Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 4

message: Per discussion at WIkipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed CSD criteria for Portals, I am proposing the following:
: Any Portal created as a skeleton, a stub, or a simple collection of links for which no other work has been done in over 60 days, and which has no subpages, should be subject to removal through PROD.
Any thoughts on this proposal? BD2412 T 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD for Portals 

message: Is prod really non usable no matter what? is there some other process that can do what the toolserver automation does? I think saying "hold off on prod for a bit" might be OK but it's not dead yet... I've half a mind to revert that change but you know me... I'm a timid editor!  ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When will it come back?--Urthogie 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod's not dead, it's just that the work for admin's got harder.  You have to manually check the what links here of , and then check the prod has been listed for more than five consecutive days. I'll amend the message accordingly. Hiding  talk 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack!  Wait!  No, part of the point of the Toolserver list is that we can have not just admins monitoring for articles which have reached 5 days, but normal editors monitoring for articles which they want to contest the Prod (either just contest, or contest and improve, or whatever).  If I can't do that, then we have a problem, and it should be on hold.  Right now, I can't see any way to see something that someone does a new tag on past where toolserver stopped working, so five days from now articles I might have contested could get nuked...  If there is another way, let me know.  If not, it should be put on hold until I can somehow...  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at what links to , same as suggested that admins do.  People have already been told to stop adding the tag at the moment.  It's harder work, but it shouldn't be a huge issue.  If you don't know it's gone, how do you know you were going to miss it? It'll all come out in the wash.  Hiding  talk 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any instructions for how to do that... I can see it with images I create etc, but not with articles.  Is that an admin-only function?  If not, where's the documentation on how we do it?  Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need "what links here", just use the category.  :Category:Proposed deletion NickelShoe (Talk) 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I did find it funny, but I reverted it anyway, killjoy that I am, I am. (Also, it made everything very big, and I have an itch about damned pictures in every damned message box we have, damn them.) -Splashtalk 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this got fixed. The thing to check is the category :Category:Proposed deletion. Thank you, whoever fixed it! (And now for something completely different: Please put the parrot back! OK, kidding...) ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature? 

message: How about implementing a "by day category" system, simmilar to the one used by  and  (shorthand  & . It works pretty well for those image cats (combined with the "one click" sub category creation link in the main categories), and that way PROD would not have to be suspended whenever the toolserver is having one of it's "fits". --Sherool (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed under the section above about the toolserver, unless I misunderstand you.  I say somebody who knows what they're doing go ahead do it so we can get prod back on line.  Unless there are objections?  I could imagine that the process might require a reevaluation if the toolserver is out of pocket indefinitely.  Perhaps switch back to "proposed"? NickelShoe (Talk) 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ...  but the downsides are significant.  1) it requires prod-submitters to do an extra step, discouraging them slightly from prodding (prod is supposed to be simple), and 2) there's a mismatch between the article being tagged, and the manually-updated list, because someone can pull the prod tag off the article, without pulling it off the manually-updated list, so you're still relying on the original submitter to have articles in their watchlist.  If daily-categories would be too big, then switch to hourly ones (that's 744 total categories for a month rotation) or 4- or 6-hour categories (186 or 124 categories total, call them "quarterly" day categories).  When the toolserver comes back up, the toolserver can take us back from hourly/quarterly/daily granularity back to an ordered list, with removal detection.  --Interiot 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  By day categorisation 

message: Does "what links here" on  show the articles in order of addition of the template? —Ruud 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so, though playing around with related changes on the category can help a little. --Sherool (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What links here 

