Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 2

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


Could somebody rewrite the list of links in the first section to make them more useful to average editors?

  • Main PROD log on the toolserver is totally opaque. What's a toolserver?
  • Previous Nominations log on the toolserver — how is that different?
  • Hourly archive of the above log — which above log? What makes it an hourly archive? It looks pretty much the same. In fact, all three of these logs have pretty much identical formats but different data, which is very confusing.
  • Category of all PRODded articles — the only intuitively obvious one of the bunch.

Which one of these is anticipated to be the most useful? Or are they useful for different purposes? Don't explain them here, please just fix the article. If this is going to serve as a real alternative to AFD, it has to be comprehensible to all WP users.

Oh, and the logs themselves could have less jargon, e.g. Toolserver database replication lag. Each of the logs should clearly explain on its own page what it is and what it's for. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with these comments. Here are my suggestions for some simpler terms:
  • Main PROD log on the toolserver — Automatic list of articles up for proposed deletion
  • Previous Nominations log on the toolserver — Automatic list of articles removed from proposed deletion
  • Hourly archive of the above log — Copy of list of articles up for proposed deletion on Wikipedia (updated hourly)
  • Category of all PRODded articles — Category of articles currently up for proposed deletion
  • Toolserver database replication lag — This list may not reflect changes made in the last: whatever seconds
Deco 17:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems like items (1) and (3) are identical, except one is hosted on WP and the other off, and one is current and the other only hourly. I suggest that only one of these (probably the second) be recommended to most editors, and bury the "toolserver" one in the fine print for power users. If not, at least the order should be changed so (1) and (3) are together since they are so similar. I take it the point is that the logs are chronological whereas the category is alphabetical. I'm just trying to envision how this will be manageable when it has 200 new listings per day like AFD. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I rather prefer the automatic list. It's up-to-the-minute, and can potentially be enhanced in many ways that are not practical for the wiki version, such as choosing a sort column and click through counts. But I think there's enough dissent over this that it's reasonable to give access to both on equal footing. Deco 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the page. Feedback appreciated. I can't update the automatic log pages; but I really like Deco's suggestion; please drop a note on Interiot's talk page (he's the maker of the logs), and I'm sure he'll quickly make the changes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I wonder why you've chosen to de-emphasize the category so strongly. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because I want to encourage people to use the toolserver one, as it has more features, and can use the debugging. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I continue to be strongly opposed to this process

Dropped in to see what was going on. I see that you guys are about to be dropping the guillotine on some articles today.

I casually glanced at the list of current articles up for deletion, and clicked on one Tarthang Tulku, which gave as the reason for deletion: notability difficult or impossible to verify. I picked this one because I happen to know that in Tibetan Buddhism, the name 'Tulku' means (to a first approximation) "assertion of notability."

Clicked over to amazon, entered 'Tarthang Tulku' in the search box, and found more than 20 currently in-print book titles by the author in question, on the subject of Nyingma Buddhism and its right practice. Last I checked, religious leaders that had authored 20 in-print books qualified under WP:BIO.

This difficult or impossible task took all of 3 seconds. If it weren't for WP:AGF, I'd almost call the whole thing bad faith. But it's not bad faith: it spotlights this process' irremediable flaws. Deletion should be actively asserted, not something that could passively occur if good admins are lazy.

Apart from my entry in the article's history page, there is no record of what has happened to Tarthang Tulku, this whole process; nothing to stop some foolish or irresponsible person from adding a \{\{prod\}\} to the article tomorrow or even 10 seconds from now. This wheel is going to have to be re-invented every time someone adds {\{\{prod\}\} to this article, and every other article that is wrongly \{\{prod\}\}ded, too. When it doesn't, the process risks wrongful deletion of an article.

I didn't check any other articles. And I'm not going to. And I'm not going to monitor the \{\{prod\}\} list, either. And I don't trust the people who are going to do so to be correct in their inference of a possible proposed consensus that might exist, were the article in fact to be referred to AfD. (I assume good faith, not admin infallibility.) And, finally, when articles are deleted by \{\{prod\}\}, I'm not going to know where to look for a record of the possible proposed consensus that never actually existed, but was assumed by the deleting admin.

For these reasons, I suggest this process be retired immediately and that articles for deletion receive their rightful day in the AfD limelight, so that consensus on deletions can be formed and recorded. Ikkyu2 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually you just discovered how it works. Just remove the prod tag. Kim Bruning 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not assumed to exist. If even a single person disagrees, all they have to do is remove the prod tag to trigger an Afd. Suppose nobody removes the prod tag. To me, this is like doing an Afd, except that nobody voted Keep. Zarquon 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Correction to make here; deleting an article via PROD is like doing an AfD which gets no further votes, either delete or keep. The only other difference is where the log is kept, and how much information is available in the log. The PROD log has the same information as an AfD nomination: time nomiated(found via the timestamp on the nominator's reason in AfD), article name, reason, and time remaining (found via the log pages in AfD, in column Hrs on the PROD log). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference, in the sense that failing AFD means an article is deleted if recreated and is not easily restorable. Content deleted by PROD can be freely recreated, and restored on request. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You state consensus is not assumed to exist, then point out a way that a single person can break the assumed consensus. If this process didn't need to assume a tacit consensus, breakable by even one vote, it would make sense to simply speedy delete the article. We already have a method for speedy deletion, though. We also have a method for doing an AfD where, as you say, nobody votes Keep. This process differs in that the article is deleted at the end. In an AfD where no one votes Keep or Delete, the article is kept by default, for lack of consensus to delete. Ikkyu2 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand your argument, Ikkyu, but I'm not compelled. I'm certain that people looked at that article, but agreed with the assessment. Perhaps some even did a search but didn't come to the same conclusion as you. You're presumptuous to think your conclusion is the only possible one any informed contributor could make. In any case, if you've rescued an article, that's great. If a potentially rescuable article gets deleted - well, it wasn't rescued, but it can still be recreated or undeleted. No worries. Deco 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't you worried about articles being deleted wrongly? Most wikipedia users aren't admins and have no way of discovering that a deleted article ever existed.Ikkyu2 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit torn about this, since I am inclusionistic, but I think if several people look at an article and don't consider it worth even discussing further on AfD, I think that's pretty strong evidence it's deletable, especially if it's nothing but a stub like most of these articles. If a topic is really good, I think it will eventually reappear in some form. I would be more uncertain about more developed articles though. Deco 04:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
One; any user can discover that a deleted article existed by looking at Special:Log, and searching for the name. As soon as we get the ability to hide serious libel in edit summaries, all users will be able to tell a deleted article existed via the link on the page. Two; articles are being deleted wrongly right now, and they have been ever since Wikipedia came into existance. We are not perfect, and we will make mistakes, no matter what process is used, Speedy, PROD, AfD, or requiring a signed statement from a PhD that the topic is wrong, all these methods will wrongly delete some articles. The question is wheather the ammount of wrong deletions with this method is unacceptable.
AFAIHS(AFAI Have Seen), we don't yet even know if this process has a higher or a lower rate of wrong deletions than AfD. It may have a lower rate of wrong deletions because, unlike on AfD, if one editor disagrees, the article is not deleted with this process. In that case, this method is better than AfD from the perspective of preventing "articles being deleted wrongly". Of course, it may also be that the rate of wrong deletions is higher with this process, due to any number of factors - few people looking at articles; people not understanding the template instructions, or some other reason. The way to tell is to study this. Luckally, all the data necessary is available(to admins, and to anyone else who requests it(from me, at least)). If you'd like to do such a study, I'd be happy to help. Until then, we are all simply speculating... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's like IfD. On IfD, nominations that have no related comments are assumed as no-objection-deletes. PRODs are either no-objection-deletes, improved in some other way, or brought to AfD as contested deletion proposals. — Phil Welch 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting point. There is some amount of precedent for this. Deco 11:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I discussed with the person who made the mistaken nomination. He made a google search, but probably with a typo. The solution to this is to ask for evidence of e.g. non-verifiability to be made in the edit comment or prod template comment field. The same information as would normally be in an AFD nomination should be available. Admins should not delete unless the information looks reasonably convincing, but rather restart the process. Mozzerati 19:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I could greatly reduce or eliminate my objection to the process if a couple of things happened:

