This template was considered for deletion on 2008 January 26. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

This template was considered for merging with Template:Proposed deletion/dated on 2012 August 1. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

Documentation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Purpose

This template is a proposed addition to the process Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

Usage

please add {{prod-2}} to an article if and only if

It currently has the {{prod}} tag applied to it;
You have read the article, and considered whether it can be improved or altered so that deletion is not needed; and
After that review, you agree with the nomination that deletion is appropriate, and that it is plausible that no one will object.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Removal of the bit about the old proposed deletion log

I have commented out the bit about the proposed deletion log as it is unavailable. Feel free to toss it out entirely if needed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I don't really understand points 2 and 3. Let me see if I get this right: I should use this tag if the article is already prodded and I believe the article could be cleaned up, but in its current shape it should be deleted. Is that how this work? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means you should use this tag if you have considered whether or not the article can be cleaned up, and decided that, no, it can't be, and that therefore it should indeed be deleted. --Stormie 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst

Should this template have a subst prefix - ie {{subst:prod2}}? — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing not. {{Prod}} didnt for a long time, either. The only reason it finally became a subst template was it's now substing for another template, namely {{dated prod}}, which isn't subst'ed. On the other hand, I'm absolutely the wrong person to ask about these things, it's just my 2¢. --Storkk 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely confusing to have {{prod}} being a subst yet {{prod2}} not, though. I'm not familiar with how easy it would be to do so, but I'd have thought the two templates were so similar that bringing them into line should be a high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod is subst'd for a reason, prod2 is just a regular template; you don't subst it for the same reason you don't subst {{cleanup}} and similar maintenance tags. I don't see where the confusion comes from. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

What exactly is the purpose of this template? Any prodded article that isn't contested after 5 days gets deleted anyway, so why would you "endorse" a prod? Mel sa ran 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, contested PRODs have to go to AfD, so this tag indicates that Some Other Editor would be willing to voice a Delete if it came up for discussion ... and use of this template might encourage an author to request a G7 speedy delete ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty with comment

I had difficulty today trying to put a comment in the prod2 that contained an external link. Unless I removed the link, it would default to the "endorses the reason above" message. Thankfully I barely managed to suppress my natural tendency to experiment with stuff to fix it before I messed it up. :) Does anyone know if it can be fixed to allow external links and how? -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place 1= before the entire comment. (The first = sign in a parameter to a template has a special meaning; the 1= in the first parameter 'escapes' the = signs later on so that they don't have a special meaning any more. In templates with more than one numbered parameter, you need to escape all the parameters, the first with 1=, the second with 2=, and so on.) It's not a problem with this template, but rather a usability problem with the way MediaWiki handles template parameters. --ais523 12:54, 17 September 2007 (U T C)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello, fellow editors ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created {{Oldprodfull}} ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Please consider adding it to the talk page of any article that you tag with a Prod-2 ... also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO and other flag templates?

Happy Editing! — 141.156.217.11 (talk) _{22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

bug in prod2 template

The prod2 template doesn't always justify properly on the right side; other templates will stretch to fit the page, Prod2 stops at some point, so it winds up out of alingment with the other tags.

It's hardly a serious matter, but there's probaby an easy fix for it. Hairhorn (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I think this template should be merged into {{proposed deletion/dated}}. This would allow both better formatting (the concerns could be grouped together) and less instruction creep on the page where the templates are placed. The possible formatting could be:

{{proposed deletion/dated |concern=Text of original concern |timestamp=1234567890 |endorsed1=concern by another editor |endorsed2=concern by third editor }}

instead of

{{proposed deletion/dated |concern=Text of original concern |timestamp=1234567890 }}
{{proposed deletion endorsed |concern by another editor}} }}
{{proposed deletion endorsed |concern by third editor}} }}

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]