Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 5

message: What should I do about something like ?  This is a prod tag which was removed by somebody who appears to be a vandal.  User:Fishmonk is a brand new account and all of his edits to date are vandalism.  The rule says that if anybody removes a prod tag, you can't put it back, but does that rule apply if you think the removal was just plain vandalism?  It sure seems like that should be an exception.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take it to AfD, I say. Anything else is instruction creep. A few months ago this was the first option, now it's the second. It's no big deal. · rodii · 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only time a prod can be added back is if (1) it was removed by a banned user, (2) it was replaced by the user that removed it, or if (3) it's likely that the user removing the prod tag made a mistake (for instance, if someone removed a prod to add a speedy tag, and then an admin de-speedied it, it would be reasonable to readd the prod tag, I think).  Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At WriteMark, a user replaced the entire article (including the PROD tag) with the text "this page should be deleted". I reverted this vandalism, but I do not construe it to be a contesting of PROD deletion, as he plainly wanted to delete the article. Accordingly, the PROD stays on. If possible, we ought to look at the intent of the person deleting the PROD tag when deciding whether or not re-adding it is appropriate. Sandstein 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Sanstein that context matters, but I'd always fall back on the rule of thumb: if there's any doubt, take it to AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree (with both of the above). In the case of blanking or whole-page vandalism, I would say that hardly counts as a contribution. · rodii · 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On a slightly related matter, what if an entire article including prod is blanked by an anon user? Should that be considered a prod contestation or just a simple revertible article blanking? Fagstein 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is blanked without comment, the best solution is to restore it exactly as it was before the blanking, including any tags. If there's an edit summary that raises a question (e.g. "this page should not be deleted!"), send it to AfD. BD2412 T 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a practical reason, I think we should allow the blanking / near-blanking of an article to be reverted even if this re-adds the prod tag.  In most cases, such an action would be an endorsement of deletion (from someone who doesn't understand how deletion works on WP) or simple disruption (such as replacing an article with "penis" or something).  The reason I say "for a practical reason" is that bots will revert that kind of edit, which amounts to them re-prodding something.  I see no way in which this breaks the spirit of the PROD policy, so maybe we should explicitly allow it.  Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal removing a prod tag -- what now? 

message: In my patrolling efforts lately, I've come across a fair number of articles that have been proposed for deletion on the basis of copyright violation issues.  It's been my opinion that it's okay to use prod in this way, as long as the copyrighted stuff is also removed.  Generally, I've been tagging such articles with , just in case the prod doesn't go through, but I wonder what others think about this.  Also, I don't think WP:PROD is too clear on when to use prod vs. copyvio for copyright violations.  Any thoughts?  Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio and worthiness of inclusion are two separate things. I don't think prod should be used for copyvio. If it's a copyvio, it should be marked as a copyvio (or the copyvio text removed if possible). If it's unworthy to be an article, prod should be used. If both, then both could be used, but as most copvios end up deleted (vs. permission given), I'd personally just use copyvio and then if it's resolved follow up with prod. -- JLaTondre 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod does not immediately remove content like the copyvio procedure. The copyvio procedure should almost always be preferred for copyvio, unless there's reasonable cause to believe that permission will be given, for example if the author appears to be affiliated with the source. Even then I'd probably stick with copyvio for uniform procedure. Deco 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio vs. Prod 

message: Although WP:PROD explicitly excludes this approach, I went ahead and marked Template:James Badge Dale for proposed deletion anyway.  It was only used in James Badge Dale (which I just cleaned up a bit), and if you look at the template's contents, it wasn't structured in a way that would make it useful to include in any other article.  That makes it a template in name only, thus I had no qualms about technically violating the policy.  Whether others have qualms remains to be seen. :-) Thanks. 66.167.137.91 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumed that a template for use in a single bio could use this process 

