Template talk:Old prod

Differentiate between BLPprod and regular prod
Would it be possible to somehow differentiate between BLPprods and regular prods? For example, it would be useful to see that an article was BLPprodded on May 18, subsequently deprodded on May 25 and a regular prod placed on May 26? Hack (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd love this. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 20:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * old prod wasn't designed for BLPProd. It's purpose is to alert editors that the page is "ineligible to be regular-PRODded again" since regular "PROD" is a "one time use only" form of deletion.
 * BLPProd could, in theory, be used over and over again if references were removed to the point where there were none. In practice, that won't happen, but in theory if you tagged a reference-less BLP for BLPProdded, then an editor added a phony book reference that everyone took at face value, then years later without any other references being added in the meantime, that reference was discovered to be a hoax, the page would again be without references, and again eligible for BLPProd.  Since it had never been regular-PRODded and never sent to AFD, it would also still be eligible for a regular PROD.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-followup: I just updated the documentation page to make this distinction clear. I've also put a note on WT:Twinkle asking the developer to not put old prod on talk pages when applying the prod blp template.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Populate maintenance categories
See lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. brought up the point that information about contested prods is not very accessible. This is to propose that this template be modified so that if more than 7.25 days have passed and is later than 2020-06-01: Interested editors, or a bot if anyone cares to write it, can work through the categories checking the history and adding values from the edit history where possible. (The reason for checking is later than 2020-06-01 is to avoid swamping the new categories.)
 * If is null, the page should be added to Category:Past proposed deletion candidates with unknown contestor.
 * If is null, the page should be added to Category:Past proposed deletion candidates with no concern given.
 * If is null, the page should be added to Category:Past proposed deletion candidates with no objection given.

Separately, can add the nominator and contestor userids and reasons to a historical version of User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary, which might make the editors a bit more accountable and could be useful for analysis. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can handle adding nominator username to WP:PRODSORT. You could try emailing DumbBOT's operator if you want the same to be done in WP:PRODSUM.
 * Regarding the categorisation or bot autofilling of those fields, I'm unsure of the benefits. The vast majority of the pages are not likely to have those fields filled in. Twinkle only fills in nom and nomdate while creating PRODs. There is already a portion of the community which feels that old prod template is useless and clutters talk pages (eg. see section above) What's the point of this? If its data aggregation, it would be better to set up a bot to auto-generate daily reports similar to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion/sample2020-6-26 (entirely feasible), which also means that the data is easily viewable in a central place rather than littered over thousands of talk pages. SD0001 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There could be more acceptance of the old prod template if it gave more information: who proposed and contested it, and why. Twinkle should be able to fill in nomreason, and we could ask users contesting a PROD to fill in con and conreason. Some of them might do it.
 * The purpose is to support analysis and follow-up on PRODs, including current ones and contested ones. These new categories would be used by interested editors (or a bot) to find and add the missing data, so ideally would often be empty. Then the talk pages in Category:Past proposed deletion candidates would form a sort of database that could be queried different ways. It may be a bit difficult for a bot to pick out the user that removed a PROD and their reason, if any, from the edit summary. Easier to take the data from the template on the talk page.
 * The enthusiasm about analyzing PRODs may pass soon. The tweak to the template suggested above would be easy to add and to remove again. I could do it. Setting up a bot would, I think, be a lot harder. I would like to collect the data for a while, so we can think about what if anything to do with it long term. would you care to comment? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to support analysis and follow-up on PRODs, including current ones and contested ones. These new categories would be used by interested editors (or a bot) to find and add the missing data, so ideally would often be empty. Then the talk pages in Category:Past proposed deletion candidates would form a sort of database that could be queried different ways. It may be a bit difficult for a bot to pick out the user that removed a PROD and their reason, if any, from the edit summary. Easier to take the data from the template on the talk page.
 * The enthusiasm about analyzing PRODs may pass soon. The tweak to the template suggested above would be easy to add and to remove again. I could do it. Setting up a bot would, I think, be a lot harder. I would like to collect the data for a while, so we can think about what if anything to do with it long term. would you care to comment? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As a user of Twinkle who does prods I also support enhancing Twinkle's PROD tool to support the above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Unexpired removed prod shows up in pink
If the template is less than 7 days old, it shows up in pink. This is good.

But if it's been contested, that is, if con is not empty, it should revert back to the regular color.

If this isn't fixed in a few days and there are no objections I'll draft a fix and ask someone with "template editor" rights to review it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding permalinks/diff links to template
Per a brief discussion on Twinkle talk page, I am proposing the addition of nomid and condiff parameters. Usage will generate a permalink to the PRODed version of the page (in case of nomid) and to the diff showing the deprod (in case of condiff). For the sake of completeness we can also add a 2ndid. The intent is to save space on talk pages by not including the full nomreason or 2ndreason or conreason.

The nomid parameter can be populated automatically by Twinkle, whereas condiff can be populated automatically by a bot.

The existing *reason parameters will of course be retained (at least for now?) for backward compatibility. – SD0001  (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2022
The nomdate and condate fields result in differently formatted dates in the same template. This should probably be edited (by someone with more skill than I) to make them both show in the same format? Right now entering 2022-04-14 in nomdate and 2022-04-15 in condate results in

"This page has been recently proposed for deletion (14 April 2022) ... with the comment: propose deletion as non-notable It was contested by ... on 2022-04-15 with the comment:" See diff here Jahaza (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-opening this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive gone ahead and made a fix for the changes you requested on the sandbox. You can see it in action on the testcases page. Now it just needs to be checked and edited by a Template Editor. Aidan9382 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but i just realised after looking at the template's documentation page that im an idiot, and missed the fact the secondded parameter was also not auto-translating the dates. Ive gone and done the same fix for that, so if you could also add that along with it, that would be great. (Ive got some terrible luck with template fixing i swear). Sorry! Aidan9382 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

there were errors introduced by your 21 April 2022 change. I made this edit to clear the error from a page. I don't know what  was doing there, but this seems to have been something used many times. For example see the top of Talk:Myra Bairstow where there is an Error: Invalid time message. I found these when patrolling Category:Pages with parser function time errors which is pointing to hundreds of similar errors. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert my edit then (fyi ) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look at it when I'm available. Aidan9382 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not overly familiar with this template (and was asked to look at it) but would this not be fixed by adding date or similar to each instance of a date parameter so that a) they are standardised, and b) can be switched between formats if desired? Primefac (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, forgot about this template, woops. The reason the initial change was reverted was because it turns out quite a few inputs to the template aren't exactly perfect. For some reason (I think some sort of template substitution), there seem to be a large amount of parameters with  inputs (about 600), and these would cause errors in the old format. date would be a good middle ground, since it would just return the text instead of erroring, but it still won't convert it. (compare below, taken from Special:Diff/1096340268).
 * -> 2017-06-23
 * -> 2017-06-23 (no conversions done)
 * Hope this provides a good enough overview. Aidan9382 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no opposition here, I could always file a bot request to remove those spurious spans. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, I decided to look into where exactly these span tags were coming from. Judging from this older version of the doc page and a quick look at ISO date, it seems to have arised from the documentation suggesting that said ISO date should be substituted. Luckily, this was changed back in 2019 (for this exact reason as well), so the issue shouldn't arise again, which is good. Aidan9382 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, bot task took a while to get approved, but it should be done now. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there still interest in making this change? There are only two remaining talk pages with spans (Talk:Legacy of Roberto Clemente and Talk:Embassy of India, Ljubljana), so it might be possible now. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Might as well just fix them myself, actually. Aidan's search now returns zero results. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Appears to be .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)