message: The caveats:
* It is sorted by date/time of the last edit to the article, not the date/time of prodding. This should work for most the articles though.
* The newest additions are a the bottom, not the top of the category.  should have fixed this.
* Editing  (not only blanking) will reset the date/times of all the prodded articles.
* Articles prodded before or on 13 April 2006 are sorted as 13 April 2006.
—Ruud 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if  is subst'ed in it? This should make the article sorted by day of prodding. Second: isn't it better to have the day of the month as the first character of PRODKEY? This way the category would be broken in one section per day. - Liberatore(T) 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   cannot be substituted in  (well it can but this will either result in the eintier code of  be pasted into  or a fixes key, both are bad), it can however we substituted together with . The day of the week could be used, but I think sorting it this way would be counter-intuitive. —Ruud 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean was to include  in . The advantage of having the day of the month as the section heading is that makes easier to find articles that are prodded for 5 days. - Liberatore(T) 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. That requires subst'ing prod in articles. - Liberatore(T) 14:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that works. If you include  in  and save it it will cause the source of  to be substituted in . —Ruud 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When the job queue clears the order should be reversed. Advantages of this method are indeed that it doesn't require any substing. The categories method has the disadvantage that articles in one "day" category are sorted by name instead of nomination time, meaning you can in practice only efficiently review the articles nominated in previous days. —Ruud 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: $DEITY, are there 8000 articles with PROD tags on them atm? Or did another major template get changed in the last few minutes too? (If not, then this should be the death of "high use template edits kill servers"). -Splashtalk 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The result of editing  three times in a row and some other templates being changed. Editng  causes about 2000 jobs but there are onyl around 500 articles prodded at the moment. —Ruud 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The geek in me (most of me) can't help wondering why that is. Why does each article create an average of 4 jobs? -Splashtalk 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Using the "per day subcat" method does not cause the actual article to be substed into the article though. The way I set it up you would do for example  in the article, this would cause  to be inserted into the article, so it's actualy the  template that is used, you just hide that fact from the user so they don't have to worry about the parameters. If you neglect to subst prod then a huge red warning will appear on the page telling you to subst the template. Not too much overhead IMHO. To see how it proked before my change was reverted try transcluding User:Sherool/prod on a page with and without substing it.  --Sherool (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherool's method sounds better to me, then.  Especially if the current system still has the problem of us not being able to edit the prod template.  It's not like it should be edited frequently, but, again, if we're looking for something permanent, I don't think we should have something that breaks if we want to edit the template three months from now. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is one problem with this, though. The template cannot be called  as Sherool's proposal isn't not compatible with the article that have already been tagged. This means the template has to be named differently. This may actually be advisable anyway as the way it has to be used is chnges as well. Also, there is nothing preventing us running the two systems side by side. —Ruud 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer Sherool's system. We can run the two systems at the same time, but the page WP:PROD should indicate which one is the preferred one. - Liberatore(T) 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the  thing to my  template now, so if  is reverted to the last version I made ( should be edited the way we want it first before taking it "live" so we don't overload the job que) it would use both systems without anyone having to think about it. All articles would be categorised twise, once in a by day subcat and once in the main cat (needs to be there anyway for when the toolserver is back up and running properly with enwiki) with the "magic"  value, best of both worlds. Things might look wierd for the first couple of days before the backlog is processed, but once the backlog is worked though it should run smoothly. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Proposed_deletion]] now sorted by date/time of last edit 

message: Okay, the message at the top of the project page says prod is suspended.  But it also gives instructions on how to use it without the toolserver.  Are we using prod or not? NickelShoe (Talk) 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say try not to use it at the moment, we may have an acceptable replacement in a few minutes/hours. —Ruud 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the current system works well enough to be usable. —Ruud 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, people should not currently add new articles to PROD. Those articles already tagged still need to be deleted when they expire, and need to be reviewed (hopefully) prior to then. We are in a kind of in-between stage at present. It looks like people are coming up with a (hackish) way of bring PROD back online soon, anyway. This would probably also benefit from people stepping back from new PRODs for a while. -Splashtalk 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't discourage editors from using prod , even if the back end is broken for a while.  That will drive away new article patrollers and choke the AfD process.  Keep the pressure on the back-end people to fix the problem, even if the backlog grows.  --John Nagle 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm going to edit the notice accordingly...the category system is okay for now.  Someone can revert me if there's disagreement. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with John. · rodii · 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, actually that's a really not good way to do it. When a process backs up, it can take forever to persuade any admins to dive into to an interminable deletion task. It makes sense to suspend it until it is fixed. NP patrollers have CSD and AfD and they worked fine before PROD and will easily step into the breach in the meantime. The devs are often very slow to fix quite obvious problems, and we can't produce backlogs of hundreds or thousands (not kidding) of articles as a kind of "sit in protest". -Splashtalk 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The message indicates that admins should still be deleting articles...assuming they actually do, should there be too much of a backlog?  I'd gladly help, but I'm not an admin. I misinterpreted John's post earlier, I didn't really understand it as a protest, but I think you're right that that's what he meant. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory message 