  • At this point, the toolserver is tracking clickthroughs on PRODded articles. This appears to me to be very valuable. I think that in the guideline for closing, admins should be asked to be slightly more cautious when handling articles with no or very few clickthroughs - maybe to the extent of actually reading the article and reason for deletion and forming an opinion of their own - before deleting the article.
    • I agree, that's a good idea; feel free to add it to the page, per WP:BRD... JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I have added it, as closing guideline #8. I phrased it in as non-controversial a way as I could think to do, but feel free to reword it as appropriate. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Admins should be cautioned against closing PRODs that they themselves started, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
    • That's already on the page: "5. To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the Template:Prod on it." JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about the toolserver, because its tools add a layer of transparency to the process that kind of falls apart when it was down, as it was for 2 days last week. Do we have a reason to expect that the toolserver will generally be up most of the time? (I'm not being snarky; I don't know anything about the toolserver.) -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It has less redundant backup than the main system, so it can be down at times when the main Wikimedia servers are still working. I hope (and suspect) that if/when this process becomes well-accepted the logs can be moved over to the main system. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's encouraging. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Software error

The history page is reporting an error. —Whouk (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Point proven. Is it really wise to rely on a system that's not built into the wiki for such an important part of regular wiki activities (deleting stuff)? enochlau (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The backup for the list of currently tagged articles is the category. It's more of a hassle, but it does let people find out what is tagged. The backup for the list of removed tags is the on-wiki archive, which is updated every hour by a bot. It would mean we might miss a page that was added and removed between updates, but that's a small problem, and one that (I suspect) could be fixed after the fact with a properly written crawl through the RC log from the period in question. Also, if the toolserver went down for a considerable time, we could just temporarily disable the process, by editing the template to include a warning, like: "This process is temporarily out of service. Please use AfD instead." We wouldn't be any worse off than we are now. And if/when this gets widespread acceptance, support and a long period of use, I'm sure we could move the logs to the main servers. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can article creators remove this tag?

This tag was add to a page I created (How to draw Manga). Can I remove the tag or does someone else have to do it? Gerard Foley 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove it if you want. Improving it would be a good idea if possible too—right now it's more or less a stub. I see you've already made a case for it on the talk page, which is good, but realize that it might go to AfD, and in its current state some people might not see much worth keeping. —rodii 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I was going to propose that prod be modified to say that the article's creator cannot be considered a valid "objection" for removing the prod tag, since in almost every single case such person WOULD object and therefore prod becomes meaningless. Of course, it's probably more common for the author to remove the tag when it is placed so soon after the article is created. Peyna 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. A lot of poor articles were created by cut-and-run authors who edit anonymously or don't use watchlists. Also, I'm sure a fair number, when presented with a legitimate reason for removal, are persuaded that they really shouldn't have created it. Deco 18:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that's basically a good idea (and have also been considering it). In a lot of AfDs, literally the only person objecting to deletion is the one who created the article. If a PROD tag is removed without comment or improvement to the article, chances are it's the creator who did it. So while I don't think they should be banned from removing the tag, perhaps they should be able to do so only if they actually adress the complaint or fix the problem, otherwise the tag can just be added back. --W.marsh 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, even on AfD they're not required to justify their keep vote or take any action, but I'm sure in the face of delete votes on AfD they will offer up more. In the meantime I think there are legitimate cases where a topic is sufficiently technical or obscure that the original author is the only contributor around who understands how worthwhile it actually is. Deco 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deco. Paul August 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
But there are a lot more where the user just will just remove the tag with no discussion, forcing an AfD of something which ultimately is really non-controversial. This is already provided for in CSD, I believe, unexplained removals of a CSD tag by the creator are usually reverted. The phrase "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." is present in CSD tags, for example. --W.marsh 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
PROD can be used on articles that don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want to speedily delete articles over the objection of their creators, you should direct your efforts to reforming the criteria for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion were intentionally formed to be quite narrow, with the understanding that there were to be other, consensus-based ways to delete articles that did not meet them. Ikkyu2 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The only way to really tell if it's non-controversial is for there to be a controversy, though, as oxymoronic as that seems on first inspection. As a general rule, article authors appear not to be removing the tags. Ergo, most of the good that the process can generate is being already derived, whether we further protect it from the authors whims or not. If an author needs to be convinced that the article isn't good enough by being severely outvoted in an AFD, that will at least give the article author some more community feedback to hopefully understand standards and be a better author in the future.
I say just leave it alone. Unless author removals start to be statistically significant, do nothing. Isolated cases will probably actually help both those authors and the articles, though it may not seem that way initially. Everyone we do educate better has a better chance to become a good contributor later. Georgewilliamherbert 09:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

<--- I agree that for now PROD removal by the original author should be as valid as removal by anybody else, for the reasons stated above. --kingboyk 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What this process is NOT for

Since another editor just told me their interpretation of the part about not restoring the prod tag didn't apply to the creator, I just added the text "including the article creator". However, the wording is pretty ugly now, so if someone could come up with someone more elegant, that would be lovely. NickelShoe 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed it from parentheticals to subpoints. Still not so great, but I think it's better. NickelShoe 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion edit summary should include reason

I've noticed quite a few deletions where the deletion edit summary itself just said "prod 5 days" or something to that effect. However, often users will come back to an abandoned article after a long time and wonder what happened to it. There's a link to the deletion log in the Mediawiki message, but unless the deletion summary gives a good reason they will be quite upset. I suggest we make this a requirement - if nothing else we're all capable of copying the reason from the template. Deco 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the log

For checking the en prod history, it's useful to be able to sort the table, especially to view which prod tags were removed by anons or users you know to be problematic, so I thought it would be useful to point out that the bookmarklet at [1] can be used to sort the prod logs (at least in Firefox, though it claims to work in IE and Opera too). Angela. 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Creator notification

When I AfD an article, I leave a message on the creator's page that says "An article you created has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at [[WP:Articles for deletion/Article name]]." I'm not quite sure what to say to those whose articles have been PRODded. I certainly don't want to say "Please feel free to remove the tag," but I want to give them some suggestion. Should I invite them to the article's talk page? Urge them to improve the article? Joyous | Talk 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, urge them to either address the issues mentioned in the tag, or if they disagree to respond to the comments on the talk page where the tagger and other contributors can reach a consensus with them. They have the right to remove the tag but you don't have to mention it. Deco 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed my mind about mentioning the tag, as long as they're discouraged from removing it frivolously in some way it's fine. Deco 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem with PROD - it doesn't assume good faith. You should, however, assume good faith - assume that any Wikipedia editor's contributions were made in good faith - and say "Please feel free to remove the tag." Good faith would not permit such a removal, if the reasons for deletion were valid in the first place.
If you feel you needn't mention the right to remove the tag, you're using PROD as a weapon to discriminate against the contributions of editors who don't understand the intricacies of the Byzantine Wikipedia deletion policy. This is simply a way of introducing systemic bias into the Wikipedia by long-time editors. Ikkyu2 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You should certainly mention what should be done if the creator disagrees with the deletion if you leave them a message. The most important part is to tell them what makes you think it should be deleted, then mention resources they use to fix it, then what they can do if they disagree with it. It's no different then AfD, or Cleanup, or any other suggestion about how to improve an article.
As for Ikkyu2's repeated claims that PROD violates AGF - they has been repeatedly rebutted. I'll repeat it again here: AGF does not mean that no-one makes mistakes - good-faith editors can and do create articles that should not be in the encyclopedia; removing them, by whatever process, is hardly a violation of AGF. As for the claim that PROD is somehow different and horribly worse than AfD, this has also been rebutted a number of times before. With PROD, only one keep vote is needed before the process is halted, unlike on AfD where something like a majority of keep votes are needed, and even then, the process is continued for at least 5 days. PROD is more inclusionist than AfD, by design. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in general the process isn't worse, and I'm very much a fan of the idea. However, I do think that leaving out notification that they can simply remove the tag when contacting an author is a disturbing thought. It does require the author to then learn the process, which while not necessarily byzantine, is somewhat confusing at first glance. I think that if authors are notified, it should be made clear they can simply remove the tag. --Mathwizard1232 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, I was wrong about this. See my template Template:PRODWarning discussed way down below and see if you like the wording in it. Deco 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ikkyu2, for your comments. I've been thinking about your points since I read them. I think you're right that it's not fair to mention that the creators can simply remove the PROD tag. However, it's also not fair to allow them to assume that if they do, the article is automatically granted a free pass. How about something like this rough draft: An article you created has been nominated for deletion because (insert reason here). If you believe that the nomination was in error, you may remove the deletion tag on the article. However, if the issues mentioned aren't addressed, the article may still be nominated for deletion. Joyous | Talk 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great. That's a good way to incorporate their right to remove the tag while still discouraging them from doing it unilaterally. I suggest we create a well-worded template specifically for this purpose. Deco 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist notification

Is there / will there be any way to just show specific lists on proposed deletion... like... "proposed deletions from my watchlist".... which, is relevant to me since I have 6,600 pages watched and sometimes things fall through the cracks. It'd be very nice I think. gren グレン ? 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should be pretty easy to code, although I don't think it's done yet. I think it could be done with a bookmarklet that would load your watchlist and the PROD category, and just list their intersection. I've droped a note requesting this on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts; that might help get it coded sooner. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. PROD relies explicitly on the inability of good-faith contributors to police their contributions. See discussion above, especially Deco's comment, "They have the right to remove the tag but you don't have to mention it." Ikkyu2 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I meant that you don't have to mention it because it's already explained here, and this page is linked from the template, but if you want to you can. I was worried about the possibility of "impulsive" keeps by people with no familiarity whatsoever with our standards for inclusion, but I think the suggested note that the article may be VFDed if they don't fix it is sufficient to mitigate this. Deco 09:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PROD added to AfD'd articles

It has been occurring that PROD templates have been added to articles currently under consideration at AfD (see Thievery for a recent example.) Since the time for PROD is 5 days, and that for AfD is 7 days, adding a PROD within the first two days of an AfD discussion could result in an accidental deletion of the article under consideration before the AfD discussion was complete, no matter what the developing consensus was.

