Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 2

message: The history page is reporting an error. —Whouk (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point proven. Is it really wise to rely on a system that's not built into the wiki for such an important part of regular wiki activities (deleting stuff)? enochlau (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The backup for the list of currently tagged articles is the category.  It's more of a hassle, but it does let people find out what is tagged.  The backup for the list of removed tags is the on-wiki archive, which is updated every hour by a bot.  It would mean we might miss a page that was added and removed between updates, but that's a small problem, and one that (I suspect) could be fixed after the fact with a properly written crawl through the RC log from the period in question.  Also, if the toolserver went down for a considerable time, we could just temporarily disable the process, by editing the template to include a warning, like: "This process is temporarily out of service.  Please use AfD instead."  We wouldn't be any worse off than we are now.  And if/when this gets widespread acceptance, support and a long period of use, I'm sure we could move the logs to the main servers. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software error 

message: Since another editor just told me their interpretation of the part about not restoring the prod tag didn't apply to the creator, I just added the text "including the article creator".  However, the wording is pretty ugly now, so if someone could come up with someone more elegant, that would be lovely. NickelShoe 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it from parentheticals to subpoints.  Still not so great, but I think it's better. NickelShoe 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What this process is NOT for

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

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

message: Is there / will there be any way to just show specific lists on proposed deletion... like... "proposed deletions from my watchlist".... which, is relevant to me since I have 6,600 pages watched and sometimes things fall through the cracks.  It'd be very nice I think. gren グレン ? 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that should be pretty easy to code, although I don't think it's done yet. I think it could be done with a bookmarklet that would load your watchlist and the PROD category, and just list their intersection.  I've droped a note requesting this on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts; that might help get it coded sooner. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Responded above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: It has been occurring that PROD templates have been added to articles currently under consideration at AfD (see Thievery for a recent example.)  Since the time for PROD is 5 days, and that for AfD is 7 days, adding a PROD within the first two days of an AfD discussion could result in an accidental deletion of the article under consideration before the AfD discussion was complete, no matter what the developing consensus was.
Adding PROD to an article currently up for an AfD discussion should be prohibited and admins should be warned not to delete any PRODded article that is up for AfD at the time the PROD expires. 
(Incidentally, I continue to oppose the use of PROD in all circumstances, for reasons I've exhaustively discussed above.)  Ikkyu2 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page already says A page flagged for both Proposed Deletion and WP:AFD should be dealt with in the latter process but it doesn't specifically mention that in the closing guidelines. Any editor should promptly remove a PROD tag found on an article at AFD. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. You cannot PROD an article that is currently in AFD or has ever been in AFD. It can only be used prior to use of AFD and should be removed if it ever enters AFD. Deco 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, AFD has the same time range (5 days) as prod, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And I'm pretty sure any admin looking at a prodded article will notice if there's an ongoing afd discussion. I don't actually think there's any need to prod an article that's already on afd, but it won't really create any additional problems. - Bobet 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD added to AfD'd articles 

message: I spend quite some time on the prod, and especially the page listing removed prod templates. What I observed was as follows: most prod templates were removed by deleting the articles, that is very good. But quite a number of prod templates was removed by the original authors or newbies not citing any reason. So now somedoby has to go over that list and re-add those articles to the same ol' AfD machine. The end result: people are working on three different pages now: list of articles with prod template, list of articles that got prod removed and the old AfD. Less work? I don't think so. (for the record, I like prod) Renata 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that for articles which should be deleted, and the tag is not removed, this makes less work.  People were working on lots more than 3 pages before PROD was suggested - WP:CP, WP:MfD, Wikipedia:Cleanup, Special:Recentchanges, not to mention actually writing the encyclopedia... ;-) There's no reason why the same people need to watch AfD, the current PROD log, and the removed PROD log, any more than those same people need to watch every change on RC to make sure no paragraph is wrongly deleted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only makes less work if people ignore the proposed PROD process, which is that editors will make a good-faith review of the article and remove the PROD notice where it is not appropriate.  Actually doing that is a lot of work.  Of course, where it is not done, total overall work is lessened, and the article disappears regardless of its merits. Ikkyu2 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Doing a good-faith review of an article, finding that it should be deleted, then nominating it for AfD, then having a number of other people also do such a review, and having them edit the nomination page to register their vote, then having an administrator edit the nomination page to close the vote, then have the administrator delete the page - this is a lot more work than the PROD process.   AFAIK, the PROD process is to do a good-faith review of an article, check that no-one seeing it on the log or seeing the page feels it should be kept for 5 days, then having an administrator do another good faith review of the article, then deleting the page.  This is less work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think you're right: PROD is less work than AfD when both processes are working the way they should.  It seems to me that the hard part of both processes is actually reviewing the article on its merits with respect to the nominator's concerns, though.  That takes time and effort, and it's in common to both tasks.  I'm beginning to come around to your way of thinking, though, in the sense that the extra work of recording, tabulating, and reviewing the results of those reviews is probably wasted for most of the articles on AfD.   I guess I'm late to the ball-game.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some practical observations 