message: Okay the category is sorted now. There is only one glitch: you are unable to browse the entier category because most article have the same key. This shouldn't normally occur unless you manage to prod 200 article within one minute. For now we can delete most of the artiles through Interiot's list. —Ruud 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using some date math it should be possible to create a link which lets you jump immediatly to the articles that are 5 days or older. —Ruud 15:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, is this still sorting by last edit to the article?  Because while this seems great as a backup, if it's not sorting by the actual criterion of how long the prod tag has been there, I don't think this is usable as a permanent solution. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I wouldn't know how to solve that. A permanent solotion would be getting the Toolserver back online or maybe a robot that could crawl prodded articles or something. Note that editing an article would place it back at the front, so eventually people with start noticing and the worst that can happen is that an article stay undeleted too long. —Ruud 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  I don't think it would be a huge problem, if this was a backup, even a frequently used one.  Because if an article is being actively edited we probably don't need to get in a hurry to delete it.  But it just seems a little off not to be able to sort by the actual criterion, I don't know.  We can certainly try this out for a while and see how it works, if people are willing. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaming the system by daily editing to perpetually postpone deletion? If this is suspected, the article should be taken to Afd. Hopefully, done without any accusations which tends to bias the outcome of Afd. --FloNight talk 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be more difficult than actually removing the prod tag and contesting the deletion outright.  NickelShoe (Talk) 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I could see this discourage people from working on a prodded article if they aren't sure it should be kept.  If I find an article up for prod and find info on Google, I'd want to add external links, at the least, so people could review it more easily.  But if I'm pretty sure that it's still not notable, I'd actually be making it take longer to delete.  Discouraging improving prodded articles sounds like a bad thing. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is how it's supposed to be. Editors review from the front and admins delete from the back. —Ruud 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it's going to take me how long to get to the last page of the category? -Splashtalk 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, just one click of "next 200". It doesn't turn black into a non-link, so I was thinking that I didn't get to the end yet. -Splashtalk 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was huge, you could click Z on the TOC and click previous 200. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Infinitly at the moment, but after 5 days we will be able to delte our way to the end. Till that time Interioit's list has to be used. Haven't tried NickelShoe's suggestion yet, that might work as well. —Ruud 16:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorted 

message: Can someone point me to the poll, or the place, etc. where consensus was determined. I don't really doubt it exists, just curious if anything was ever done to quantifiably (real word?) gauge consensus. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the fact that tons of people were using it and there weren't any objections.  Consensus is more clearly gauged by behavior than votes. See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Policy_time.3F. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should a poll be necessary to see that this a well and widely used process? You don't have to have a show of hands to see that. -Splashtalk 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. I just haven't been around much in the past few weeks and didn't know if one was run or not. I don't assume consensus doesn't exist... those of you around could determine that I'm sure. I was simply wondering if a poll had been run. I didn't want to have to hunt through all the prod discussion though. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest we came to a poll was in #Policy time?. Someone sort of said "hey, so this is basically policy-by-acclamation now" and everyone pretty much agreed. Also, the policy tag has stuck, which is a good indicator. -Splashtalk 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The vague definition of consensus for the purpose of policy tags would be something like "a few people looked at it and no one had any violent disagreements". Few ~= 10. Stevage 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If for two months the process is widely used without major objections, I don't think it's unfair to assume it's accepted.  People would whine about it here or in AfD discussions if they didn't like it.  Personally I find the fact that AfD discussions didn't frequently involve people whining about how prod wasn't working to be quite telling. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: What exactly is "down" about the toolserver? It's still a day behind, but still apparently running. Has it just recently gone back up and nobody has noticed yet? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not updating, and indefinitely so.  It was actually caught up yesterday, but hasn't updated since.  You read Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Toolserver_may_be_down? NickelShoe (Talk) 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back up? 

message: Go Splash go... that was a good cleanout, the page looks lots better now and is clearer! Thanks. (Still missing a parrot though.) ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, policy pages tend to acquire "policy plaque" when new as the community learns how it works and how it doesn't. After a little while, all the caveating and cajoling can be compressed into sentences that say all that needs to be actually part of the policy and makes it easy to pick up in a few seconds reading. Those who are good newbies will learn by example and thought, those less capable but still good can be educated by a talk page message. I think we should agree in advance to call whatever our next new process is WP:PARROT (hoping that link is red when I press save...) -Splashtalk 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Snippage!!! 

message: Exactly how are people to know that articles will soon be deleted unless they check every article in the category? You can't really un-prod something without going through the entire category instead of just what changed from the last time you checked. 132.205.44.134 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By not panicking and reading WP:PROD more carefully. -Splashtalk 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Toolserver appears to be up, at least for me. Are we back in business?  I was checking on something I prodded 7 days ago, so there appears to be a huge deletion backlog. Should someone modify or remove the message on the main page? Hopefully some admins will be able to address the backlog, too. MCB 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently showing a replication lag of 2 days and 3 hours - doesn't look like it's up. —Whouk (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The toolserver is "up" but not receiving any replication updates from enwiki. I believe it shows a "frozen in time" version of the situation. So it can be used to delete for a few days if approached with caution but will not show new prods, or update old ones. -Splashtalk 11:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a software problem.  The mysql database, as far as we know, will normally only replicate from a single other database cluster.  So right now it's replicating from dewiki/itwiki/etc, but the same method can't be used to replicate from enwiki, or from the asian cluster (kowiki_p, etc), at the same time.  So we're working on finding another method to replicate those two DB clusters.  I haven't heard of a good estimate yet, but AFAIK, there's hope for a solution sooner or later.  The asian cluster has been down for a good while, but we have more people working on it now, so hopefully they'll be able to make headway.  --Interiot 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. I wonder if there might be a way to do a "round-robin" among the clusters in the meantime to keep any of the wikis from being too out of date? (Just a shot in the dark, dbms architecture is not my expertise!). Best, MCB 06:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toolserver down? This process must be suspended! 