message: I have a question regarding the prod template. What is to stop somebody from posting prod on a page but giving the template a different date? I.e. manually copying a prod from a different page that has the date set to the last day of the current cycle? I'm assuming, hypothetically, that the person in question wants to skip any reviews and just have the page automatically dumped, for whatever reason. (Not that I'd do that myself, of course. :) — RJH (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing admin is supposed to check the date of tagging, also because policy required the tag to stay for 5 days continously. - Liberatore(T) 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there's a way to automate the check with a daily batch job? I.e. if the prod template revision date doesn't match the category date the entry gets flagged. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I developed a script, indeed (see next section). I plan to run it once in a while (maybe once a week is enough), possibly posting the results automatically. - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On average, there is about 1 mis-dated prod a day. I'm taking care of it myself, but also requested permission for posting the list of these articles automatically, for when I'm not around. - Liberatore(T) 11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting as earlier date 

message: It seems that some prod'ed articles actually managed to escape deletion in spite of being tagged before five days ago. I run a script, which resulted in the following list (which is in a way surprisingly short!):
* A_Street_Downtown
* Headso
* User:Lucacolla
* User:Tumble-Weed
* User_talk:Tumble-Weed
* World_freedom_day
I'd not care much of the user pages, but there are three mainspace articles in this list. Two escaped because the prod removal was reversed (which should not have been done), and the remaining one had a date moved into the future. Formally, these three articles should be taken to AfD (since the prod was contested, in a way or another), but I am inclined to delete the first two right away (the prod tag was there for >5 days continously on them). - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: World freedom day was a improper restoration of a prod after it had been removed. I fixed the article as it was a bogus, but the title was real. Someone who has the time should check the other two articles for prod removal & reverts as I bet that's the most likely reason how they got through. -- JLaTondre 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the Tumble-Weed pages won't actually be prodded until almost a thousand years from now, according to the prod templates. All three user pages are just self-vandalism of a very low order--all the users' edits are of those pages, and all the edits on the pages are by the users. The other two (A_Street_Downtown and Headso are past their prod sell-by dates and might as well get deleted. I think the moral is, if you prod an article, keep it on your watchlist in case people dink around with the dates. · rodii · 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod is not for use outside the article space - user pages are dealt with through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. BD2412 T 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that. My point above was that the users prodded themselves, with bizarre dates (3000 AD in two cases). So, user space or not, they're not really prods, even though they show up in the prod categories. The other two (I'm not including World freedom day here), which are in mainspace, have had their dates changed but are well past their actual five days. · rodii · 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run-away prods 

message: I prodded Suzuki Motorcycle Naming Conventions, five days elapsed, and the article was not deleted after that time.  However, after the five days were up (i.e. after 120 hours), User:Spacepotato removed the prod claiming that WP:NOR did not apply, because it only applied to novel theories about science or history.
Ignoring the fact that it was misinterpretation (NOR applied because it was one user's clearly stated idea of what the letters meant from their own research, and that was in fact the main point of the article), the five days were up, and technically the prod was removed too late. 
I sent the article to AfD, but in this (or any) case where the requirements for the prod to be successful have been fulfilled, would it then be appropriate to send it to speedy instead of AfD, or bring the deletion to somebody's attention?  I will also note that said user who removed the prod has made no comment on the AfD as of yet.
In a similar vein, there seems to be a real issue with people removing prods and not giving any reason.  In that case, can the prod be replaced? MSJapan 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle is that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. So any controversy stops immediate deletion, regardless of whether reasons are given or not, or whether five days have elapsed or not. PROD-deleted articles can even be recreated without being subject to speedy deletion. That's what the policy is - personally, I'd favour some more stringent rules such as discounting the creator's opinion. Sandstein 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to re-phrase that, maybe as "discounting the creator's 'vote'"? Establishing notability often requires a creator to state and justify their opinion, which may be deemed valid. If it's not valid, that too will be obvious. It's not necessary to debar the creator to decide this. Btw, have you seen #Letting submitters rm  above?JackyR | Talk 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relates to the above, but a serious policy question as well. 

