inclined to believe that the administrator delete button that appears 7 days into the PROD should perhaps always be visible, and the fact that |help=off (that I proposed 2 days ago) hides it may be incorrect behavior. I've since made |help= apply only to the nominator message at the sandbox, and made the timestamp and administrator delete always appear regardless.
I've went ahead and made the change. Essentially, the bottom timestamp and admin delete message now appear in tandem when the template is 7 days old (the timestamp was already in the center of the main message anyway). |help=off applies only to the nominator message, which is arguably even less of a change when |help= was not an option. Thanks! — Andy W. (talk · contrib)20:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you please wrap the '''Administrators:''' [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{{reason|{{{1|{{{concern|}}}}}}}}}}}&action=delete}} delete in <span class="sysop-show">s to avoid that text appearing on the screens of non-admins viewing the article.
tag should indicate that deletion is anticipated to be uncontroversial OR get rid of the countdown to deletion
I don't think giving a specific time for proposed deletion is appropriate when there isn't a community discussion in favour of deletion UNLESS the deletion is truly non-controversial but in that case the template should indicate that that's what the tagger thinks (that no dispute is expected). I had to come here to figure out that this was't some sort of admins-only-can-place tag whereby article is to be deleted and here's your notice of that, end of discussion. Yes, it does say you can remove this template if you dispute the deletion but the issue in my mind is that people applying this template don't realize that they shouldn't be applying it in contentious situations because it doesn't provide "instructions for use" within the template itself. "It is proposed that this article be deleted and objections to this deletion are not anticipated" would be sufficient here. "But you can very cavalierly just remove the tag" would not be an appropriate defence of the unedited tag in my view since tags are not supposed to be going on and off articles quite so easily. Encouraging WP:DRIVEBY for tag removal indirectly encourages drive-by tag additions.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Reintroducing sorting by days left
Last edit to {{Proposed deletion/dated}} removed the sorting key (because numbers doesn't work anymore). I propose adding a new sorting key:
Since use of this template appears to be being preferred to using speedy deletion templates such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, I think it would be helpful if "Add following to the image captions: {{deletable image-caption}}" could be added to the template itself in the same manner as is done for the di-XXX templates.
I also think the template's instruction should be tweaked so that notifying the file's creator is considered mandatory since most of the other file related deletion templates actually do not treat this as optional. Even FFD says "Give due notice". Notifying WikiProject may be optional, but notifying the uploader seems like it should be required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to create this template on Central Kurdish Wikipedia, but when I copy this exact template and paste it for preview, it asks to be substituted and I have zero idea on how to do that. Can anyone please help? Thanks.◂ épinetalk♬13:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The table given in the documentation under TemplateData says that the "help" parameter should be set to "yes" in order to hide the user notification message. It should say "off" instead. XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we have a means of removing pages from Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. I mean without the nuclear option of removing the prod template. Sometimes the new article is on a different subject to the deleted article (eg different person with same name) so the prod is actually valid. There is no obvious way for administrators to process the category when that happens. SpinningSpark17:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Does concerns need to be a blockquote?
I'm currently working on displaying page issues in a mobile friendly and informative manner. While working on this we hit a snag relating to the use of the blockquote element. In mobile this is a block element and the compact mobile view of issues is being designed to be at most 2 lines of explanation with the ability to expand.
I'd rather not add additional difficult to maintain CSS to handle this case, so I was wondering if the blockquote is essential or would an inline element such as italised or bold text suffice here? See phab:T197265 for more information and screenshots explaining the issue. Thanks in advance for any insights you can add here! Jdlrobson (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2018
{{#if: {{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}
| because of the following concern:
|.
}}
<blockquote>{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}</blockquote>
<p class="verbose">
to instead be:
{{#if: {{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}
| because of the following concern:<blockquote>{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}</blockquote>
|.
}}
<p class="verbose">
This will reduce the excessive whitespace that is generated when the reason parameter is not used.
and:
Please change:
Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]].</small>
to instead be:
Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]].{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0|
*{{find sources mainspace}}|}}</small>
This will add a "find sources" bullet with formatted links whenever the prod is used in namespace 0.
Thank you JJMC89. It's fine without the namespace check, but I do believe it renders better if the </small> closing tag goes after the bullet instead of before; for consistency.
This request pertains to Template:Proposed deletion/dated. I am requesting a modification that introduces "boiler text" in some conceivable cases where the current code would leave the "concern" field blank.
The sandbox code at this SB permalink governs the test cases at this TC permalink which has examples that illustrate the changes. Essentially it is most easily described as:
Replace the template's entire existing code with the code directly below (not the internal code that produces it), or with the sandbox code at the permalink.
<templatestyles src="Proposed_deletion/styles.css" />
{{ambox
|type=delete
|image=none
|class=mbox-prod
|text={{main other|demospace={{#ifeq:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|main}}
|1={{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}
|{{error
|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.
}}[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|D{{PAGENAME}}]]<br/>
}}
|2={{error
|message=Please use PROD only on articles.