message: I got the impression that there was support for using daily subcats to monitor prod.  Am I wrong?  If we can't count on the toolserver, I very much want this.  Sorting the :Category:Proposed deletion by last edit just isn't good enough for the primary log, as it discourages improvement that isn't intended as endorsement of the article. I'd volunteer to set this up myself, but I'm not really savvy with such things, and I want to make sure there's a clear consensus first. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Toolserver is on the brink of breathing again. -Splashtalk 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not yet.  Per my talk page, the replag currently displayed is for dewiki.  Enwiki is still not being replicated.  (though, I suppose for the tools that are clearly enwiki-specific, I could display the enwiki replag)  However, DaBpunkt yesterday noted that there may be good news soon.  --Interiot 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it's hopeful enough just to wait, or should we go ahead and make sure we've got a good system in place anyway? NickelShoe (Talk) 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de:Benutzer:DaB. has been able to get replication partially working.  It's not working fast enough to keep up with real-time yet, though it is making progress (~3 days of new data have been replicated since enwiki was moved to a new DB cluster).  DaB is hopeful that he'll be able to get it working faster.  --Interiot 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily subcats? 

message: and  need to be updated to remove usage of  and , replacing them with  and .
I understand that simply doing this without taking various arcane precautions will break your process queue.
Please therefore arrange that this update is performed in a controlled manner within a reasonable time-span, because deletion discussion for qif is already underway and the equivalent for  cannot be far behind.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy I don't think there is any way around breaking the current queue, merely editing either of the templates will generate new sort keys for all tagged articles regardles. And since we are going to wipe out the sorting anyway this would probably be a good time to implement the dayly subcat system, as I mentioned above the  template also use  on top of the subcating so both schemes can work side by side. Sure there will be a messy tranisision period for all currently tagged articles, but if all instructions are updated to tell people to subst along with the built in warning) the categorisation should go smoothly for all future tagings. Any objections? --Sherool (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it all depends on if/when the Toolservers comes back on-line. If it will only be a few days/weeks I think we should just wait it out. The current method works well enough and (looking at it pragmatically) there really is little haste in deleting  and friends. If we are looking at months/indefinite/infinite before the Toolserver comes back online, I'd suggest we move over to a dayly subcategory system, as the effort spent on re-education people using the new system and trying to survive the five days of chaos will be worth it in that case. —Ruud 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be able to steal my proposed code from Template talk:Ordinal date to avoid using the long prodkey templates, it can produce the ordinal, and if combined with a year will be able to timestamp something, and can have math done it. See also a big glob of testing at User:Xaosflux/Sandbox5— xaosflux Talk 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update templates to use ParserFunctions 

message: My god, how wonderful prod would be if only editors who had evidence of the notability of a topic (rather than just those who break their necks to wring incredibly tenuous claims of unverified notability from any article, and have extremely interesting interpretations of policy) would remove them. The current spate of indiscriminate prod-harvesting is making a mockery of the system. Now AfD is filling up with nominators and keepers whose gloves are off before they even get to the AfD ring. Not good.  Deizio 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing. What is the reason of having WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:V, etc if people do not even acknowledge them when voting on AfDs or removing prod. Also, some users just remove prods for no good reason. Basically, it is easier to remove prods than to place them. Joelito 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is communication.  People have to actually know that we have these standards if you want them to use them.  With no examples of this supposed behavior, I can't really say what's going on.  I haven't witnessed anything insidious happening.  If prods are being removed, then deletions are controversial and quite possibly should have gone straight to AfD, or possibly prod was the best choice to give a chance to improve the article and the AfD can proceed without wondering if there's something the other editors don't know about that would change the outcome. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to . Sime of his de-prods are correct, others are not Joelito 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as an incorrect de-prod. If there were, we wouldn't have prod, and would just speedy those articles. I've seen Kappa nominate things for speedy deletion - he knows where things clearly don't belong in the encyclopedia - and I don't begrudge him his right to force a decision on others. BD2412 T 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kappa may deprod things that ought to be deleted, but I've never seen him deprod anything which should have been deleted thru prod.  I've deprodded things myself simply because I was uncomfortable calling the deletion obvious or uncontroversial.  Some things need a full AfD.  NickelShoe (Talk) 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't begrudge him either. I question the procedure. He was just an example asked by NickelShoe. Joelito 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but if Kappa's your best example and you don't even disagree with him, then what exactly is your complaint? NickelShoe (Talk) 23:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint is with the procedure and the notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc. Some users do not follow them either because they believe everything must be kept or for other reasons. Then you tag an article with those guidelines in mind, it gets de-prodded w/o addressing the guideline or complaint, basically a judgement call. It's too easy to remove while it's certainly harder to tag an article. Then you take the article to AfD and it's kept because of no-concensus with votes that once more do not acknowledge the guidelines. Joelito 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, examples?  Prod should be used for really obvious cases, so if it's being deprodded on a judgment call made in good faith, it should have gone straight to AfD.  Since when is it significantly harder to tag an article than remove the tag?  NickelShoe (Talk) 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taunton Antique Center Joelito 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother? 