Adding PROD to an article currently up for an AfD discussion should be prohibited and admins should be warned not to delete any PRODded article that is up for AfD at the time the PROD expires.

(Incidentally, I continue to oppose the use of PROD in all circumstances, for reasons I've exhaustively discussed above.) Ikkyu2 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This page already says A page flagged for both Proposed Deletion and WP:AFD should be dealt with in the latter process but it doesn't specifically mention that in the closing guidelines. Any editor should promptly remove a PROD tag found on an article at AFD. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. You cannot PROD an article that is currently in AFD or has ever been in AFD. It can only be used prior to use of AFD and should be removed if it ever enters AFD. Deco 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, AFD has the same time range (5 days) as prod, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And I'm pretty sure any admin looking at a prodded article will notice if there's an ongoing afd discussion. I don't actually think there's any need to prod an article that's already on afd, but it won't really create any additional problems. - Bobet 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Some practical observations

I spend quite some time on the prod, and especially the page listing removed prod templates. What I observed was as follows: most prod templates were removed by deleting the articles, that is very good. But quite a number of prod templates was removed by the original authors or newbies not citing any reason. So now somedoby has to go over that list and re-add those articles to the same ol' AfD machine. The end result: people are working on three different pages now: list of articles with prod template, list of articles that got prod removed and the old AfD. Less work? I don't think so. (for the record, I like prod) Renata 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that for articles which should be deleted, and the tag is not removed, this makes less work. People were working on lots more than 3 pages before PROD was suggested - WP:CP, WP:MfD, Wikipedia:Cleanup, Special:Recentchanges, not to mention actually writing the encyclopedia... ;-) There's no reason why the same people need to watch AfD, the current PROD log, and the removed PROD log, any more than those same people need to watch every change on RC to make sure no paragraph is wrongly deleted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It only makes less work if people ignore the proposed PROD process, which is that editors will make a good-faith review of the article and remove the PROD notice where it is not appropriate. Actually doing that is a lot of work. Of course, where it is not done, total overall work is lessened, and the article disappears regardless of its merits. Ikkyu2 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Doing a good-faith review of an article, finding that it should be deleted, then nominating it for AfD, then having a number of other people also do such a review, and having them edit the nomination page to register their vote, then having an administrator edit the nomination page to close the vote, then have the administrator delete the page - this is a lot more work than the PROD process. AFAIK, the PROD process is to do a good-faith review of an article, check that no-one seeing it on the log or seeing the page feels it should be kept for 5 days, then having an administrator do another good faith review of the article, then deleting the page. This is less work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think you're right: PROD is less work than AfD when both processes are working the way they should. It seems to me that the hard part of both processes is actually reviewing the article on its merits with respect to the nominator's concerns, though. That takes time and effort, and it's in common to both tasks. I'm beginning to come around to your way of thinking, though, in the sense that the extra work of recording, tabulating, and reviewing the results of those reviews is probably wasted for most of the articles on AfD. I guess I'm late to the ball-game. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I see that this tag is now being used to replace tags other than the AfD. I have found PROD tags with the following summary:

  • Dictionary entry
  • Page with no content other than the PROD tag
  • nn, no content

Now it's quite clear on the project page that other delete tags should be used.

Also, it seems to me quite clear on the project page that if the tag is removed then it should not be put back. Yet already I have found two occasions where an editor has tagged an article. The tag has been removed (no explanation or edit summary) and then replaced by the original editor.

Users need to read the full project page before using the tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should contain something that reminds users that if something falls under speedy deletion criteria, it should be sent that way? enochlau (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I just have to note that PROD is not meant to "replace AfD" tags or otherwise. It's meant to be a process for the deletion of articles which no-one who views them(or the log) for 5 days wants to keep. Anyone is free to remove the PROD tag, and of course they can replace it with anything they consider correct, but there's no error in this case, just two people doing useful work. I agree that it may be useful to note SD on the PROD tag, but in any case, we lose nothing particularly if someone merely has to notice the page on the PROD log, and properly re-tag it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit confict) It's already there in section 2.5 "Relation to other processes". People are just not reading it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a bigger emphasis on the proper usage of this tag in relation to other better tags. I've just deleted a recreated nn-bio that was tagged with a PROD. Please if you are going to use the tag then make sure that you have read the entire project page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

5 days doesn't seem anywhere near long enough

This worries me:

  1. AfD gets lots of attention but PROD can end up removing articles that are merely obscure. An article on AfD automatically gets attention and maybe objections if someone thinks the article is worthwhile. If someone adds PROD to an obscure article, maybe nobody notices for a while, and poof, gone.
  2. I could see it getting rid of stubs for what might someday become useful articles even if they languish for a long time first. See Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game for example, which was created as a stub as Ehrenfeucht game about 1.5 years ago and which received its first nontrivial edit just yesterday (plus it was renamed to where it was more likely to be found by an expert). The stub is a useful placeholder and makes it much more likely to result in a substantial article someday, than if it had been deleted. But the the topic is obscure enough (again, zero real edits in 1.5 years) that it could easily have been deleted without anyone noticing. There used to be a really annoying practice (now modified somewhat) of misguided folks moving perfectly good encyclopedia stubs to Wiktionary because the stub only gave a bare definition of the term. PROD is even more destructive, removing the stubs completely.
  3. Speedies are at least reviewed by admins. I'm imagining PROD-tagged articles to be (eventually) reaped automatically by a bot--if that's not the intention, then please say so in the description page. So this becomes the first regular mechanism for losing good material with no human review at all.
  4. I think there should be a code patch that notes if an article has been PROD'd and had the PROD removed, to prevent it from re-occurring, if policy is to not re-PROD.

Anyway, PROD isn't necessarily all bad, but I think its latency should be longer than AfD, not shorter. I suggest 14 days minimum. Phr 10:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there has never been any suggestion to automatically delete PROD'ed articles; I agree with you that that would be a terrible idea. The only automatic deletions I've ever heard of was the semi-automatic bot that I used on the unsourced images, and even with that one I had to personally review the text in each image description page before it would be deleted. I agree that PROD makes it slightly more likely that valid but highly technical and obscurly written stubs may be deleted, and this is a detriment. The basic answer to this is to review the log for articles that seem like that, and expand them with explanation of their notability(or just remove the PROD tag). I'd certainly support a patch that highlighted re-PRODed articles, if that were feasible. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Trouble here is that obscure articles simply don't get checked that often, and stub creators often know nothing about the subject. It's quite normal (for me anyway) to look for a Wikipedia article hoping to learn about a topic, and on not finding an article, leave a stub in the hope that someone will expand it some day. But the stub often expresses just about everything I know about the subject. I have no way to expand it and it's not necessarily so easy to check on it every 5 days. And many such stubs I've left have in fact gotten Wiktionaried by editors who didn't know better, thus my concern about PROD. Phr 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a difference needs to be made between moving stubs (i.e. to Wiktionary), in which case no information is lost, and deleting stubs, which is more serious. While I can understand moving some really short stubs to Wiktionary, as it can be tricky to write a stub that shows the topic can be expanded if you don't know that much about it, I'm less convinced by the idea that we really have so many stubs that don't even justify why they would be looked up. When you write your stubs, don't you mention why they are notable and important topics? (if they wern't, you wouldn't be looking them up, so they must be important (at least to you) in some way) In that case, I would hope, it would be clear to either the original tagger, or the admin who closed it, or someone else looking through the category, that it was not uncontroversial. The previously PROD'ed log is there - show me some obscure but notable articles that have been deleted... ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The policy is pretty clear that an admin still has to look at it and determine if it should be deleted, nothing is automatic. It also appears that there are several well-known "inclusionists" that are being great watchdogs for this project making sure nothing slips through the cracks. I think the good thing about PROD is that it seems to have actually resulted in a lot of articles being improved that would have otherwise sat dormant for a long time. Deleting the trash is a bonus. Peyna 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the most appropriate PROD period is, but I don't think PROD will reasonably result in obscure articles getting deleted - it's only intended for obvious deletions. If you look at it and can't tell whether it should be deleted, the reasonable action is to remove the PROD tag and maybe send it to AFD, even if you don't really understand it. I agree that we should never automatically delete PRODs, and that we should note re-PRODed articles for dePRODing and review of the infringing tagger. Deco 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially if we're not requiring notifying creators (which we really ought to do if we want to consider this an avenue for uncontroversial deletions), we need to make the time longer to give authors a little breathing room. Not everybody visits Wikipedia every day. The creators of articles might have something to add to it, if they only understood they were supposed to. I say ten days. NickelShoe 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal, policy, test, and consensus

This process has now been running "under test" for 8 days. I have found no attempt to gauge community consensus about this process other than this talk page, and no answers to my questions (in the Village Pump among other places) about how long the test is to continue, how the outcome of the test is to be judged, and what the fate of the process will be after the test is complete. I believe these questions deserve answers.