}}[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|N{{PAGENAME}}]]<br/>
}}It is '''[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed that this article be deleted]]''' because of the following concern:<blockquote>{{#if:{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{concern|}}}|concern|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].|{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].}}</blockquote><p class="verbose">If you can address this concern by [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|improving]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|copyediting]], [[Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1|sourcing]], [[Wikipedia:Moving a page|renaming]], or [[Wikipedia:Merging|merging]] the page, '''please [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} edit this page]''' and do so. ''You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason''. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, '''[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating|do not replace it]]'''.</p>
{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U}}>{{#time:U|{{{timestamp|20200000000000}}} +7 days}}
|{{color|red|This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice.}}{{category handler
|all=[[Category:Expired proposed deletions]]
|nocat={{#ifeq:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|true}}
}}
|The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days{{#if:{{{timestamp|}}}
|, i.e., after {{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{{timestamp}}} +7 days}} (UTC)
|. Please check the {{history|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|history}} to see when this template was added
}}.
}}<br/>
<small class="verbose">If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]].<br />{{find sources mainspace}}</small><span style="display:none; speak:none;"><!--
--><span id="delete-criterion">PROD</span><!--
--><span id="delete-reason">{{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{#if:{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{concern|}}}|concern|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].|{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].}} }}</span><!--
--><span id="raw-delete-reason">Expired <nowiki>[[WP:PROD|prod]]</nowiki>, concern was: {{#if:{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{concern|}}}|concern|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].|{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].}}</span><!--
--></span>
{{#ifeq:{{{help}}}|off||----
<small><span class="verbose prod-notify-code">'''Nominator:''' Please consider notifying the author/project: <code>{{tlsp|link subst=no|proposed deletion notify|2={{FULLPAGENAME}}|3=concern={{#tag:nowiki|{{#if:{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{concern|}}}|concern|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].|{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].}}}}}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code></span></small>}}{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U}}>{{#time:U|{{{timestamp|20200000000000}}} +7 days}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{help}}}|off|----|<br/>}}{{#if:{{{timestamp|}}}
|<small>'''Timestamp:''' {{{timestamp}}} {{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{{timestamp}}}}} (UTC)
}}<br/><span class="sysop-show">'''Administrators:''' [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{#if:{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{concern|}}}|concern|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].|{{{concern|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}}}}|The topic is [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]] or it does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|minimum standard for inclusion]].}}}}&action=delete}} delete]</span></small>
}}
}}{{category handler
|all={{#if:{{{timestamp|}}}
|[[Category:Proposed deletion as of {{#time:j F Y|{{{timestamp}}}}}]]
|[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|U{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}[[Category:All articles proposed for deletion]]
|nocat={{#ifeq:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|true}}
}}<includeonly>{{NOINDEX}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>
Hello,
I was checking PROD'd articles and noticed that, like CSD C1 categories, the articles are not shown to be expired when clearly 7 days have passed. For example, I was checking PRODs in the Nov. 13th folder and none of the articles were indicated to have expired when 7 days have passed yesterday. On articles for Nov. 14th, they weren't indicated to have expired even though they expire today.
For what its worth, the time seems to be off a little over 24 hours late. I'm not about to edit the template but either the template has the wrong number of hours listed until the tagged pages expire or whatever bot that updates the files is running a day behind. Like I said, a similar situation is occurring with the CSD C1 categories which are supposed to be listed in an expired folder after 7 days and they aren't either. So, maybe it is a general bot problem. Hope it can be resolved. LizRead!Talk!21:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
|text={{main other|demospace={{#ifeq:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|main}}
|1={{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}
|{{error
|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.
}}[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|D{{PAGENAME}}]]<br/>
}}
|2={{error
making it instead say:
|text={{main other|demospace={{#ifeq:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|main}}
|1={{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}
|{{#if:{{{priorafd|{{{pafd|}}}}}}||{{error
|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.
}}[[Category:Proposed deletions needing attention|D{{PAGENAME}}]]<br/>
}}}}
|2={{error
This change will allow for the handling of pages appearing in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention where an AfD exists for the proposed title but the previous AfD is unrelated. Currently, if the previous AfD is related, the {{Proposed deletion/dated}} template can simply be removed but where it is not (when the AfD relates to a completely different topic) no action can be taken. This change adds |priorafd= and |pafd= which when either is used with any value (for example "no", or "not the same") the error message will be suppressed and the "proded page" will be removed from "Category:Proposed deletions needing attention".
This functionality is needed, particularly as it relates to Bazoo, a page currently proposed for deletion where the previous AfD does not seem related to the proposed page The prod for Bazoo has expired and the page has been deleted. I have tested this modification by appending the changes to the code at {{Proposed deletion/dated/sandbox}} and testing all manner of use and non use at Special:ExpandTemplates; finding nothing counter-indicative. I will update the template's documentation if this modification is accepted.
You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.
That seems a little superfluous to say "on improvement" and then "well, any other reason too". Would anyone object to You may remove this message if you object to deletion for any reason.?