message: Someone edited  breaking the system for the articles prodded in the last five days. I took this opportunity to switch over the the  system. Could everybody please to carefully review the articles in :Category:Proposed deletion as of unknown date 2006? Articles in this category have been prodded sometime before April 24th. The category is not sorted on time of last edit. —Ruud 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was rely nessesary to remove the "main" proposed deletion cat from the template. The toolserver list needs that cat (or at least some other "all in one" cat to work when it comes back online. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I plan to restore it in a few days. I'm just afraid that people might not notice that the main category is no longer sorted. —Ruud 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be reverted to pre-toolserver dying when the toolserver comes back, but PRODKEY was messing up and not putting it in order, making it harder for admins to know what to delete (as we'll see when these get sorted into categories by date; some are very old), so this works better.  I'm currently going through unknown date and fixing the dates, but I may be blocked at any time, so someone else will have to take over if I do. --Rory096(block) 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, within certain constraints, the toolserver can adapt to many of the possible setups.  It'd just be good to pick one setup and keep it stable.  Probably the biggest constraints are 1) it should use a cat (so I can use cl_timestamp as an easy way to find when the template was inserted, and thus find the diff that inserted it), and 2) it'd be nice if there was at least one final level of template that wasn't substed, so I could pick out the prod reason fairly easily (eg. ).  I'd actually prefer it if you guys kept the on-wiki backup, even once the toolserver comes back up, so it's not such a big deal if/when the toolserver asplodes again. --Interiot 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why isn't cl_timestamp affected by editing the template, like  is, but only by blanking of the template? —Ruud 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanking the template instantly removes all articles from the category, and thus the database instantly forgets when they were first added to the category, since they're no longer in it.  Just editing the template doesn't remove them all from the category, and so doesn't reset cl_timestamp.  On the other hand, I think the category used in  has been changed at least once since the toolserver went down, so I think the data for most articles currently in prod is not very useful at this point.  --Interiot 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When we get the toolserver back, I think the original prod works better (and I like pretty graphical tools) -- Tawker 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like a combination of (pretty graphical tools) + (on-wiki fallback that's always in place).  So just settle on a solution you guys can live with for a while, and as soon as the toolserver is back up, I'll adapt the scripts to work on top of whatever scheme you guys come up with.  --Interiot 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We ought to re-implement an "all in one" category on top of the dates ones though, sure the tool can be adapted to querry all the subcats recursively or something, but as I understand it will be a hungry and inefficient querry, and for a high trafic tool like this that might result in noticable database lag on the toolserver. --Sherool (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The end template is , btw. --Rory096 05:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switched to {{tl|dated prod}} 

message: At least two of my prods were just switched to dated templates (by ), then reverted to the originals (by ). Who's right? Deizio 01:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rory is, unfortunatly not everyone realized we just switched over the the  system. Kelly Martin even blocked Rory for this. —Ruud 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes.  The subcats have seemed to have been consensually approved for a while, just nobody had implemented it yet, hoping the toolserver would come back and make it unnecessary.  I'm glad we're doing it this way now. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see, Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Kelly_Martin.27s_block_of_User:Rory096. —Ruud 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Why do prod's have to be substed in order to work all of a sudden?  I think this is a bad idea; it's much better to just have  on the page where an editor can easily snip it out rather than a big batch of substituted text.  Mangojuice 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Category:Proposed_deletion_now_sorted_by_date.2Ftime_of_last_edit.  Substing prod doesn't leave a bunch of text, because it's a template within a template.  It has to be substed because that allows it to be sorted by date. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst'ed prod 

message: If person A puts the prod tag, and person B removes it, is person A allowed to put it right back? That thing doesn't seem to be regulated. --Dijxtra 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once a person removes a prod you are supposed to take the article to WP:Afd (if it is your desire to have the article deleted) to generate concensus. Prod is for uncontroversial articles, if the prod is challenged then the removal of the article is controversial. Furthermore, this is covered here. Joelito 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks a bunch. I was 100% sure I saw the rule somewhere and then I just couldn't find the exact quote. Thanks for the exact link. --Dijxtra 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course now, as has happened at least twice to my knowledge, anybody wanting to  an article has to review the edit history to see if at any point in the past the article has been prod'ed.  One article was prod'ed by three different editors, before someone caught on and converted to an AfD.  At this point I'm seeing only one benefit to prod - a kinder gentler first-warning the article is in trouble.  Shenme 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There needs to be some rule regarding the removal of a PROD tag - the person removing it must give a rationale for doing so - else it might be restored. --soUmyaSch 10:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats what I was saying that it should be made mandatory that removing a Prod should accompany a reason - to let the original proponent (and Prod supporters) know of the intentions of the person removing the prod. If no change is made but the prod is removed, the situation stays the same as it was when the prod was suggested. --soUmyaSch 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that we now know that at least one person objects to the PROD, which makes it a contested deletion and no longer a PROD candidate. I agree with Tony, and I believe that the original PROD philosophy of keeping the process as simple and "conservative" as possible is still valid--insisting on edit summaries is instruction creep. (Suggesting that edit summaries are a good idea is, well, a good idea, of course.) · rodii · 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The person removing the prod doesn't have to give any reason at all. The simple fact that one person disagrees with the prod is sufficient to force an AfD (or else the article is kept). --Srleffler 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning the prod tag 