In particular, at some point I'd like to see a poll for PRO and CON, and an adoption of this process as a policy or guideline (or its rejection.) I fully expect that it will become policy; I'd simply like to lodge my vote under 'CON' so I can stop worrying about it with an easy mind.

Is anyone planning to do this, or is the intent to proceed "under test" forever? If the latter, I will create the poll myself and do what I can to publicize it. Ikkyu2 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ikkyu2 : ) This seems a little bit premature. Over the week, the policy has been adjusted. We need at least a week more to test the improved version of WP:PROD. I would like to ease your mind on this matter. I hate to see you so stressed out. What can I do? FloNight talk Heart.gif 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We need to test the small updates we've made. Deco 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the policy has only been in effect for three days (since deletion started), not eight. Nifboy 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I explicitly don't mean that the test needs to end immediately or that a poll needs to be taken immediately. I do think that those things should happen at some point in the future, and if those points were specified, it'd be easier to understand when they were expected to happen.
It'd ease my mind just to know that the way things are is intended to be closed-ended, and that at some point community consensus is going to be sought on the routine use of PROD. Ikkyu2 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what changes have been made? Also I think some definite maximum end point (like March 1) should be set, so this doesn't go on forver whether some kind of overall discussion/poll. BrokenSegue

I think you have made it quite throughly clear that you oppose WP:PROD; I personally will certainly state your name if/when asked for names of those who oppose the PROD process. Your "CON" vote has been as firmly lodged as anything ever is on Wikipedia, you certainly need have no worry on that account. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I will probably use PROD, once it is official policy. That I think it can't be safeguarded against pernicious and trackless misuse doesn't mean that I can't see its numerous benefits. Ikkyu2 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume, given the above responses, that no one has any plan to gauge community consensus about this proposed policy, but that rather the current absence-of-plan means that it will continue under test indefinitely. I will undertake to do it myself in the next couple of weeks, probably with a straw poll. Incidentally, it appears to me that this has been as poorly thought out as the rest of PROD. Ikkyu2 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. It appears to me that User:Radiant was intending to do this, before he took a wikibreak. Ikkyu2 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, sometimes the usage of a procedure is enough to guage consensus. We don't always have to have a poll to determine success, failure, support or opposition. The process seems to be working at present, I can't see any huge problems with it and I would think, given the deletion portion of the process hasn't been live for a week yet, it's still early days in the trial. Things only became deletable under this process on the 9th: it's probably wise to let it run at least a month to see what sort of kinks it throws up. Hiding talk 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ikkyu2 and Hiding, I've been working on some criteria that can be used to evaluation WP:PROD. I'll post them in a few hours. I'm sure others will add suggestions. The method of evaluating the process can be decided after we develop some criteria. A poll may or may not be the best method. FloNight talk 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd make a distinction between evaluating the result of the test and taking a straw poll to determine community consensus on PROD. The evaluation would want to know how it's being used, who's using it, whether it's doing what it's supposed to, whether it's doing what it's not supposed to, et cetera. The straw poll would be for the purpose of discovering whether people think it ought to be policy. Actually, it'd be better if the evaluation happened before such a poll, because then people could have a more informed opinion.ikkyu2 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to the data. As to a poll, once again I iterate that it isn't always necessary to hold a poll, we're not a democracy. There isn't a huge swathe of people battering the door in and demanding the process desist or that a poll be run. I accept you do not like this process, but I would hope you will accept that it at least needs a month to run and allow kinks to be documented and ironed out, data to be collected and analysed and allow the community a chance to experience it in operation. Many people may not even be aware the process is running, given it has only been active a week. Hiding talk 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, for the most part. If someone really is collecting and analysing data, though, I'd like to know who and what. I don't think anyone is. ikkyu2 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I threw some counts together after the first five days based on the logs. It barely qualifies as analysis, but there it is. Nifboy 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd missed that. Is anyone still compiling stuff like this? In particular, I'd be quite interested to learn what eventually became of those 500-odd articles that were still prodded. How many were deleted at the end of the 5 days? ikkyu2 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dunno; If the log said when a PROD tag was added it'd be easy to find out whether a deleted article was speedied, PROD'd or deleted on AfD but right now I can't tell. I can say that a majority of initially nominated aritcles don't make it through PROD, but a separate majority are non-controversial deletes (e.g. PROD'd + speedy deleted + redirected). Nifboy 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about redirecting and deleting...

Ok, I'm a new user and yesterday I created the page Toyota Aurion not knowing that someone two days before me made a very short article on the same car, titled Aurion. I've been checking all these various wikipedia pages on stuff about deleting, merging, redirecting, etc... but I don't know who exactly I have to approach.

My view on this is that the Aurion article should be deleted and become an automatic redirect to Toyota Aurion. This is because most if not all of the content in the article on Aurion is on the page Toyota Aurion with more detail.

Also, all article entries of cars in wikipedia that I've browsed have the full name of the car, firstly the manufacturer name then followed by the model name. For this reason, I think that Aurion should be deleted and become an automatic redirect to Toyota Aurion

Because I'm still new to wikipedia, and don't know what exactly to do, could someone please help me and/or answer my questions?

Thanks in advance.

Welcome to Wikipedia,! You obviously have put some thought into it, and your conclusion sounds right. You can turn Aurion into a redirect without deleting it, however; just replace the article's text with
#REDIRECT [[Toyota Aurion]]
For more information, see Wikipedia:Redirects.
Also, just so we know who you are for next time, don't forget to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Have fun editing! —Wahoofive (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Wahoofive. 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Process relies on monitoring by editors

It may seem obvious, but this process requires monitoring by editors. Is there a way for the admin who cleans up the WP:PROD area to check whether a nomination has been reviewed by any of the participating editors? Or indeed a way for participating editors to just do a single click (to read the article) and for that click to be logged somehow? Maybe even have a link to click to move the article from WP:PROD to another page ("reviewed PRODs", for example). Maybe make this a tool to be used only by the editors watching the list? (Anyone else can just remove the PROD template.) If things don't get moved from WP:PROD to "reviewed PRODs", then the admin cleaning-up PROD either does the review or leaves it on WP:PROD until it does get reviewed. I just have this nightmare scenario that if ever the number of editors monitoring WP:PROD drops below a certain level, or they get overwhelmed, that things will slip through without being reviewed. In other words, where is the safety net? Will the admin cleaning up WP:PROD have the time to review every article carefully before deleting it? It would help them if they could know that at least one other person on "the watchlist team" has reviewed it. I haven't had time to read all of the above, so apologies if this has been covered. Carcharoth 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The person who tags the article and the deleting admin have to be two separate people, so that's something of a review process. Beyond that, you're just complicating the process. PROD is in this respect no different than AFD—on AFD, two or three editors can vote "delete" on an article and there's no review system to keep the article from being deleted. The problem is that we have too many deletion-worthy articles and too few people to extensively review them all anyway, so this less a problem with PROD and more a problem with Wikipedia. PROD helps solve this problem by getting rid of the obvious deletion candidates, allowing AFD to focus on the less obvious candidates. — Phil Welch 16:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I just feel that it needs to be made clear to admins cleaning up PROD that this is a crucial difference from AfD. In AfD, if there is no response, then the deletion wouldn't happen. Admins can (to a certain extent) clean up AfD on autopilot. They can't do that on PROD. In PROD, if there is no response the only person reviewing the deletion is the admin who does the deletion (you have to assume that the nomination might be mistaken). As long as the instructions to the admins cleaning up PROD make it clear that: (a) They may be the ONLY person (other than the nominator) to review the article, and hence must pay close attention; (b) they must be well-versed in the available options and reasons for deleting articles, and (c) If they have any doubt, send it to AfD or somewhere else. It shouldn't be assumed that because an article languishes on PROD, that it _should_ be deleted. It would be dreadfully easy to slip into that mindset. In other words, the mindset required for admins cleaning up AfD and PROD can be very different. I would say that inclusionist admins should review PROD and deletionists (editors and admins) should battle it out in AfD. And can the guidelines also restate, or point to, the checks and balances in place to prevent things going wrong - I would guess much the same as the checks and balances in AfD (rogue admins would be spotted quickly, roll-back funtions can undo deletes if need be). Carcharoth 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested a clickthrough count on the toolserver for this purpose. Not sure if it'll happen. Deco 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Heck yeah, it'll happen, it's a brilliant idea. I'm just very busy with other things right now, but I'll get to this shortly. Regarding current toolserver lag (12 hours), it's a side effect of the other database issues that Wikipedia had today. Replication is down right this second [2], but Kate is getting it up and running now, and then the replication lag should slowly decrease over the next 12-36 hours. In the meantime, Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Proposed_deletion may be a reasonable (real-time) approximation of the "current nominations" script. --Interiot 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to be impatient. :-) Deco 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Would a clickthrough count distinguish between people randomly browsing but not making any decision (like I just did in PROD) and people thinking carefully about whether the article in question should be deleted. If not, this could make things worse! Something that gets a high clickthrough count could get deleted merely because the clickthroughs were made by people who ALL thought - "well, maybe, but I'm not sure" and then wondered away again, leaving the final decision to the admin cleaning up PROD. That admin might be swayed by the high number of clickthroughs to think that lots of other people felt it was OK to delete the article - when in fact they were unsure (yes, if people are unsure, they should remove the PROD template - but many people will default to the "do nothing" option if they are unsure). Carcharoth 11:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A brief moratorium on PROD deletions might not be a bad idea anyway, since there hasn't been much reviewing/deprodding going on today, I assume. If a backlog collects because of the toolserver lag, that's probably a good thing. Chick Bowen 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removal