message: I see that this tag is now being used to replace tags other than the AfD. I have found PROD tags with the following summary:
*Dictionary entry
*Page with no content other than the PROD tag
*nn, no content
Now it's quite clear on the project page that other delete tags should be used. 
Also, it seems to me quite clear on the project page that if the tag is removed then it should not be put back. Yet already I have found two occasions where an editor has tagged an article. The tag has been removed (no explanation or edit summary) and then replaced by the original editor.
Users need to read the full project page before using the tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the wording should contain something that reminds users that if something falls under speedy deletion criteria, it should be sent that way? enochlau (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have to note that PROD is not meant to "replace AfD" tags or otherwise.  It's meant to be a process for the deletion of articles which no-one who views them(or the log) for 5 days wants to keep.  Anyone is free to remove the PROD tag, and of course they can replace it with anything they consider correct, but there's no error in this case, just two people doing useful work.  I agree that it may be useful to note SD on the PROD tag, but in any case, we lose nothing particularly if someone merely has to notice the page on the PROD log, and properly re-tag it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit confict) It's already there in section 2.5 "Relation to other processes". People are just not reading it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a bigger emphasis on the proper usage of this tag in relation to other better tags. I've just deleted a recreated nn-bio that was tagged with a PROD. Please if you are going to use the tag then make sure that you have read the entire project page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: This worries me:
# AfD gets lots of attention but PROD can end up removing articles that are merely obscure.  An article on AfD automatically gets attention and maybe objections if someone thinks the article is worthwhile.  If someone adds PROD to an obscure article, maybe nobody notices for a while, and poof, gone.    
# I could see it getting rid of stubs for what might someday become useful articles even if they languish for a long time first.  See Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game for example, which was created as a stub as Ehrenfeucht game about 1.5 years ago and which received its first nontrivial edit just yesterday (plus it was renamed to where it was more likely to be found by an expert).  The stub is a useful placeholder and makes it much more likely to result in a substantial article someday, than if it had been deleted.  But the the topic is obscure enough (again, zero real edits in 1.5 years) that it could easily have been deleted without anyone noticing.  There used to be a really annoying practice (now modified somewhat) of misguided folks moving perfectly good encyclopedia stubs to Wiktionary because the stub only gave a bare definition of the term.  PROD is even more destructive, removing the stubs completely. 
# Speedies are at least reviewed by admins.  I'm imagining PROD-tagged articles to be (eventually) reaped automatically by a bot--if that's not the intention, then please say so in the description page.  So this becomes the first regular mechanism for losing good material with no human review at all.
# I think there should be a code patch that notes if an article has been PROD'd and had the PROD removed, to prevent it from re-occurring, if policy is to not re-PROD.
Anyway, PROD isn't necessarily all bad, but I think its latency should be longer than AfD, not shorter.  I suggest 14 days minimum.  Phr 10:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, there has never been any suggestion to automatically delete PROD'ed articles; I agree with you that that would be a terrible idea.  The only automatic deletions I've ever heard of was the semi-automatic bot that I used on the unsourced images, and even with that one I had to personally review the text in each image description page before it would be deleted. I agree that PROD makes it slightly more likely that valid but highly technical and obscurly written stubs may be deleted, and this is a detriment.  The basic answer to this is to review the log for articles that seem like that, and expand them with explanation of their notability(or just remove the PROD tag). I'd certainly support a patch that highlighted re-PRODed articles, if that were feasible. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble here is that obscure articles simply don't get checked that often, and stub creators often know nothing about the subject.  It's quite normal (for me anyway) to look for a Wikipedia article hoping to learn about a topic, and on not finding an article, leave a stub in the hope that someone will expand it some day.  But the stub often expresses just about everything I know about the subject.  I have no way to expand it and it's not necessarily so easy to check on it every 5 days.  And many such stubs I've left have in fact gotten Wiktionaried by editors who didn't know better, thus my concern about PROD.  Phr 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a difference needs to be made between moving stubs (i.e. to Wiktionary), in which case no information is lost, and deleting stubs, which is more serious.  While I can understand moving some really short stubs to Wiktionary, as it can be tricky to write a stub that shows the topic can be expanded if you don't know that much about it, I'm less convinced by the idea that we really have so many stubs that don't even justify why they would be looked up.  When you write your stubs, don't you mention why they are notable and important topics? (if they wern't, you wouldn't be looking them up, so they must be important (at least to you) in some way)  In that case, I would hope, it would be clear to either the original tagger, or the admin who closed it, or someone else looking through the category, that it was not uncontroversial.  The previously PROD'ed log is there - show me some obscure but notable articles that have been deleted... ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The policy is pretty clear that an admin still has to look at it and determine if it should be deleted, nothing is automatic.  It also appears that there are several well-known "inclusionists" that are being great watchdogs for this project making sure nothing slips through the cracks.  I think the good thing about PROD is that it seems to have actually resulted in a lot of articles being improved that would have otherwise sat dormant for a long time. Deleting the trash is a bonus. Peyna 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the most appropriate PROD period is, but I don't think PROD will reasonably result in obscure articles getting deleted - it's only intended for obvious deletions. If you look at it and can't tell whether it should be deleted, the reasonable action is to remove the PROD tag and maybe send it to AFD, even if you don't really understand it. I agree that we should never automatically delete PRODs, and that we should note re-PRODed articles for dePRODing and review of the infringing tagger. Deco 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 days doesn't seem anywhere near long enough 