message: It seems to me to be common sense that if an article was deleted under PROD and then re-created, that amounts to contesting the PROD. As such, a re-created previously PRODded article should not be speediable under G4 (re-creation of previously deleted content). Yet as far as I know this isn't explicitly stated anywhere. If anyone objects to me adding language to this effect, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Addition to G4. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, it seems like common sense to me and should probably be put in writing. 4.89.245.125 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there was some support and no objection, so I've added a clause to G4 that re-created PRODs are not subject to it. I'll make a note of it here too. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRODding and Speedy criterion G4 

message: Could somebody look at reusable bag?  Prodded on April 13th, nothing has happened.  Glitch? 4.89.245.125 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. The delay was probably caused by the switch from  to . - Liberatore(T) 13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the bot that fixed all the prod templates had a little bug. If an article had been prod'ed multiple times (wich is not supposed to happen) the bot seems to have been using the earliest version rather than the most recent. The result is that such articles went "off the grid" as it where, since they do not show up in any existing categories (this is why a "catch all" category is handy). I though it only applied to one or two articles, so I didn't think much off it at the time, probably not a huge problem. Might be worth mentioning somewhere that people should raise a flag if they come a cros a proded article with a redlinked date category. --Sherool (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use Special::Categories to find red-linked categories. Unfortunately, you have to play with the offset to get to the right location which can be a pain. This link (about 1/4 down the page) shows there are currently 4 red-linked prod categories with 1 article each. -- JLaTondre 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore there aren't! ;-) Angr (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-week-old prod tag? 

message: With the old toolserver system, PRODS went red at the exact hour they were eligible for deletion. Under the new system, are we still concerned with the hour the PROD was put in place, or is everything in the dated category ready to be deleted on the 5th day, regardless of the time of day the PROD tag was put on?  Joyous | Talk 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it should be 120 hours, not the vague "5 days". There are too many time zone issues, etc. Ardric47 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - 120 hours is the best way to interpret this. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This (or some other convention, if there is one; see ) should be mentioned somewhere on the actual page, since I still don't know what the time is supposed to be. Ardric47 03:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD times 

message: A correction to  has been proposed at Template talk:Prod#Edit protected request. It seems correct to me, and I was about to make the change myself, but I do not want to break anything so I am asking here if there is possibly any problem with making that change. - Liberatore(T) 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit won't break anyting (it's in the <noinclude> section), I just fixed it myself. --Sherool (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "dated prod" 

message: So, prod has passed its trial period. This looks like an excellent idea, on paper. However, not everyone implements proposed deletion in the way that was intended. Not only have I removed prod tags from articles whose deletion would be controversial, but also from articles that are ineligible for deletion! This wasn't just today, but rather almost every time I check the list. I think it's been getting worse, too. Has anyone else noticed this? Ardric47 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "ineligible for deletion"? Like user pages or portals? · rodii · 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ineligible" probably wasn't the best word. I was referring to articles that pass the various notability guidelines (even the guidelines that are ironically cited as reasons to delete). Ardric47 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not ironic!!! — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus, I don't see how one can stop others making bad nominations. - Liberatore(T) 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Earlier this week, I removed prod from Saul Fathi. The reason given was "nn author, fails WP:BIO". In fact, Fathi passes WP:BIO. It is ironic that the supposed justification for deletion was actually a justification to keep the article. Ardric47 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now it's clear. The ground for the nomination was that the article didn't make evident why the subject passed WP:BIO. In other words, it said "author of stories" but didn't clarified that he is a published author. - Liberatore(T) 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, maybe that's ironic. Maybe. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Thoughts 

message: Could this page have an obvious link to the list of Prod'd pages, please! (Don't like to add one myself, in case I stuff up).JackyR 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean This page? I can't figure out how to link to it, either! Fake User 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can link it like this :Category:Proposed deletion which shows up as :Category:Proposed deletion. Hope this helps. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, just go to CAT:PROD to review them.  What's the problem? --Rory096 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prior tabular list format had much more information, including how many had reviewed the page and a summary of the reason for nomination. By comparison categories are nearly useless for this purpose — I just don't have the time to go through every single page. It's unrealistic. — RJH 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the toolserver was very useful, but it's not replicating correctly right now, so we have to make do with what we've got. --Rory096 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but you could just prod an article and follow the category given at the bottom. --Rory096 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link... 