Can we include somewhere that whoever is removing the tags should provide a good enough reason for removing them? I'm not entirely happy with the distinction between valid disputes and pseudo-WP:POINT being merely the usual characteristics for vandalism (new user, few edits, etc.). Without a provision like this, I'm worried that a significant proportion will end up getting de-prodded and sent to AfD where they'll lose anyway, just because one stubborn editor wants to make a point out of it. Reconsidering Wikipostate 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of obvious deletions fall under speedy deletion. Articles on PROD/AFD seem to deal more with either speedy deletion policy holes or borderline cases. It might help to note that dePRODded articles don't go to AFD automatically, only if someone wants to - in which case they probably would've been equally happy to send it to AFD in the first place. All that said, yes, ideally articles should be nominated for a good reason, but this can be subjective. Deco 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to people removing PROD tags without providing a reason, not putting them there, as you'd know if you'd read what I said. 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I disagree with that too. I think if you have reasonable doubt about whether something should be deleted, that's a good enough reason to not let it get deleted as an "obvious deletion". Deco 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Tag removal amounts to an expression that at least one Wikipedian considers the deletion of this article controversial. Therefore, the tag remover's reason for doing so does not matter. Controversial deletion of articles is specifically excluded by this process; when the PROD tag is removed, the article must go to AfD to be further considered for deletion. In AfD, the discussion of the reasons to keep or delete can be undertaken. ikkyu2 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If someone objects to the proposal, those who proposed or might support deletion have the right to know what those objections are before being forced over to AfD (since I was under the impression that we are lightening the AfD caseload). If someone is removing a tag with no reason, it leaves the process open to abuse and sabotage by individuals who object to the process (as happened with deleting school articles). Of course, equally (unless patently obvious, but few things are) the person ProDing should provide a valid concern. This would ensure that the concerns are valid, and people don't simply force articles from ProD onto AfD purely to be argumentative or awkward. I've already seen cases of "Well, I removed it because at least one Wikipedian (i.e. me) objects, though you'd have a good chance at AfD" - for a while there, I thought ProD was supposed to reduce the number of articles on AfD that were certain deletes. If someone is removing the tags, it's not too much to ask that they state their objection. 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a reason should be provided. Not that it should be good. This is because someone removing the tag should have their own explanation and if they give it, this will save other people listing it on AFD. Whether the explanation is good or bad is for AFD to be discuss. It should be acceptable to revert a deletion of a prod tag if no reason whatsoever is given for its deletion. Mozzerati 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
People ought to give a reason. But an objection of any kind makes it not eligible for prod. It shouldn't be reverted, it should be sent to AfD. (By the way, I've actually done this on a couple makes prod seem somewhat less efficient that articles which creators find prodded have to go thru AfD anyway.) NickelShoe
This whole thing should be scrapped. The comments above are a great example of instruction creep. First, the idea was to only execute "non-controversial" deletions, and that the process would halt if someone objected. Now, all of a sudden, merely objecting to the deletion isn't good enough. You have to give a reason that is acceptable to the editor who put the tag on the article and everyone else who wants it deleted, otherwise one of them will simply replace the tag. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, I really don't see how this process helps anything. You still have to wait five days for the article to be deleted. You might as well do an AfD, which takes the same amount of time.--Srleffler 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The consensus that you don't have to give a reason still stands. Prod is a lot better than AfD, because people at AfD don't care about the article, so they all vote to delete stuff without doing their homework. Prod gives people a chance to fix their article before people start making rude comments about it and doesn't focus on "voting". I hate AfD. NickelShoe 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you tell what's going to be non-controversial?

I note that the mention of this page on the AFD template suggests that AFD is only for "controversial" deletion proposals; this page says it's for deletions which are not "contested". How can I, as a random editor, tell which deletions will be controversial other than by trying? There are a few obvious cases (previous AFDs, debate about validity on talk page, etc.) but these are rare. In most cases, any "controversy" will be from the author of the article, if they are still active on WP and have watchlisted their own article.

Is it the intent (presuming this process becomes official) to have all (or most) articles go through PROD first and only go to AFD once someone removes the PROD tag? If not, can we start to develop some guidelines to help editors anticipate whether an article will be "controversial"?

This question also applies to speedies. If an article is tagged for speedy, but the admin determines that it doesn't meet CSD, should they always (as they do now) send it to AFD? Or should it go here? Always or sometimes? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell if it's going to be non-controversial. By sticking the {{prod}} tag on an article, you're saying "I think the deletion of this article is non-controversial. Does anyone disagree?" If someone removes the tag, that constitutes disagreement, at which point you either agree the article shouldn't be deleted, or you run it through AFD. --Carnildo 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. You could say that the very purpose of PROD is to determine whether an article which you believe to be non-controversially deletable in fact is (in which case, it's deleted). Otherwise you either choose to take it to AFD where the controversy can play out, or you change your mind and let it stay. Regarding your last question, admin discretion - non-speedies marked as speedies can be either PRODs, AFDs, or keeps. Deco 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It might be best in some cases to leave the "process" open-ended. Too many rules, procedures, etc. can make things less efficient and lose their effectiveness. Peyna 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
So just tell people they can remove tag when claimed to be non-controversial. I oppose this whole process as it stands. Gene Nygaard 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, Template:Prod does tell people "they can remove tag when claimed to be non-controversial", doesn't it? As of the current version, it says: "Remove this message when you've improved the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion, but please explain why you are removing it in the edit summary." This seems to be what you are asking for, yes? Would you explain further what you object to? JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PROD vs wiktionary

I've seen several articles (Shucks, Skin up, Surmised as much) which were already marked with {{move to wiktionary}}, and now are doubled up with {{prod}}. That seems like a bad combination to me. WP:WINAD endorses the move tag over deletion. Should something be added to the project page regarding this (ie, don't {{prod}} the {{move to wiktionary}} articles; but move them instead? I've held off on removing the {{prod}} tags from those articles since it is irreversible, until a consensus forms one way or the other. Neier 12:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Shucks and Skin up are already at Wiktionary, so they probably are PRODable. The third one is not, and should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. Peyna 13:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I completed all of the transwikis, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Peyna 18:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but my point wasn't to just fix the current entries (there are many more besides just those three – Rawr, Respec, Rpwt are just a few more). I am concerned about tagging them with PROD without enforcing a verification that they have been transwiki'd, since there is already a mechanism in place for moving those articles out of wikipedia and into wiktionary. Obviously, in some of these examples, that care is not being taken; and I think it needs to be addressed before some information is lost before it has a chance to be put into its correct transwiki. As a secondary part of the transwiki, the PROD could be added as a matter of course. That is a good application of the PROD tag, actually. But, putting the tag on an article just because it is not cleaning up "fast enough" strikes me as a bad idea. Neier 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

See wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Resemblance to a dictionary definition (dicdef?) never implies it can go to Wiktionary. Many times it's best that it's gone. --Perfecto 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What about using the {{wi}} tag in lieu of deletion, for words already at Wiktionary? What do people think of that? --W.marsh 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Normally if an article has already been transwiki'd, it qualifies for speedy deletion. {{wi}} is appropriate if it is very likely that the article will be recreated after it is deleted with similar content. Peyna 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwikied articles are not candidates for speedy deletion. Kappa 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
CSD:A5 - "Transwikied articles. Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." Peyna 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, precisely - articles that have already been discussed at Articles for Deletion. Only a tiny minority of transwikied articles are speedy candidates. —Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Newbie-non-biting addition to template

I added: <small>If you created the article, please don't take this personally. Instead, improve the article to the point it would obviously be one to keep.</small>. Marking any article for deletion feels to the creator like knifing their baby; this is my attempt to soften the blow and let them know that the best thing to do about it is to make the article better. Feel free to change or remove it as is sensible - David Gerard 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Maybe a link to WP:OWN would be a useful addition? Friday (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
David, should we add a comment telling the creator not to remove the tag. Had this happen once with a new user. I ignored it since that article was a keeper. (after heavy editing by three more experienced users. : ) FloNight talk Heart.gif 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
See the section above entitled "Can article creators remove this tag?" Peyna 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I remember reading it now. I was thinking about newbies that don't fully understand the situation. Probably the best solution is a personal note on a new users talk page explaining PROD. FloNight talk 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
See my template below regarding this. Deco 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What stops this tag being added to an article more than once?