I saw a recently placed prod tag already showing the red "may be deleted without further notice" message (diff). Did the tagger place {{Proposed deletion/dated}} directly? If so, could not undated tags be made not to indicate immediate expiry? Looking further I found this and this showing the same slightly previous time. There are several more like this (and more with no timestamp at all). Is this normal? What is going on? Thincat (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem here is that in 2010, someone hard-coded the date 2020-01-01 as a "far in the future" date to be used when the template was misused (diff). Since we've reached that date now, the default date needs to be moved on 10 years. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, back in 2010 I can see that 2020 would seem far in the future both for people who were very young and those who, like me, were very old! Thank you for realising this. Thincat (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change 20200000000000 to 20300000000000 so that when the template is mis-used, the default behaviour is that the page is marked for delayed deletion not immediate deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
At present, the editor who proposes deletion is not shown on the template. This is to propose adding something like "Submitted by {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} on {{timestamp}}." after the find sources line. Then User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary could show the username. As User:Kvng points out, it might make noms more accountable and improve the quality of nominations. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I have generally been identifying myself in my prods. This has led to minor technical trouble in the past (since it results in my user page/talk page linked from the main article). But I think after a while this became accepted, and I haven't received any complaints in years. I support this as a best practice feature, but I also think likewise we should get attributed notifications when an article is deprodded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This adds a |nom= parameter to the /dated subtemplate whose value is automatically filled in while substituting the parent template (via REVISIONUSER magic word). A small-print (proposed by Example) will be generated in the display. More importantly, this username is made available in the wikitext to be scraped by bots (SDZeroBot which maintains WP:PRODSORT, and maybe DumbBOT if its operator is inclined). See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Random_break.
This change has been tested: go to any article, add {{subst:proposed deletion/sandbox}} at the top and preview. SD0001 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
SD0001, can you please link to a consensus discussion that determined that it is OK for editor names to appear at the top of articles in article space, and hence in the article's history forever if the article is kept? This seems like a significant change, and I can't think of a precedent for it. (Maybe there is a precedent in AfD? I don't spend much time there.) If we are going to do this for PROD, are we going to do it for all deletion templates? If so, we definitely need a discussion. If not, why only PROD? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: The id of an editor who requests deletion appears in the article history forever if the article is kept, whether via CSD, PROD or AfD. An editor id appears in the article history forever if they correct a typo. Not sure I understand the point. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that the editor's name appears in the text of the article, right at the top of the article, published worldwide as part of a live encyclopedia article. Is there a discussion where editors agreed on that happening? I don't necessarily object to the |nom= parameter, but I think that displaying it in the rendered article may be controversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I don't think this is a controversial change needing further discussion. The following points are worth noting, in no particular order:
It's in small text.
PROD is the only process in which an individual editor-written rationale text appears on the article. Hence, doing this makes sense only for PROD and not for any XFD deletion templates.
The username appears "right at the top" only if no rationale was provided (which should be provided anyway). If a prod rationale is provided, the username appears at the end of the rationale.
This was discussed in the link provided above: Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Random_break. The point made was that this helps prod patrollers to more easily identify problematic PROD taggers.
The CSD templates also show a username on the article - "This page was last edited by User (contribs | logs)" at the bottom of the CSD tag. You can see that in any article from CAT:CSD.
Thanks for the detailed response. I had forgotten, or not noticed, that speedy templates showed the user name of the most recent editor of the page, so I'm less worried about displaying the editor's name now. I notice that {{db-meta}} uses {{REVISIONUSER2}} instead of REVISIONUSER. Should this template use it as well? Sorry to be a pain, but if I make this edit, I will be responsible for it, and I'd rather not make a mistake that will have to be undone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. I had to tweak it a bit to prevent the {nom} code from appearing in existing transclusions. Ping me from here if there are post-implementation problems, objections, or cookies to share. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is mis-attributing. Piotrus added a Prod in this edit, at which point the small "proposed by" is attributed to the correct editor. I subsequently edited to add a source, though not one that is strong enough in itself to remove the Prod, but now the Tirril Brewery page text is claiming that the Prod was proposed by me, which is not acceptable. The same phenomenon can also be seen in an intervening bot edit after which the Prod purported to be proposed by the bot. AllyD (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Just noticed this now myself. Can you change it to {{REVISIONUSER}} for now? Seems like REVISIONUSER2 doesn't support substing; sorry my bad for not testing your proposed change. SD0001 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Actually I think using REVISIONUSER is the permanent fix. Since it's being substed, the limitation of REVISIONUSER would not apply. {{REVISIONUSER}} can cause the display issues only if we're acutally using it for display :) SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there are 63 pages with mis-attributed nominators. Doing... Will use a script to fix them. SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The concept is that {{Proposed deletion/dated}} would include something like {{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}} | | [[Category:Proposed deletion with no talk page]]}}.
Interested editors could check articles in this category and create talk page entries with suitable projects. Bots such as AAlertBot would then update WikiProjects with alerts about articles within their scope proposed for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This gives Twinkle the ability to remove PROD template on articles via the Tag module. The tag module was recently improved to allow users to enter a reason for adding/removing tags, which makes it possible to use Twinkle to easily and responsibly remove PROD tags. SD0001 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