message: Not to bang on about this, but I'm still confused as to how (using today as an example) the prod category for June 2 has vanished by 0230 UTC on June 7, when there should still be 21 hours, 30 minutes of prods from June 2 patiently waiting for their 120 hours to elapse. Who flushes out the cat at midnight? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People with time-zone difficulties I suppose. Or those that get confused when they count to 5...which is easier than it seems when you're quickly counting '5' days: 2 — 3,4,5,6,7, ok, I can delete it. (Obviously wrong.) -Splash - tk 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most easterly zone on earth is still barely into mid afternoon at 0230 UTC. And admins should know the story with UTC (and be able to subtract 5 from x without using their fingers). I enjoy flushing prods as much as the next man, but it's been a while since I found a correctly tagged / dated one that had actually got to 120 hours. If only the speedy backlog was attacked with such zeal. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old system (on the toolserver) didn't have this problem because the number of hours remaining was explicitly stated. How hard would it be to make some sort of template to calculate this now? Ardric47 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a try. I think that using :Template:Prod-jn (which uses :Template:Dated prod-jn under the hood) instead of :Template:Prod does the job. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All you have to do is ask and it will be undeleted, no questions asked. · rodii · 12:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  120 hours? 

message: A proposal:  Anyone can remove a  by itself.  But the article creator isn't allowed to remove .
 indicates that a second editor concurs with the deletion.  
The article creator alone shouldn't be able to override that.  It should take at least one third party who wants to keep the article.  If there's any further disagreement, AfD is necessary. This would be enough to speed up the deletion of articles considered of value only by their creators.  --John Nagle 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this would be all that useful.  I'm not a big fan of endorsed prods, they're extra work for what's supposed to be a streamlined process.  This just doesn't seem like it would get used often enough to bother, even though the principle is sound.  NickelShoe (Talk) 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree with Srieffler. Prod is fine as a quick preliminary to AfD, but as a whole parallel system would be a nightmare. JackyR | Talk 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Tony. Don't let this get bogged down with more and more lists of things to do. I know it seems that the article's creator is always going to remove the tag, but look at any Day 5 list at :CAT:PROD. There are around a hundred articles every day that have been PRODded and not contested by anyone--not even the creator.  Joyous! | Talk 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also strongly encourages sock-puppetry. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need a "rule" either, but if I say I agree with a prod and someone removes that, I would just revert them.  Has anyone actually seen this happen?  Also, I usually use  so I can give extra justification, and I wouldn't want to see that removed. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letting submitters rm <nowiki>{{prod2}}</nowiki> 

message: Normally, I would have been bold, but as this is official policy, I thought I'ld check here first before making the change... In the "Nominating a proposed deletion" section, point 3: is it allright if I add four '~' after the tag? We have to add them anyway when using this, and I often forget it when copying a tag. It would make my life (and perhaps of other users as well) easier, and I can't see nany disadvantages. Fram 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not supposed to add the signature after the prod tag. (Liberatore, 2006) 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear: I don't mean on the prod tag, but on the Prod Warning on someone's user page. Fram 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Point 3... My mistake, sorry. I have no problem with that, then. (Liberatore, 2006) 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a subtle point, but auto-adding 4-tilde signatures generally screws up editing the page where they are added(i.e. they become real signatures when the page is edited), and if they are in nowiki tags, then they don't work when you want them to.  AFAIK, no workable solution has been found so-far. Feel free to expirment in your user space, but please don't do it here until you have a working model that has been throughly tested as not having the problems older solutions have had.  Thanks for asking. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it alone, as I don't want to screw up pages, but I assumed that, since it seems to work quite well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (how to... point 2), it could be done here in a similar manner. But as I'm not good enough at this yet, I'll leave it alone. If someone comes along who knows how to do this in a reliable way, be my guest! Fram 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JesseW is talking about a different thing (adding the four tildes in the template, while you are asking to add them here). I have added them. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgotten to reply before, although I noticed the change. Thank you very much! It makes life a bit easier... Fram 10:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you - sorry about my misreading.  Yeah, adding a nowiki'ed 4-tildes to a copyable "template" that should have a sig is nearly always a good and helpful thing.  My mistake. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small change proposed 