I just had a look at this in action and it looks pretty awesome. I like the concept. Q: The "policy in a nutshell" prominently states that the prod template may not be re-added but what exactly stops that from happening? Moreover, if I run across a crap article, does this mean I have to interrogate its edit history to be sure it hasn't been previously prodded, before I do so? (And how will that be enforced, because it doesn't seem likely just yet.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You should look at an article's edit history if you're planning to nominate it for any deletion in any case, so that you won't nominate a good article that just happened to have a vandalized version on top. If someone prodded it and another removed the prod tag but neither of them indicated that in an edit summary, re-prodding could still happen, but that's not the re-prodders fault and if the article stays prodded for 5 days, it should probably be deleted. The actual problem would be when someone continually prods an article while another person keeps reverting it. In those cases it's better to just put it in afd instead of edit-warring over a tag. - Bobet 14:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List is broken

The list is backwards. The newest prods are at the top and the oldest are at the bottom, and the hours listed on the right are largest for the newest ones. Can you please fix? Deco 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And in which way does this make the list "broken"? —Ruud 23:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
That's how it has always looked. The hours countdown, and I should imagine the new ones are at the top to allow people to see what has been added since their last look quicker. Hiding talk 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I thought the times were an age. That's why I expected the expired ones to be at the top and not the bottom. Everything makes sense now. :-) Deco 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


I've created Template:PRODWarning for (completely optional) warning of contributors whose pages you're deleting, explaining that you're proposing it be deleted, the reason why, and giving appropriate action for them to take. Please feel free to edit and/or give feedback. Thanks! Deco 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks rather nifty. I think the phrase "be warned" is a bit strong though. Might tone it down to just saying that it could still go to AfD, where they can be overrulled, not really a warning, more of an advisory. --Mathwizard1232 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I see with the template is that when the "edit" link for the new section is clicked it opens the template for editing. Not the user's talk page. That's actually a rather serious problem. James084 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the header until it can be fixed, since that is what caused the problem. Peyna 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User Script

I'm a newbie scripter, and just found this page, so I made a little script for personal use that can tage a page for prod, with a pop-up that asks for you to type in a reason. Does the edit summary, submits, etc. automatically. If anyone's interested in this I can clean it up and comment it so it can be modified easier. It's in my monobook, but it's mixed up with other stuff right now, so I wouldn't recommend just taking it. --Mathwizard1232 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You can also use autotag.js and type "prod|reason..." as the tag. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-18 09:43Z

List all the other processes that should hapen before hand!

I think we should make it clear... When this should be used. Should people go and place this when? Lets say there is an issue of {{unsourced}}, the article would then be not verified, the article would be a candidate for deletion. Recently this happened with my nomination of many article that where linked to the Template talk:Olympic games medal count?

What happened in the above case is that I didn't follow WP:PANIC and I wanted a solution. I didn't give enought time between one step and the other. As woohookitty said so elegantly on my user talk:CyclePat#It's simple Pat "Or in the case of the Olympic articles, putting them up for deletion when actually, you just felt like they should be sourced. You should *only* put articles up for deletion when you want them other purpose."

May I sugest that we have a certain time spand between the process of placing a tag for WP:V or WP:CITE. I think it would make wikipedia much friendlier place for the new comer. (unlike when I first got here).

Now for merger of articles... I don't really think it's necessary to list anything on deletion. If you're merging you obviously need to delete one. Once a consensus has been reach... perhaps something formal like the afd then I think you should just be able to preferably 1) redirect or 2) delete.

If you're merging, you should never delete one. Think about it - someone created the article in the first place, without knowing about the other one. Therefore if don't leave a redirect in place, someone will do it again. Add a few logical steps, end conclusion: Any article problem that can be resolved by merging should never see AfD or PROD. Stevage 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus, GFDL requires that we keep the history, either by a history merge (which requires admin intervention) or by having the history at the redirect. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Same for article that should be transwikied. Ex.: Template talk:Olympic games medal count... no one seemed to notice that this article is practically primary information. They where all worried about something being out of process and where over taken and accepted the unfair yet believable accusations directed toward me.

In conlusion: I think we should list all the other processes that should hapen before hand and how much time should elapse in between before proposing an article for deletion. --CyclePat 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While it's a fine idea to lay out alternatives to deletion, determining exact processes and time spans for them is far too creepy for my tastes. android79 15:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well... isn't this entire process about cutting down on the afd. We should hence go to the grass roots. Where does it all start? I find it a little funny and kinda of ironic considering this entire process is all about a type of creepy, don't you think? --CyclePat 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But I do undestand your point. At least we should enumarate some process that should be taken before hand. And talk about the standard/usual amount of time that it take. (a suggestion so peopel keep cool and keep afd away for a day!) --CyclePat 15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the current set of "rules" for when prod is appropriate are more than sufficient. If you think it is an uncontentious candidate for deletion and beyond all hope, then you put the prod tag on it. If another editor thinks differently, they remove the tag. Poorly written articles and transwikis are never uncontentious deletions. Transwikis become an uncontentious deletion after they are transwikied, and in that case can be properly speedied. Peyna 16:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone knows that. And if that's the case say it don't just beet around the bush. --CyclePat 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But, If I read between the line, you've allready got your mind set on theses rules because supposedly this proposed policy is already being applied (Test Run). I can't blame you because ironically within the page itself we state that it is "difficult to change a process while it's running!". I think JzG is right... (not funny though... maybe for you, not for me) on that one... my barrow is getting heavy. I think you might as well nail me in right away. Let me hang until some Godly figure comes to take my place. Go figure... I'm either to late or to early... never on time. <mumbling discruntly> Excuse the assumptions here, but if that is your reason I find... and I think it is a little unerving, considering the enormous contradiction and irony that exists. --CyclePat 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that barrow getting heavy, Pat? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation criteria for Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)

Preliminary evaluation criteria. Add, delete, or change format. FloNight talk 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I. Clear written instructions about WP:PROD

Explains the role of editors and administrators
Explains the purpose
Explains recommended and possible uses
Explains the timeframe
Detailed and abbreviated description of how

II. Toolserver with Automatic list of articles up for proposed deletion

Functioning properly?
Display need info on chart?

III. Effect on Wikipedia

Number PROD
  1. del vs. # kept
  2. changed to Afd or speedy
Type of article
Reason for del.
User satisfaction
PRODing editor
Other editors
Deleting editor
Community satisfaction
Disputes: result in Rfc or Rfar
Real world
Feedback from real world
Complaints about tone of comments
Complaints about articles deleted


  • I like the above. I'm concerned that some of the data will be hard to obtain, especially the User satisfaction data. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I second that. Looks good, but some of the data looks hard to get. Well done. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thirded, but the stats on articles and what paths they go through seem like they will be easy to collect and will be quite relevant. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

Everyone, See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is nothing but an alternative deletion process. I'm sorry, guys, I think this talk page and the article page is overloaded with issues and concerns already well settled on these two articles. Go read them! --Perfecto 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're completely missing the point of this. This is meant to be a parallel process to the established deletion processes. You calling it an "alternative deletion process" is exactly the intent. Mo0[talk] 08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Toolserver database lag

