Template talk:Proposed deletion notify

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled

message: Hi. I am having a small problem with my signature when using this template. When I use  ~~~~ - I am getting this:
Hi there. I've added the "" 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  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)
replies: text: I believe you're right. I've tried to fix it. Deco 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, seems fine now. Thanks TigerShark 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi there. I've added the "" template to the article , 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:. If you remove the  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)
replies: text: What do you mean?  If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted is exactly what the real template says now. Thatcher131 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's late, go to bed. Thatcher131 05:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: I've taken the liberty to create  (and, incidentally, ) for notifying users about deletions proposed by someone else. Sandstein 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's awesome.  Thanks. NickelShoe (Talk) 07:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRODNote 

message: 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  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  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)
thread_title: Disputing a prod

message: Be warned! I have added the following image to the template.--Gavin Collins 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning Image

message: I'd like to change the section title in this template to include the phrase "Proposed deletion of" before the prodded article name.  This would help differentiate this template from the speedy deletion warnings which already include "speedy deletion of" in their section titles.  Since I know there are bots that may rely on the output this template produces, I wanted to make sure such a change was okay before actually doing it.  Thanks!  --DachannienTalkContrib 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, at least some of the speedy deletion templates don't include that either, but I think it would be helpful.  --DachannienTalkContrib 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is sufficient the way it is ... that's why I changed the warning icon from RED to YELLOW a few weeks ago. :-) ... Happy Editing! — 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More descriptive section title? 

message: Is this section really necessary?   The warning template's already longer than a lot of stub articles! :)
If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of 
--Deadly∀ssassin 11:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Delete Sentence 

message: Would it be possible to specify a parameter for bots to use that would include the opt out message, and have it not be included otherwise?  It doesn't seem to make much sense to have the opt out message when actual human editors put the message on someone's talk page.  I'd suggest adding a "|bot=" paramter, and change the opt out message to

instead of the current version.  Bots would then use the template as  ~~~~ instead of the current usage.  I don't imagine this would be a difficult fix on the part of the bot operators, but I'd like thoughts on it.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot opt out message? 

message: Seems more like a PRODNotice to me.  Do you get blocked for having too many PRODWarnings on your user page?  Tuxide (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a warning that your article may get deleted. It's not a user warning. --Amalthea 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it's not a warning.  But people are gonna see my userpage now and say, "Oh look, Tuxide got a warning!" Tuxide (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You shouldn't care what people think. :)But feel very free to remove the notice from your talk page. I usually remove templated notifications from mine. Cheers, Amalthea 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not that, I just care more about the name of the template because it's a warning although it really isn't.  It is appropriate to care what people think when they get the template; that's why I brought it up here.  I don't know if anyone else shares my opinion though.  Tuxide (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a warning.  A warning though is not neccessarily a demerit as you assume it is.  A warning is "cautionary advice about something imminent" according to google.  In this case, someone is letting you know that in the imminent future, an article you have contributed to may be deleted.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the hell is this a warning? 

message: Hello.  I would like to propose that the welcome message be set to "no" be default instead of "yes".  I do not know the statistics on PRODs against new users versus verteran users, but I would assume it happens more against users who have already had a welcome once already and do not need a second welcome.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The welcome message is only placed if the user page doesn't exist at the time of placement, so he won't get a second welcome unless he had his talk page deleted. Amalthea 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, that must have been my problem.  I usually post a welcome message with my warnings.  Great, thanks for explaining it to me.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome 

message: When leaving several prod warnings on a new page at the same time, it has the welcome message with every one. This may be a Feature, which can be compensated with the familiarity I lacked of the template until 5 minutes ago, but maybe someone with the code-know-how can fix it? Rehevkor ✉ 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome! 

message: The template was vandalized early this AM (UTC), so that at least one editor unknowingly posted it with an unacceptable graphic substituted. If someone has a bot for this, stop me, but i'm using :Category:Proposed deletion as of 21 July 2010 to check the ProD time of the 85 pages, and looking at the ProDers' next few edits to see anyone they warned, in case someone other than the one i stumbled on got the bad version. (But i have a vague recollection that a bot will post warnings if the ProDer doesn't? Can some one check any log kept for that, for the time frame covering ProDs posted  02:24 to 03:17 inclusive. I'll list here the ProDs in that range, starting with
: 02:36:57 Alie Basma (huh, apparently got good version from cache at 02:37; i will check beyond 3:17!) 
: 02:38:38 The Acting Studio at Edgemar Center for the Arts (ditto, 02:38:39)
: 02:39:26 Rocky Mountain cuisine (ditto, ...)
: 02:58:15 Brandology (disambiguation) (a.k.a. Brandology (Disambiguation)) (user got bad one at 02:58:18, fixed by Jerzy ... never mind the long story)
: 03:16 Michael Howell (caught by the ProDer)
: 03:45 Alexandre Dumond (no sign of problem)
: 04:09:02 El Pino (The Pine Tree) (ditto)
--Jerzy•t 19:32 & 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vand patrol 

message: Please see Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg), Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed icon change 

message: The article text has not been changed to reflect the new template name and is thus confusing. Where was the concensus to move the template? -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from PRODWarning 

message: Hallo, I found that this template had been used at User talk:DVMt when I prodded Neuromusculoskeletal (using Twinkle, in case it's relevant), and was surprised that it didn't include the reason for the PROD. It only says "because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion", which is far too vague - and as the message comes out above my signature, I rather object.  The template page says that the text will be "The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.", which goes part way to being helpful, so the template and its documentation are out of synch.
I also thought, and so it reads from the conversation above, that the template would add a Welcome message where the user talkpage was previously nonexistent. It didn't here - I added one manually to this user's talkpage.
So while I welcome the more user-friendly template, it looks as if it needs more work. PamD 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no reason for prod? no welcome? 

message: Jabbar Abbasi (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017 

message: The current text of this template comes across as a little hostile. In particular "While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated..." is a bit supercilious, and there's no need to reference WP:CSD, since WP:AfD would be the normal escalation after a failed PROD. I'd like to suggest we change it as follows, to make it gentler and more concise:
* remove "While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons"
* remove "the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and"
* after "allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion" add ", according to the reasons why an article may be deleted" before the period
› Mortee talk 00:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose rewording