message: Here's the problem:
* User A creates a dictdef substub.
* User B slaps it a speedy tag.
* I (user C) can't easily find the article's offense from CSD, so I put it on PROD instead.
* Then out of blue comes user D, who from all guesses isn't a professional vandal or anything (less than five edits over a longer time, all of them, apart of this one, seemingly appropriate), and goes on to blank the entire article. No edit summary, nothing.
So what exactly was that D was doing? Simple vandalism? Well, article blanking is that, right? But it also didn't seem like vandalism, just a half-baked attempt at hinting "this article should be deleted". Argh!
My "common sense" indicator here should peg this on "just revert the thing and let it get deleted", but I'm being bugged by the "removing PROD notice for any reason" thing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my gut says revert it because it's a page blanking which is vandalism. BJK 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Previous discussion here (see Vandal removing a prod tag -- what now? above for one example) has pretty consistently said that blanking is not a vote for keeping the article so reverting the blanking (with an appropriate edit summary) is acceptable. Less experienced editors sometimes confuse blanking with deletion. On a related note: I have seen page authors blank their article after it has been tagged as a prod. In that case, I've tagged it as  with a comment of blanked by creator after prod. It's always been accepted as a speedy delete. -- JLaTondre 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been pretty hardcore about not replacing a PROD tag in any circumstances, but the page-blanking issue has pretty much convinced me that exceptions can be made. So I would say reverting a blanking is OK, and I like  JLaTondre way of dealing with creator-in-a-snit blanking. · rodii · 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is probably fine, but I'd ask that if the blanking is done and not reverted for any significant time, the prod tag should NOT be put back.  The tag needs to be there for 5 days to give people a chance to look it over... and I don't think changing the date or time is appropriate.  It should be no big deal to send something to AfD, anyway.. PROD still saves plenty of time.  Mangojuicetalk 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A philosophical quandary 

message: Could the guidelines be updated to ask deleting admins to state the reason for deletion (as given by the nominating editor) in the deletion log?  I see many log entries that simply read expired prod or similar, leaving no clue behind as to the reason (and with prods there are no AfD discussion archives or similar to provide the explanation). Linton 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already says that, and that's what admin deletion guidelines already say, IIRC.  Getting people to actually do it is a different story. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Linton here. I like checking deletion logs to find out why something got deleted, and it annoys me that with prods I have no way of finding out. Or is there a way? See my comment in a new post below. Carcharoth 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion summary should state prod reason 

message: A case came up today in which an article was prodded (rightly in my opinion) but the edit was marked as minor. This issue had never occurred to me before, but it seems to me that marking it minor might be construed as trying to "sneak" the proposed deletion past people who don't watch minor edits on their watchlists. It seems more transparent not to do this. Not sure if we need anything in the guidelines about such a "minor" issue (ha), but I thought I'd toss the question out there and see if anyone has any thoughts. So, thoughts? · rodii · 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like for AfD, the nomination edit shouldn't be minor and the edit summary should clearly state that the edit is part of the deletion process. However, some people have the "mark edits minor by default" flag set, so if the edit summary is clear, I'd assume that was a mistake. (Liberatore, 2006). 14:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not concerned about that particular edit, mistake or not, but endorsing the general principle you lay out there. If you do something like this, it should be as visible as possible. Does this need a note on the project page? · rodii · 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project page already says "Use an informative edit summary.". But yes, I'd endorse making that more precise. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, added. · rodii · 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: In patrolling CAT:PROD, I've come across lots of redirects that are marked with PROD.  Technically, PROD is not supposed to be for redirects (it says so right at the top!) but generally I've been letting them slide.  I know it's outside of policy to delete redirects via prod, but can someone tell me if there's a reason it would be a bad idea?  Could we change that part of the policy?  Mangojuicetalk 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the redirect still work with the prod in place? If it does, we may miss out on people who like the redirect to exist, but does not notice that it was proposed for deletion. On the other hand, if the redirect does not work with the prod, I think it conflicts with the idea of prod as a low-disruption process. Henning Makholm 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the prod tag is added properly, above the redirect, the redirect will not work.  But this is no different from what happens with the  tag.  Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, for an RFD to be valid, it has to be listed at WP:RFD so even if the  is applied after the redirect it still gets a review & mistagged nominations will get corrected. Those that aren't listed at WP:RFD will eventually get noticed in :Category:Redirects for deletion and either get rejected as malformed or listed correctly. -- JLaTondre 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If a redirect is a candidate for deletion, we might want to provide fair warning to readers that it's been called into question, so putting it above the redirect makes sense. I would not suggest expanding PROD to redirects though. Deco 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a previous discussion on this - see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 3#Redirects. I still feel my comments at that time are valid. WP:RFD is low traffic (even less than prod) and the criteria for keeping redirects is different than articles. Redirects should be left to WP:RFD. Especially if the prod deleter isn't aware of issues like keeping edit history of merged articles for GFDL compliance and orphaning deleted redirects. -- JLaTondre 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with JLaTondre; redirects don't take the same amount of time at RFD to decide as AFD does, and keeping them in one place makes it harder to slip one "under the radar". Sure, there's been a lot of CNR bruhaha over at RFD lately, but otherwise the traffic there doesn't seem in need of this fix/expansion of scope for PROD. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD on redirects 