I notice the list is a whole day out of date by now. Anyone know what is going on with the database syncing? It's usualy no more than a few hours behind most of the time. --Sherool (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, I see it to be 1 day, 6 hours out of date. I don't like this; I think it ought to use a completely on-wiki based system, with maybe a toolserver running as backup. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The current category-based "backup" system doesn't work. You can't see which articles were recently added. This is a serious problem, especially since we're now nearly a day and a half out of date. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't? Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Proposed_deletion --Interiot 06:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That's helpful. It's not great, though - it lists every edit to articles currently up for PRODding. I'm sure you'd agree that having the toolserver back up would be better. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The worst I saw during this outage was 1 day, 22 hours lag. That's 2 days, to a first approximation, during which it was rather difficult to check on the status of PRODded articles. I suggest that either the backup system be improved to the point that it's actually usable for editors who are accustomed to monitoring this process, or that the length of time articles spend on PROD be greatly expanded. One person recommended 14 days, which seems closer to correct to me. -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

I nominated Lucas Wynne for PROD on 11 February. An annoymous user blanked the whole article today. I reverted that, but am uncertain about how the PROD process covers a complete blank of the article. In my mind, that's not the same as removing the PROD template and is more a "vote" for deletion then for keeping. Anyone else have thoughts on that? Should it stay under PROD or should I send it to AfD? -- JLaTondre 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave the tag on; it'll reset the counter, but that's not particularly a problem - it's not a particularly urgent article to delete, is it? I can't hardly see how deleting all the text of an article could be considered expressing a wish to Keep the article, so I see nothing wrong with leaving it in the PROD process. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Slippery slope - but I agree. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look like that actually reset the counter since it's been deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there was talk on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about treating blanking by the original author as a request-for-deletion-by-author, which is speediable. But with anons you never know. I think this is just a case of "use common sense": I don't think anyone is going to reasonably complain if you just restore the tag. Deco 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to note the situation in your edit summary when you restore the tag. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


The toolserver script will now track the number of times someone clicks on an article. Hopefully this will help make sure every article gets reviewed. Currently, it ignores multiple hits from the same IP address. Unfortunately the replication lag is hindering use right now, but hopefully a toolserver admin will be available soon to fix it. --Interiot 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, replication is back up, hopefully it will be able to catch up by tommorow morning some time this weekend. --Interiot 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the hit tracking, but I'd prefer to see the actual number of hits - why add a layer of opacity by translating them into + signs? (I foresee disagreement; let me propose that rather than explaining what the plus sign means in the reply to this comment, maybe put an explanation somewhere on the actual web page.)

Also, are the hits only clickthroughs from the main PROD toolserver page, or are they all visits to the article? (If the former, does that page have "meta robots nofollow" set?) -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just hits from the prod tracker, unfortunately we don't have stats on individual articles. No, meta robots isn't there yet, I'll add it. I had the explicit numbers, but I dislike how, for instance, "1" and "7" are visually so similar, even though they mean significantly different things. If articles start going much over 10, I'll probably shorten it down to "|", and if they go much over 20, I'll go back to numbers. --Interiot 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I didn't realize that one plus sign meant one clickthrough. You might want to put something like

"+" = 1 clickthrough

at the top of the toolserver page, for folks like me. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This is really cool. Thanks for implementing it! I like the pluses personally, the visual difference is very strong, easy to scan down the column, which is important since they're sorted by time. Deco 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. It is even more useful that it only tracks clicks from the log. It means somebody intentionaly reviewed the article rather than randomly gotten there. Thanks for implementing it. I only have one comment. It would be even more useful if table in log had terms explainded. Especialy Hits is not intuitively clear (it could also mean Google hits or something else). Also Hrs would deserve explanation (it was clear to me, but generaly abrevs should be explained). --Jan Smolik 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, hours was not clear to me - I thought it was "hours since proposed". Deco 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the articles which have had prod removed have been deleted!

Are adminsitrators just deleting whatever they want to delete now? That was not the intention of this process! Merchbow 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, close, but not quite. The "Prod removed" list includes all articles which have previously had a tag but for one reason or another have had it removed, including articles that were PROD'd for five days, speedily deleted articles, and articles that were later deleted via AfD. It's just the link on the main page which is misleading. Nifboy 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the history view to be "Articles are listed once they are deleted, or have had the {{prod}} template removed" to try to avoid confusion, but feel free to suggest alternative wordings. (sorry the toolscript interfaces aren't editable) --Interiot 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Protest a prod

Where (how) can I protest a deleted prod? Before y'all throw dung at me, notice that I have tried to figure this on my own, but failed. --Ezeu 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFU Peyna 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First look up the page title in Special:Log/delete and talk with the admin who did the deletion, if you can convince him or her to undelete the page for whatever reason then fine. If the deleting admin disagree that it should be undeleted you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review, it is the place to go to contest "controversial" deletions. --Sherool (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I hath complained there. --Ezeu 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Notifying article's creators and explaining on article talk page

I think the project page ought to strongly suggest notifying the original editors of prodded articles. Otherwise we're simply avoiding the appearance of controversy. Prodded pages are usually created by newbies, who need some TLC.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to post the reason for deletion on the talk page as well. I've come across some prodded articles where an editor expressed on the talk page he felt the article shouldn't be deleted, but apparently (due to newbie shyness) didn't feel comfortable deleting the prod tag. I feel it's reasonable to assume there's some shier ones who wouldn't start a conversation in the first place.

I just think we need to make sure proposed deletion is not a way of deletion without opportunity for objection. I don't think these should be "rules", but I do think they should be standard procedure by choice. NickelShoe 07:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can't think of a way to make sure of your (valid) concerns, consider registering your opposition to this process on this talk page. You might have a look at some of the comments I've posted above; I don't think this process can be ensured to work the way you (and I, and all the people who have worked on it) would in good faith like for it to work. -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Notifying the creator should be a rule. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. We should assume that the person who created the article in the first place objects, otherwise they wouldn't have made the article. If they don't respond after being notified, then it can proceed as an "uncontroversial" objection. NickelShoe 19:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I would like to see the prod process automagically put a notice on the creator's talk page. I understand this may be difficult or impossible with older articles with many edits, but if the article is new (say, less than a week), could prod automatically forward a notice to the first editor's talk page? Thatcher131 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Automatically? Wouldn't that require some modifications to the MediaWiki software? Or were you envisaging a bot going around doing it? enochlau (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an engineer! Thatcher131 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also on the issue of notification, a good explanation is key. What about different prod tags, like the speedy delete tags, that automatically put links in the notification box to the appropriate WP policy (original research, notability, etc.) If we assume good faith of newbies who are writing their first article, should we place the burden on them to find the appropriate policy to help them out. (On the down side, it would make the process more complicated, and 5 days is long enough to figure it out.) Thatcher131 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that proposisition. As I have already suggested in an older conversation on this page. Implementation anyone? --CyclePat 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost no one who is prodding articles is notifying their creators. I have been spending all my time on Wikipedia for the past few days going through the log and doing this myself and I've seen like a dozen times where someone has bothered to mention the proposed deletion to the creator. This is completely unacceptable and something needs to be done about this. This process is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and not telling the creator and assuming that there is therefore no controversy is entirely unethical, especially with such a such amount of time before deletion. Furthermore, a large chunk of prodded articles are there because of verifiability and notability concerns. These are concerns that a creator frequently can address. I hate making processes more complicated than necessary, but this is just unfair. It's still better than straight AfD because it gives the creator a chance to improve the article before people start saying "delete nn" (again without asking the creator for explanations), don't get me wrong. I like this process. But let's have a little less emphasis on the efficiency of deletion, at least in practice. I don't understand what it's hurting so bad if we have a few articles on non-notable people or bands that no one's going to look up in the first place and how that justifies the way those who think an article might need to be deleted don't actually think to ask the person who wrote it for a little help verifying. NickelShoe 06:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I am one of those that in the past would prod an article and sometimes leave a message for the contributer and sometimes not. NickelShoe has done a tremendous job in adding notifications to user's talk pages for articles that he really had nothing to do with. I vow to try and do better about my notifications too. James084 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added "consider notifying the creator" as a suggestion. If this offends anyone, they can take it out, but it seems that it shouldn't be a problem as I worded it quite clearly as a simple suggestion. NickelShoe 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that notifying creators is necessarily the right thing to do. Obviously sometimes, with a newly-created article with one clear creator, it can be a valuable courtesy. But creators are not owners, they're just the initial editors. They don't have any special rights to the content of "their" article. If you read the article, look at the history, etc. (which you probably should do anyway), you should be able to come to your own conclusions about who, if anyone, deserves notification, and it's necessarily the creator. Here's an example: I {{prod}}ded Bulge of Africa today. It was created by an anon as an unsourced two-sentence stub in over a year ago. Since then the original two sentences have remained untouched, and almost the only editing has been inserting some templates, a see also, and vandalism/reverts. The creator never did anything with it at all, nor has he/she edited under that IP since that day. Is anyone seriously suggesting that that person has any kind of stake in the article? I guess what I'm saying is "use some judgment." If an article has an active community of editors or a lot of content, it probably shouldn't be prodded anyway. If it's essentally an abandoned article stub, as mine was, I see no need to inform anyone. The vast space between those two alternatives, of course, is the problem area, but I don't see "notifying the creator" as an especially useful guideline in those cases either. · rodii · 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't notify anons, because the person who gets the message may not be the person who wrote the article. While I agree that creators are not owners, they do have a personal investment in the article and they do have a possibility of clearing up concerns. I don't see where you've backed up your statement about it not necessarily being right to do. I don't see any situation where it's wrong to do. Communication = good. We can alter the warning template to include a disclaimer about owning articles, if you'd like.
But if this is to be about uncontroversial deletions, we need to tell people anyway, because otherwise creating the article in the first place seems like it's already an objection to the deletion. NickelShoe 12:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If the period was like two weeks instead of five days, uncontroversial when not bothering to let invested editors know about it would at least be a little easier to swallow. NickelShoe 13:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
By "not necessarily right" I don't mean "wrong". I just mean that sometimes it's unnecessary. You and I agree about anons, apparently, so I think we're at least on the same page. I agree we should err on the side of courtesy, I'm just arguing against creator notification being any kind of hard guideline (which I don't think you're advocating so again I think we're on the same page).
My main point is that prodders should use their judgment about who if anyone should be notified--it's not necessarily the original creator who has the biggest stake--and in fact if there are other (active) editors that seem like they would need notification, then it probably shouldn't get a {{prod}} in the first place. It may be that you're thinking mainly of relatively new articles? It seems to me that most articles that have been deleted by {{prod}} are either recently created ones that are (1) broken, empty or nonsense in some obvious way, or (2) old, abandoned stubs. I think creator notification is appropriate in the first case and pointless in the second. · rodii · 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Prods with blank explanations

