Template talk:Hang on

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Color of the template[edit]

Shouldn't this template's color be one that is contrasting to the speedy delete templates. Looking at it quickly, it is mistaken for part of the speedy del. template. I propose a light blue, perhaps. J@red  00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like:


I disagree; that's a good thing. We don't want to have a zillion rainbow-colored tags on an article. --Rory096 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with User:Rory096's comment. The {{hangon}} tag is only supposed to be on an article for a short time, and the advantage that a contrasting colour would provide by reducing confusion is far bigger than the disadvantage by making a page look slightly worse for a short time. I will change the background colour to aqua. Polonium 18:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Does it have to be aqua? It's contrasting yes, but, not exactly easy on the eyes. Can it be a more... conventional blue like originally suggested? --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ouch my eyes! Blue or Green are good ideas but can we please have something a bit darker? It's very hard when strolling through the hangons! J.J.Sagnella 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter what colour it is (in my opinion) as long as it contrasts with the colour used on CSD templates. If you prefer green or some other colour, you may change it, as long as it still contrasts. Polonium 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to lightblue. Polonium 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Hangon is normally used for people who don't want their article to be deleted, or thinks differently about stuff, people still can remove the speedy tag if they don't clearly qualify for one, they just can't remove it if it's there own article or if the person is not that sure if it qualifies. I still do that for example. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just highlight this -- anyone can remove an improperly placed speedy deletion tag; say one placed by someone who doesn't understand the criteria and doesn't list one. +sj +

To Whom it may concern, A few people sent me an email trying to find out about Hossein Eslambolchi and his accomplishments worldwide. Fortunately i had tge chance to look at the cached version of the content and did not see any commercial or any type of advertising. The Wikipedia is getting its reputation for finding scientist, information which will educate the public and that is part of Web 2.0 mentality it exists in the worldwide web. Every claim was supported via a URL and the only potential advertising was re-direction of Dr. Eslambolchi 2020 Vision Book to Amazon which can easily be deleted. It would be a shame for Wikipedia management to remove and put a tag on this famous scientist and lader of 21st century. It looks like someone asking me to drop Eddison, Bill Gates from your web site which does not make sense but one who does own his own web site like Wikipedia can truly benefit from num ber of hits versus other search engines out there. I hope the adminstration and management of this web site re-consider teh tag. If not, when one searches on Google, his main publicly available website comes out as first and as i alluded, every piece of the information is supported via an external URL. What other facts one can have in verifying the content. I believe this is by far the most accomplishment individual in our industry and if not lifetime and it would be shame on WIkipedia management to remove him from your web page. But decision is yours to make. Sincerely, Dr. Eslambolchi supporter for many years. If you need to communicate, you can contact me via hemaui@yahoo.com. Sincerely, Wikipedia supporter from day 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafascheh (talkcontribs) 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappymcgee (talkcontribs) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 


Why does this template categorize pages into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Stifle (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the actual reason, but: The people who write speedy-deletable pages tend to be newbies who don't yet know Wikipedia procedure, and might very well replace a speedy deletion tag with a {{hangon}} tag. The extra categorization tag keeps the page from falling through the cracks in this case. (When the template is used properly, the categorization tag appears twice, but this causes no real harm.) lowercase 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you nailed it: [1] -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly add current date[edit]

Does anyone here think that it could be helpful to have {{Hangon}} show the amount of time it was on the page for? This way an administrator could easily tell if it is probably stale. It doesn't seem like it is too challenging to make a template showing this amount of time. -- kenb215 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If would have to be substed, wouldn't it? As most people creating speedily deletable pages are new and unacquainted with policy or the use of the site's code, I don't see this as being a good idea, since it would also create more code bloat on pages. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I've moved part of my original post under this heading from here to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall now that {{hangon}} is meant to be removed once the explanation is written on the talk page. Is this ever really done? Do admins even check talk pages of speedied articles? Since speedied articles are deleted, uh, speedily, why not just let {{hangon}} hang on until deletion/keeping? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, admins do not check the talk page usually. The {{hangon}} tag is the only way to notice that it is controversial. I will remove the notice. Polonium 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hangon cannot be placed on talk page[edit]