message: I thought that PROD was great when it was on the toolserver. But now, it's dangerous and broken.
With just the categories, you can't readily see the reason for the deletion nor how many editors have reviewed it. This is absolulutely critical. You also can't see the whole list at once, only by day, or who made the PROD.
The whole point of PROD was that it was easy to review. I have pulled several PRODs (mainly to send to AfD). It's very much harder to review now. You have to go into each article to see what its about.
PROD needs to be removed as a process unless some fix is found. Herostratus 05:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has patrolled prod mainly since after the toolserver went down, I can say it's not that bad once you get used to it.  I have popups activated, so I can float over the articles and at least get an idea what the article is about, even if it doesn't always show me the prod reason.  You can see the whole list at once: :Category:All articles proposed for deletion.  You have to go into the edit history to see who put the prod on, although occasionally some people sign their comments.  As to knowing if other editors have reviewed, there are the  and  templates.  Also keep in mind every prod is reviewed by an admin at the end anyway.  Mangojuicetalk 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's certainly not a bad thing to actually look at the article before figuring to delete it or send it to AfD, is it?  And you had to go into the article anyway to remove the prod.  I'm patiently waiting for the toolserver to come back, too, but this hasn't been a horrible adjustment on this end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do miss the toolserver version, though. Any chance of a status update? · rodii · 15:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Even without the toolserver, PROD is valuable -- every uncontested deletion via  PROD helps reduce the clutter in AfD and saves the time and attention of editors which could be much more valuably used elsewhere. --MCB 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, but the whole thing worries me quite a bit. I mean, I've worked on speedies and I think an appalling number of them, like easily 10%, shouldn't even be deleted at all, certainly without a vigourous AfD. I don't think the deleting admins even read them - I've had two speedied articles with ((hangon)) tags deleted while I was working on them recently. It's all well and good to reduce the clutter in AfD but I worry. But I'm glad y'all are patrolling so I guess it's OK. Herostratus 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD is broken and should no longer be a policy 

message: What happens when an article which has survived AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything Linux) - is then 'ed (happened to be while I was away so I didn't notice), and deleted?  Am I allowed to recreate it? -- Chuq 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should never have happened.  I've undeleted it.  Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod'ing an article that previously survived AFD 

message: I'm not sure whether this would be considered vandalism, or an actual contested PROD. For the moment, I've just rolled it back, but I'd be happy to take it to Afd if necessary.  Joyous! | Talk 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he did sound like he objected to the deletion.... 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or contested PROD? 