message: Much of the userbox controversy might be resolvable if there were an inline version of  for templates. I've drafted one at . There is also a technical issue. Ideally, there would be a category which would, if :template:Blah were to be marked with , would include  but not the pages it's used on, or  itself. I have not yet solved this. Septentrionalis 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tprod 

message: Following the link from the  to here. What was the change in policy? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the switch to subst'ing the prod template. From the page's history: "23:43, 2 May 2006 King of Hearts (→Nominating a proposed deletion -  (now we're using subst:))". -- JLaTondre 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in policy or guideline 

message: If anyone reading this is looking through this talk page because you have been looking through proposed deletions for bad prod's, consider joining WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling, where like-minded individuals are attempting to coordinate their efforts.  Thanks!  Mangojuicetalk 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, patrollers! 

message: Okay, so I know one of the problems with the prod system is that people can remove them with no edit summary or talk discussion.  Would it be worth a compromise, perhaps, that, like speedies, the creator of an article is not allowed to remove the prod, and if they do, it can be added back?  One would imagine, at least in theory, that many of the removed prods are by people who created the articles. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone (even the creator) removes the prod template, then it is controversial. Ardric47 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And speedies are non-controversial, too, but that rule is in place there.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think speedies are non-controversial "by definition," since a page that meets the criteria for speedy deletion is considered to be unworthy for inclusion. Prod is based on opinion. Ardric47 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting interpretation.  I disagree with it, but it's a legitimate argument. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think the creator (or anyone, really) should need to provide a reason for removing the prod template for it to "stick". If they can't think of a reason why they're removing the template, it's harder to buy that it's so controversial.  --W.marsh 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, if we force people to give reasons, we will just get vacuous reasons ("This is important and should stay") instead of no reasons. Nothing gained, except instruction creep. Henning Makholm 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: From WP:CSD: When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy.  It's meant to be uncontroversial. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "When there is reasonable doubt about whether a page does [fall under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion]" - the CSDs are meant to be "sufficiently obvious"(as I said above), not "uncontroversial" - Where there is controversy over the applicability of a criteria, CSD should not be used - but when there is any other type of controversy, CSD still remains a valid option.  It's a subtle, but important point. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  issues with removal 

message: When this article says uncontroversial, what does that mean?  Morton devonshire 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That wouldn't be my take on it. I think this would be a good point to go back to the beginning and look at the first few sections in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 1. The idea then was that a PROD deletion had to be truly uncontroversial--that is, if even one person objected, for any reason, it was controversial and wouldn't be deleted. At the time, a number of people thought this essentially meant no article would ever be deleted because there would always be someone to champion it, but we gave it a try, and lo and behold, many deletions turned out to be truly uncontroversial. Anyway, the "official" definition of uncontroversial as it applies to PROD is: a deletion that not a single person will object to for any reason. · rodii · 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I actually think that your take and my take aren't very different. If not even a single person would object (your take) then it would have been deleted via AfD with a string of "delete, delete, delete" (my take).  Joyous! | Talk 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative. I was thinking more of Morton up there, who may see your answer as indicative of... groupthink, or something--and wanted to point out that there was also a purely procedural answer. · rodii · 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Darn. I was gearing up for a good argument. Joyous! | Talk 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, it's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here. · rodii · 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "uncontroversial" 

message: Does "Can be deleted after 5 days" mean 120 hours, or at any time on the 5th calendar day after listing? I don't understand how, under the former definition, the category for May 18th could have vanished by 1400 on the 23rd. This appears to have been the case on all but of the past few days, I think last Saturday was the only exception. Does somebody just eagerly flush out the category at midnight? Deizio talk 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be 120 hours. See "PROD times" section just above for some recent discussion. · rodii · 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 days or 5 days? 

message: Kindly don't take offense to this, but...
The current implementation of proposed deletion (using categories) appears to me to be more cumbersome and much less scalable than AfD. Now a reviewer has to visit every single page to determine suitability, a very cumbersome, time-consuming process. I much prefer the AfD process where the reviewer can at least read a summary of the reason for nomination and has some indication of trends by other reviewers.
I tried out the new category scheme today and it took an average of over an hour per day to go through a day's entries. (Including typical slow WP upload time.) Compare this to a typical 10 minutes or less for a daily review of AfD. I'm also finding pages that to me seemed inappropriately nominated for proposed deletion, perhaps in an attempt to bypass the tighter scrutiny offered by AfD. :-/ — RJH 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that too (#Latest Thoughts). Ardric47 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been steadily going through these lists the past few days and I'm finding a lot of pages that would be controversial if presented on AfD. It looks like this is being used as a tool to get rid of pages that individuals may find non-notable. I.e. in the hope that others find it too cumbersome to bother. So I feel it is quite reasonable to object to any page that I think might survive an AfD. (Yes it is still a pain in the backside to go through this list and I'm hoping it will get dumped at some point. But for now I think it needs lots of aggresive gate keepers.) — RJH (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling. Ardric47 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes well that's something. But it still doesn't address my main concern, which is that this approach may actually be less scalable than AfD. What this does is require every viewer to review every single article, without learning the viewpoint of other reviewers. I find this to be a tremendous time-saving aspect of AfD, allowing me to focus on articles that have only a few reviews, or to check for mistakes by past reviewers. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefer AfD rant 