BLACK TRIP is worthy Metal band in music industry, has shared the stage with pioneers of Heavy metal such as OVERKILL, Joey Belladonna (ANTHRAX), the band is been active 10 years, is a Top Metal band in the Mexico City and now in the U.S is one of the important metal bands. This page: Talk:Lori_Klausutis is listed for speedy delete per C8. However, it is impossible to put a "hangon" template in the talk page and the project page is protected. Since there is criteria for speedy deleting a talk page, shouldn't the hangon template be able to be added and show normally? --*Spark* 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. GRrr. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just ran into this as well and find it to be very confusing. Please also see discussion on the same problem at the {{db-talk}} talk page. Either:
  1. the db-talk template has to change to not refer to the ability to "hangon"
  2. or this template needs to be able to be included in talk namespace
  3. or a new hangon-talk needs to be instituted and the db-talk template modified to reference that template instead of this one for contesting csd in talk namespace
Thoughts? ju66l3r 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented a version in my sandbox. With my version , you can override this using the tp parameter: {{hangon|tp=1}} shows up as:

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on its talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime.

Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template.

This should solve the problem. --Sigma 7 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if it causes any problems. Xiner (talk, email) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok...I am completely lost. Sflordeliza 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm just posting on the Hangon page because me and some other person are both working on the website we're doing, so I just had to put that there so the webpage would exist. Will be worked on shortly though. -TheOnlySilverFish —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlySilverFish (talkcontribs) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a change in wording[edit]

The wording "the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria" is clunky. "Considered" by whom? An admin, clearly, in which case "it is considered that" is superfluous: admins have this discretionary power without needing a template to spell it out. The unnecessary passive voice evokes images of shadowy coteries sitting in judgement on every article (so true!). Suggest leaving just "the page may still be deleted if it unquestionably meets etc." Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
How's "if it is considered by an administrator..."? Nevermind, I read it wrong. Sounds good to me. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion may delete knowledge or popular search items or information that people across the world are looking for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyleemt (talkcontribs) 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of hangon tag[edit]

I found an instance where a hangon tag was removed from an article by someone who left the speedy deletion template in place. I found this behavior shockingly inconsiderate, and so I have added a note in the tag explaining that the hangon tag should not be removed if the speedy deletion template is to remain. I don't expect this to be controversial, but just in case -- the point of this tag is to allow for a mark on a page to let a reviewing administrator know that the article creator objects and may be working to correct the problem or offer an explanation (or may have already done so). Remember that the article creator is not allowed to remove speedy tags, so they need some way of doing this. Hangon tags should only be removed if the speedy deletion is denied, otherwise, the fact that the article creator wants to mention something should remain obvious on the page. Mangojuicetalk 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awkward wording[edit]

The last sentence: "Nonetheless, this template should not be removed from a page if it will still be marked with a speedy deletion template."

There should be a better wording. It took me about 20 seconds to realize what this meant, and I wasn't absolutely sure until I read the comment in the history by the user that added this wording.

Perhaps, "Once this {{hang-on}} template has been added, it should not be removed until until an administrator has made a decision and removed the speedy deletion template." Sanchom (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template.". -- Rick Block (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages[edit]

Some users think that the hangon tag needs to be placed on their userpage. I think we need to add a message in the template that placing the tag onto your talk page won't let other users know that you are objecting to the deletion - the {{db}} template already contains this. --Sigma 7 11:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


If this is a problem, I think it would be better to change the namespace test so that the template gives a warning unless it is in namespace 0. Right now it gives a warning only if it is in namespace 1. All that has to be done is change the sense of the conditional. CMummert · talk 12:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that we would have to include the image namespace as well, since that is a reasonable location for the tag. CMummert · talk 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled the editprotected request for right now. There are a couple of issues that need to be resolved, and they may require some time to write the proper code. I'm thinking a #switch: command that is also able to see if the subject page exists (for cases where a {{hangon}} would be appropriate for a talk page using {{db-talk}}). In addition, the image namespace shouldn't contain a warning if a hangon is placed there. This will require some thought.... Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh. WP:KISS and WP:BEANS apply. If a page is deleted, it can always be brought back if it was a mistake. Mangojuicetalk 20:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution for use on talk pages[edit]