message: I have generated a list of articles nominated for deletion at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It's ordered by date of nomination, and the reason is reported in the list. If it is considered useful, I can keep it updated by a bot. (Liberatore, 2006). 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is almost identical to the toolserver one, which is neat.  I personally like it - how often is it updating at the moment? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the script is run manually. It could be scheduled to be run maybe 4 times a day or once an hour, I guess. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd check w/developer types before scheduling it to run because I'm not sure how much of a server hit something like this is, but I like it a lot.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. This is absolutely useful and my opinion almost essential to making Prod work properly. I would absolutely schedule it run as often as the developers allow. Thanks! Wow! Herostratus 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two or three times a day ought to be sufficient, but this is a GREAT resource. I was able to rescue several things from prod this way the other day, and have put it on my watchlist for when it changes...
Thanks folks! I have requested permission to run this function on a scheduled basis at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#DumbBOT, fourth function, and I am quite confident it will be approved (Liberatore, 2006). 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Prod'ed article 

message: I have seen deletion discussion on the Talk page happen after a prod; should this be mentioned on this page here? If the people watching that article agree that it should be deleted, then we have the same situation we have before with the prod, but without clogging up AfD. With amicable editors, it would be better for someone to bring it up rather than just removing prod, and they can still ultimately still remove it anyway if they want, but they shouldn't do it hastily. This would also result in more discussion about how to improve the article, again without the work that AfD adds. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Talk page 

message: I must have done something wrong here, and now it's getting sent to AFD on a technicality. I would suggest that this process needs a bit more work before we allow people to blindly follow it. --CharlotteWebb 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the prod tag; so the person who PRODded it accepted what amounted to a challenge and took it to AfD. One of you disagreed with the speedy, one with the PROD. There was nothing else left. (Perhaps a lesson in not removing deletion tags from things you want deleted?) -Splash - tk 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... Splash, I don't see why replacing PROD with SPEEDY could be interpreted as "I want this to sit on AFD for a week (if the speedy deletion is rejected)". I suppose it's sort of a gamble, but people should exercise a bit more common sense in that area. --CharlotteWebb 13:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to speedy something when another deletion process is already underway, add the speedy tag without removing the other deletion notice.  That way if the speedy fails, the other process hasn't been interrupted in any way. AfD isn't that much slower than prod anyway, and prevents tags from being switched back and forth--which restarts the prod date and makes prod take longer too. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antiquus&action=history] 

message: I think that the prod2 and prod2a templates should be mentioned on the main template page as usage or even within the template itself to "let the word out." — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. --A. B. 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that it's  that should be mentioned, since prod2 and prod2a have been merge/redirected there. -- SCZenz 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prod2 and prod2a 

message: I noticed that God's own county a redirect to yorkshire was proded and I attempted to remove it because prods are for articles and not redirects. I also decided to move the redirect in question to the article God's Own Country due to them being very similar. I have done both and the history section as well as the editing section confirms that to be the case but the page for the redirect itself still has the prod and the old target. Examining the history has shown that the prod and the target were not changed back later so I have no idea why they are still there. Finally, I tried saving the changes I made again and they appeared as they should (no prod new target) but as soon as I typed the term back into the search box everything that I removed returned with nothing in the history showing that it was reverted. Can someone look into this. Its fine now. Maybe it was cashed on my end.  --My old username 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with removal of prod 

message: Endorse prohibition against reprod. Don't bash somebody who innocently prods something that was prodded a year ago but reprodding undermines the noncontentious nature of prod and robs it of value. John Reid 13:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprod 

message: Crossposted message. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored Garion96 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: Is this category broken or something?
Today, Magnetic Events inc includes this category, but when you go to the category page - the article is not listed. (I hazard a guess, the same applies to other articles it's just that Magnetic Events inc is an article I prodded myself).
Any idea what's wrong?
Garrie 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably because the job queue was backlogged when you checked the category; it's fine now. (The job queue is sort of like a backlog for Wikipedia's servers; the categories don't change instantly, but have to wait for the servers to get round to it.) It's also possible that the servers didn't notice the change in prod-status of the page because they didn't have to reparse the page between when the article was prodded for less than 5 days and when you looked at it (most likely because nobody edited it and the cached version was used for views). Hope that helps! --ais523 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days]] 