message: The current three-step procedure tells readers how to propose deletion. I propose to add another step to tell them why (not) to propose deletion. It is step 1 in the following (steps 2, 3, and 4 are the present procedure):
*If you think that an article is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion:
*#Consider whether the article might be better on a different Wikimedia project. Many articles that violate WP:NOT are perfect for Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource, or another sister project. Do not propose deleting these; instead, propose transferring them through the Transwiki process. After the transfer, deletion is often non-controversial and can be handled by proposed deletion. 
*#Review the article's history to confirm that it has not been recently vandalized. If it was recently proposed for deletion before, nominate it for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you think it should be deleted.
*#Add  to the top of the main article page. Use an informative edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
*#Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use  ~~~~ for this.
Fg2 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a fourth step 

message: I think the line "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason..." would be better if it read something along the lines of "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason (or for no given reason)..." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tweak 

message: A reality-based hypothetical question. As the page says not to reinclude the prod tag, even if it's removed in bad faith, it can be listed in articles for deletion? By removed in bad faith, I mean ignoring the tag, sweeping it under the rug et cetera, even if the article is blatantly non-notable...
So if the prod tag stays for five days, the article gets deleted without a discussion? So it's sort of halfway between speedy and AfD? Can one nominate for AfD directly after a prod tag is removed, if it's clearly not notable? </trainofthought> --Dane ~nya 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, I have prodded articles, then when the original author challenged them I took them to AfD, which resulted in a delete vote. This seems a perfectly acceptable way of doing things to me - you're starting off by asking those with a vested interest in the article if it's notable, then if you and they disagree you ask for input from the community at large. If it goes through AfD with a keep vote, then end of story (at least for a few months). Mike Peel 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thank you. Just needed that cleared up, because I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, and proposed deletion in particular. --Dane ~nya 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. By PRODding an article, you're basically saying "I don't think anybody objects to deleting this". If someone removes a PROD, that means they're saying that yes, they do object. So you have a disagreement, and it's not unreasonable to seek wider input on that disagreement. That would be AFD, where the article is examined and discussed by more people. >Radiant< 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts, and removing prod 

message: I thought that WP:PROD used to say that if an article had been PROD'd but anyone removed the PROD tag, that article could never be PROD'd again. Anyone wanting to get the article deleted after the PROD had been removed once would have to go to WP:AFD.
But I don't see that mentioned on this page anymore. Was it intentionally removed? --Metropolitan90 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article can only be PROD'd once ... right? 

message: Are editors other than those who left a prod tag on an article allowed to remove it?  This sounds like a cut-and-dried yes but there is debate on this going on at User_talk:Madchester#The Amazing Race, User_talk:Evrik#The Amazing Race and Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. Can someone please advise me on this so we can stop the argument? Thanks! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but doing so without addressing the concern which lead to the prod is unhelpful.  However if there's disagreement, you can always take it to WP:AFD- prod is aimed mostly at uncontroversial deletes.  Friday (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with Friday's explanation is that it presumes the concern which led to the prod was a valid concern.  If someone thinks the prod tag was invalid, then simply removing it is OK.  As you say, if the original tagger (or anyone) wishes to pursue the matter, they can take it to AfD. Johntex\talk 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are editors allowed to remove a prod tag? 

message: We have speedy templates , , etc. Maybe we should have some prod templates for frequently-used reasons: , , , etc.
*Advantages:
**Easier for experienced users to prod articles with common problems
**Encourages use of prod over AfD
**The templates will have more complete explanations than the typical prod reason, which makes it easier for new users (or non-editors) to understand why their/an article has been prodded
**Better user warning messages (like , but for prod)
*Disadvantages:
**People may overuse these templates, much like  is currently overused.
**Some users may not realize they can supply their own explanation.
Comments would be appreciated. --N Shar 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some standard reasons to my user-script prodder a while ago, and then removed them again. I just wasn't using them enough; prod reasons are a lot more varied than speedy reasons. --ais523 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created , which I think is preferable to just giving a reason of "nn"... Addhoc 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific prod templates: PROPOSAL