Is it possible for the prod template to refuse to be set if the explanation field is left blank? Thatcher131 01:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no it isn't. --Doc ask? 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Toolserver table width issue

For some days now, the toolserver tables ([3], [4]) don't display correctly for me. The tables are not adjusted to the browser's window width, but appear to be fixed at circa 2000 pixels width. Is it just me (MS Win XP, Firefox, dual-monitor display) or is anyone else having problems with this? -- Sandstein 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • They don't display wide enough? Or they're too narrow? --Interiot 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, the tables are too wide (as I said, circa 2000 pixels wide). It's the last column, in particular, that appears to be around 1000 pixels wide. Sandstein 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, now that I'm working on my laptop (also MS Win XP, Firefox, table [5] renders fine, but table [6] is still too wide. Sandstein 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for toolserver tools

  1. On , the most interesting items are the articles where the prod tag has been removed but the article still exists, since this is often articles that should be deleted through AFD (it is often the author who removes the prod tag). The articles which have been deleted, redirected, or AFD'ed are not really interesting (to me at least). Right now the uninteresting items are cluttering the list - would it be possible to create a separate list? Thue | talk 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. On , when "Current status" is "AFD", the "AFD" text should link to the AFD subpage.

Thue | talk 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The AFD direct-link is somewhat difficult to code, and only saves one click. Yeah, the history page needs a bit of a rework. Per Radiant! and others, I'm probably going to add the ability to sort by "current status" to hilight specific things like that. It's somewhere on my "definitely need to do" list. --Interiot 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Me, I'd like to see some way of detailing articles' history of deletion status; I've seen some go from PROD to AfD only to be speedied a day into the AfD. Nifboy 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps just split the history page up into "deleted pages" and "still-existing pages" which has kept, redirected, re-proded, and afd'ed articles? The bulk of the clutter is from deleted articles. Thue | talk 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes this seems like a very good idea to me. I would very much like this. Paul August 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for removing prod tag???

I recently removed the prod tag on Wellstoning due to the fact that I felt that the article derved a "broader discussion on the matter of an article's deletion" and posted it on AfD with a neutral vote. Another user stated "Don't deprod things unless you want them kept." I do not read that sentiment into the current letter or spirit of the proposed policy. Should it be mentioned that prod tags should only be removed if you think the article should be kept? Or should prod tags be allowed to be removed merely in order to have a discussion? I tend to think that with such a bold new policy, we should err on the side of caution for now. youngamerican (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your actions were acceptable. I have removed a couple of prod tags only to move them into AfD as well. James084 13:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
PROD, to my understanding, is a non-confrontational process. An editor can remove a tag to speedy delete, merge, fix-up, or take to Afd, or any other valid WP measure. We are suppose to respect the tag removing editor's assessment. There are measures in place in the other deletion and clean-up processes to deal with conflicts. I can see how this misunderstanding could happen, though. PROD is working well without lots of debate. I don't know if this is due to the type of articles selected or the goodwill of the editors involved. Maybe both. There seems to be a spirit of collaboration here that is lacking in some other parts of WP. My 2 cents. FloNight talk 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Your actions were in line with the letter and spirit of the rule. You should not prod things unless you want them deleted, but you can deprod things for any reason at all, as long as you're doing it in good faith. If the prodder feels jilted, they can participate in the AfD discussion. Deco 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Just an additional note. If I do remove the prod tag and move to AfD I will typically leave a message on the "prodding" user's talk page explaining why I've done so. James084 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Any user can remove the PROD tag for any reason, including the one you state. Otherwise, this process becomes very different from what it is, and very unacceptable. Of course, any user can also attempt to bully, chivvy, distort, or otherwise misrepresent the process. That's probably inappropriate behavior. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Creators blanking pages

I have seen a couple of times that after I informed a user that the article they created was up for deletion for such-and-such reasons, they blanked the article. This is pretty annoying, because reverting the blanking resets the countdown, having the opposite effect. I'm assuming that these editors don't quite understand the difference between blanking and deletion. Is there any way we can help that situation? NickelShoe 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the wording on the template would be my suggestion. Wording like "please do not just delete all the text from this article" or "If you want it to be deleted, just leave it alone and that should happen"... well I'm sure there's a way to explain it better. Also the template does seem to be getting a bit wordy anyway... any KISS gurus here?
(Ultimately there should probably be a feature in the software to warn when someone blanks any page, explaining that blanking isn't deletion, etc.) --W.marsh 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If the creator of an article blanks it, and he's the only one to ever have edited it (not counting adding templates such as {{prod}}), it can be considered a "requested by creator" CSD. --cesarb 03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been telling the editors that. I was thinking along the lines of preventing them from doing it in the first place, like W.Marsh was suggesting. I mean, I guess we could put it in PRODWarn? That could help, since most prodded articles don't have multiple editors... NickelShoe 03:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Better put that if they want to delete it to use {{db-self}}. Blanking is harder to locate. --cesarb 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On the other hand though, I've noticed some new users get worried when deletion is proposed, and assume that since a presumably experienced user proposed it, that they need to get rid of the article. But as we know, just the initial adding of the prod tag doesn't mean an article must be deleted... I think perhaps if we encourage people to request speedy deletion, we run the risk of losing some good articles. Letting PROD run its course might be a good idea anyway, in other words. --W.marsh 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If a user blanks their own article, assume they want it deleted and per CSD delete it. BrokenSegue 04:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Edit this page" not working properly

Check out Herrmann & Kleine...the "edit this page" link within the prod template takes you to Hermann? I'm guessing this is from the ampersand? Is there any way to fix this? NickelShoe 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's a bug; {{localurl}} should be able to escape this correctly. Will report on bugzilla. --cesarb 15:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
bugzilla:5064 --cesarb 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

September 2003 prodded?

Can some explain how September 2003 is on the Current nominations list? It doesn't seem to have a prod template. Paul August 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the transcluded date pages had been prodded and then de-prodded, and the transcluding page September 2003 stayed in the proposed deletion category until somebody made a null edit (an edit without changing anything) that updated the database. Kusma (討論) 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured it had to do with transclusion, but none of the files seemed to have been prodded, I looked at several of their histories, but I guess I missed one. Paul August 06:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

system include prod addition in deletion log?

Any chance of deletion log including line for when {{prod}} flag was added? Example: Deletion log for Supermegatopia saying something like "12:34, 7 November 2006 ExamplePerson added {{prod}}". --EarthFurst 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably not, since that's not really what the deletion log is for, but at any rate it'd require a software upgrade so you'd have to ask the devs on WP:BUG. (Radiant) 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there someplace else that a log of the addition of the PROD tag is available? Not R 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Only if the edit summary is filled in. The edit summary appears in the article's history tab and in the site wide recent changes log. If the edit summary isn't filled out there won't be a log type entry. 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) This comment was added by USer:GRBerry
        • However, once the article has been deleted, the article changelog becomes invisible to non-admins. –Henning Makholm 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The history of WP:PRODSUM will hold a list of prods, but it can be somewhat complicated to extract from there. --ais523 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)