message: From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod.  Thank you. —dgiestc 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy: Template prod 

message: The policy states that a contested proposed deletion should be listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if one sees a case, but also that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence over WP:PROD, This does not explain clearly whether or not a page can still be nominated for speedy deletion after the prod tag has been removed. --Tikiwont 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of clarity, yes, the policy should say that articles where prod has been removed can still be speedies (in the same way an article on afd can still be speedied). Tizio 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion after contested proposed deletion? 

message: As discussed on WP:LAP and the talk page of the deletion policy, said policy has been rewritten to clarify it and reduce redundancy and divergent policies. As a result, everything covered on this page is also covered there. Therefore, it is suggested that this page be merged and redirected. >Radiant< 14:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... merged and redirected to what? I don't see a mention of WP:PROD on WP:LAP. Perhaps you meant to post this elsewhere? Puzzledly, --MCB 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The information in WP:DEL is lacking much of this page, and while I feel this page should be linked to from there, redirecting this doesn't seem practicle.  As the recent poll re ATT has shown, there is not a lot of consensus about merging overlaping policies in to omnibus policies. — xaosflux Talk 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that WP:DEL lacks the information in this page; what in particular are yout alking about? I don't think that the WP:ATT situation is quite relevant here, since it's a very different issue. >Radiant< 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can sew WP:DEL contains only a short summary of WP:PROD, nor do I think that merging all or most of Prod's content into del would be agood idea. i oppose any such merge & redir at this time. DES (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Are you missing anything in particular? >Radiant< 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the case of WP:ATT is very relevant here - another group of policies that are undergoing a merge despite a lack of discussion or apparent consensus. I can see no discussion on WT:LAP or WT:DP and indeed it took me a fair while to find the 'discussion' here supporting it. I would have thought that after the shambles that was WP:ATT people would have been more careful about merging important core policies and encouraging the widespread discussion that should occur with such a change. I don't agree with this merge at all. The information at WP:PROD about what to do in a conflict is much more specific. Aside from that, it's much harder to find information about proposed deletion when it's been condensed into a sub-sub-heading on the deletion policy page. Quite frankly, I don't see how the solution to your claim that there are '...complaints that the deletion policies were too lengthy, complex and convoluted...' is to merge everything. Funny, I seem to recall a similar argument with WP:ATT. If policies are indeed being complained about because of their lack of clearness, then the solution is to improve them individually to clarify them, not to mass-merge the smaller pages into a giant one (and I suspect in the process losing meaning and information). User:Veesicle 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hmm, so if an editor removes the prod tag, you mustn't add it again?-Empyrycal 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; see the "Conflicts" section. Sandstein 07:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou ^^-Empyrycal 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: It would be better if we just use Afd instead of PROD. This gives non involved parties a chance to put their two cents into articles to try to save them. --Sefringle 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non involved parties already have a chance, they can remove the prod notice and hopefully also improve the article in question. AFD is already overfull. Garion96 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This was created to deal with the simple, obvious cases and reduce workload on AFD.  Anyone can keep an eye on prod and improve, rescue, or nominate for AFD cases that merit it; see Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling and :Category:Proposed deletion.  GRBerry 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just take comfort in the fact that prodded articles can be recreated.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What would probably improve this process is listing these articles on the appropriate subject-specific deletion lists, where the specialists would see them and recognize who is important. This would be helped enormously if the people who prod'ed wrote informative summaries. Not something like "It appears to me that the subject of this article isn't notable enough" but "non-notable Andorran violinist". This is particularly true of some of the more frequently occurring areas, such as wrestlers: "NN wrestler" directs attention to those who know, and the rest of us know we can safely ignore. Probably at least 25% of the current AfDs would be appropriate for this list, as they involve only a small amount of discussion. DGG 05:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we delete this policy