This is designed to produce an error when placed on talk pages, conflicting with {{db-talk}}. See further discussion at Template_talk:Db-talk. Either this template should be allowed on talk pages, or a twin designed for talk pages should be created and referenced in {{db-talk}}. Generalization seems more versatile, but I say that without understanding justification for the error message. Thanks here 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already syntax to put this on a talk page. Most of the time that it's put on a talk page, it ought to be on the article instead. That's why it gives an error by default. If it gets put on a talk page, the article may deleted by mistake. CMummert · talk 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Will continue discussion on exception for {{db-talk}} at Template_talk:db-meta. here 00:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Any template that behaves differently on talk pages should at least have a link to a good discussion page for the error message, when that template is used on a talk page. Mathiastck 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion may delete knowledge or good information that people need, especially across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyleemt (talkcontribs) 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone to add a chinese link?[edit]


zh:Template:Hangon,here.--Ksyrie 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done --ais523 11:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[(Template:Hangon]],here.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)



Can someone convert this to use {{ambox}} in order to match {{db-meta}}? Zetawoof(ζ)

Yes check.svg Done Correctly I hope ;-) GDonato (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a category[edit]

I'd like to see [[Category:Speedy Deletion Contested]] added. It'll assist in hunting down contested candidates for speedy deletion so I can focus my attention on them. XSG 02:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It already does. See Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion. --- RockMFR 17:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)



[[ru:Template:Hangon]]. — Kalan ? 08:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 17:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please place usage on a sub-page[edit]


Please place the Usage section on a sub-page, to allow users to edit it on their own (including categories, interwiki, etc). Od Mishehu 15:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link[edit]

Please add a link to Swedish Wikipedia: [[sv:Mall:Låtvara]] . Best regards Ulner (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Soxred93 | talk bot 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]


Should the {{hangon}} template add pages to the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? It seems like that's taken care of by {{prod}}. Should the overcategorization in this template be removed? --SSBohio 01:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hangon}} adds pages to the CSD category so that, if a new user accidentally removes the CSD template and replaces it with {{hangon}}, the page doesn't fall through the cracks. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbox; error class[edit]


Please replace the page with the contents of {{hangon/sandbox}}. It makes sure the template uses the right kind of mbox, adds the error class for consistency and makes the code a bit more readable. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I need to do some fixes myself though. You did want the whole page replaced? It seems empty. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ugh! There is never an excuse for duplicating large chunks of text in a template... Happymelon 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please change the color of the background back. The light purple background helped the Hangon box stand out against the pink background of the speedy deletion notice. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneThanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Can someone change this template so that it gives a big red warning message when placed on a page that does not have a speedy tag on? I've seen this used a lot when people contest an AFD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not technically doable with template programming. That would take a really ugly CSS hack in MediaWiki:Common.css or some JavaScript code in MediaWiki:Common.js, both which would mean slowing down page load for all users on all pages on Wikipedia.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

i dun understand how this article thingy really works, and then for no reason its up for deletion. Weird Apex-singapore (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No promised explanation?[edit]

So what happens if an editor doesn't provide a promised explanation? The admin reviewing will check the talk page, see that no explanation has been provided, and speedy delete anyway? Brian Reading (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a hangon tag is to provide additional feedback to the reviewing admin. The page may be deleted whether or not the hangon tag exists, is properly used, etc. The only question is if the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Plastikspork (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Everytime I visit a page that has {{hangon}},

You have not edited the article talk page yet. Please leave a message at the talk page explaining why you think the article should not be deleted. If you have left a message at the talkpage but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

shows up. I'm not sure why this is happening, as I didn't create the article or tag it with CSD. This started recently. Thanks. Netalarm 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I did clear my cache, and I've never created an article that has been CSD tagged, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. Netalarm 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This message should appear whenever someone has placed a {{hangon}}, but has not followed through with the second step, which is adding some rationale to the talk page. Perhaps the warning should be rephrased to make this more clear? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So it will also show up for everyone that visits the page? Netalarm|talk|contribs 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Plastikspork (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hangon as a preventative measure...[edit]

It seems that more and more editors are using the {{hangon}} template as a preventative measure against CSD tagging, with a message on the talk page. What should we do about these cases? Maybe make a function in the hangon template to detect if there is a CSD template on the page? —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should start userfying those articles on sight. If someone is creating an article that they know isn't ready, that seems fair. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: template moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:HangonTemplate:Hang on — In order to improve readability, this template should use proper word separation. It's no problem, since it's never widely used and redirects are cheap. May only be useful to bypass the redirect within some manuals, but even that wouldn't be necessary, since we have redirects. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Use proper spacing. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


{{edit protected}} Thanks for moving this template. I've made some changes to its formatting at the sandbox. The advantage of it is that it saves us several if and especially the expensive ifexist functions. Whereas it may not be that important within this specific template, I feel we should generally use easier formatting where possible, so here too. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about simplying the contesting of speedy deletions[edit]

Hi, I started a discussion about simplifying the process of contesting speedies by integrating hangon with the speedy deletion tag. So far reactions have been positive, but we are desperately in need of editors who are good with templates and can tell us what is technically possible. Please join the discussion here. Yoenit (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Yoenit, 25 February 2011[edit]

{{edit protected}} Reword the link "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" to "Click here to write a rationale". The wording is a contradiction right now as the template itsel starts with "This speedy deletion is contested".

Alternatively the addition of the link can be reverted as part of wp:BRD, for this needs more discussion anywayhere. Yoenit (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've reverted while you discuss what exactly needs to be done. I'm happy with help with the technical side but don't have much time (especially this weekend). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


This template is no longer used on any page in the mainspace, as the CSD templates have been reconfigured so you can click a button to contest your reason why not to speedy delete the page in question. This template is useless. It should be deleted. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you could put a notice on the page saying its deprecated. Or delete it. One or the other. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I could add a CSD notice for you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone has opened a TfD on this template. It just needs to have {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} added to it. Monty845 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Now tagged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

TfD I've nominated it for TfD, please add the template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


It says the template is deprecated, and this was brought up in the recent deletion discussion. How exactly is it deprecated? What mechanism is supposed to replace it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The speedy delete templates built around {{db-meta}} mostly now have a Click here to contest this speedy deletion button, round about the middle of the big pink box; see, for example, {{db-a1}}. Clicking that starts a talk page thread titled "Contested deletion", pre-filled with text from e.g. Template:Hangon preload A1 (if one exists), or from Template:Hangon preload generic. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Di-no source}} doesn't seem to display that button. Instead of proposing this template for deletion, that template and, if they exist, others like it, ought to be deleted/deprecated/replaced. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
{{di-no source}} doesn't show the button, it is true: but not only is it not built around {{db-meta}}, "hang on" style comments on the talk page won't prevent deletion. The only way of successfully contesting a file tagged {{di-no source}} is to provide a source within seven days of tagging (two days for non-free files). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
{{di-no source}} is also not a speedy deletion template. Osarius - Want a chat? 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The template says that the file will be deleted without discussion after seven days – that sounds speedy to me; according to a comment at Template talk:Di-no source#Proposal to amend documentation to exclude PD-USGov, files so tagged are treated as WP:CSD#F4.
"The only way of successfully contesting a file tagged {{di-no source}} is to provide a source within seven days…" Sometimes it's more complicated than that, e.g. if the template is applied in error. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If it's applied in error, the file will have a source. If there is no source, it's not applied in error. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reason for calling it hang on?[edit] (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's idiomatic English; see Wikt:hang on. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this template still relevant?[edit]

Now that the {{db}} templates automatically detect if there is something on the talk page, do we still need this template? I was considering placing it on TFD but couldn't because it was protected. GSMR (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@GSMR: After we implemented the contest button and talk page detection, use of this template became relatively redundant (in fact, I argued this template was already fairly redundant, as part of my reasoning for adopting that then new process). However, one reason that gives me pause is the ±6,000 links to this template from the prior era. Also (relatedly, and not to be grandiose but), this template is not insignificant from a history-of-Wikipedia perspective. I get antsy when I see changes that would have an unintended side effect of burying Wikipedia's past, so that only "old timers" would be positioned to easily uncover it. Note that this template was deprecated at the second to last TfD, and marked as such. In 2014, a user removed the deprecation notice, apparently b/c they couldn't "find the discussion". I have reverted that edit now since the fact it was kept says nothing about whether it was deprecated, and its use factually is. Anyway, it really isn't used as such, but I would be against deletion for those reasons. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)