message: Ok, I'm a new user and yesterday I created the page Toyota Aurion not knowing that someone two days before me made a very short article on the same car, titled Aurion. I've been checking all these various wikipedia pages on stuff about deleting, merging, redirecting, etc... but I don't know who exactly I have to approach.
My view on this is that the Aurion article should be deleted and become an automatic redirect to Toyota Aurion. This is because most if not all of the content in the article on Aurion is on the page Toyota Aurion with more detail. 
Also, all article entries of cars in wikipedia that I've browsed have the full name of the car, firstly the manufacturer name then followed by the model name. For this reason, I think that Aurion should be deleted and become an automatic redirect to Toyota Aurion
Because I'm still new to wikipedia, and don't know what exactly to do, could someone please help me and/or answer my questions?
Thanks in advance.
:Welcome to Wikipedia, 220.237.119.145! You obviously have put some thought into it, and your conclusion sounds right. You can turn Aurion into a redirect without deleting it, however; just replace the article's text with
 #REDIRECT Toyota Aurion
:For more information, see Wikipedia:Redirects.
:Also, just so we know who you are for next time, don't forget to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Have fun editing! —Wahoofive (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about redirecting and deleting... 

message: It may seem obvious, but this process requires monitoring by editors. Is there a way for the admin who cleans up the WP:PROD area to check whether a nomination has been reviewed by any of the participating editors? Or indeed a way for participating editors to just do a single click (to read the article) and for that click to be logged somehow? Maybe even have a link to click to move the article from WP:PROD to another page ("reviewed PRODs", for example). Maybe make this a tool to be used only by the editors watching the list? (Anyone else can just remove the PROD template.) If things don't get moved from WP:PROD to "reviewed PRODs", then the admin cleaning-up PROD either does the review or leaves it on WP:PROD until it does get reviewed. I just have this nightmare scenario that if ever the number of editors monitoring WP:PROD drops below a certain level, or they get overwhelmed, that things will slip through without being reviewed. In other words, where is the safety net? Will the admin cleaning up WP:PROD have the time to review every article carefully before deleting it? It would help them if they could know that at least one other person on "the watchlist team" has reviewed it. I haven't had time to read all of the above, so apologies if this has been covered. Carcharoth 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who tags the article and the deleting admin have to be two separate people, so that's something of a review process. Beyond that, you're just complicating the process. PROD is in this respect no different than AFD—on AFD, two or three editors can vote "delete" on an article and there's no review system to keep the article from being deleted. The problem is that we have too many deletion-worthy articles and too few people to extensively review them all anyway, so this less a problem with PROD and more a problem with Wikipedia. PROD helps solve this problem by getting rid of the obvious deletion candidates, allowing AFD to focus on the less obvious candidates. — Phil Welch 16:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I just feel that it needs to be made clear to admins cleaning up PROD that this is a crucial difference from AfD. In AfD, if there is no response, then the deletion wouldn't happen. Admins can (to a certain extent) clean up AfD on autopilot. They can't do that on PROD. In PROD, if there is no response the only person reviewing the deletion is the admin who does the deletion (you have to assume that the nomination might be mistaken). As long as the instructions to the admins cleaning up PROD make it clear that: (a) They may be the ONLY person (other than the nominator) to review the article, and hence must pay close attention; (b) they must be well-versed in the available options and reasons for deleting articles, and (c) If they have any doubt, send it to AfD or somewhere else. It shouldn't be assumed that because an article languishes on PROD, that it _should_ be deleted. It would be dreadfully easy to slip into that mindset. In other words, the mindset required for admins cleaning up AfD and PROD can be very different. I would say that inclusionist admins should review PROD and deletionists (editors and admins) should battle it out in AfD. And can the guidelines also restate, or point to, the checks and balances in place to prevent things going wrong - I would guess much the same as the checks and balances in AfD (rogue admins would be spotted quickly, roll-back funtions can undo deletes if need be). Carcharoth 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've suggested a clickthrough count on the toolserver for this purpose. Not sure if it'll happen. Deco 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heck yeah, it'll happen, it's a brilliant idea.  I'm just very busy with other things right now, but I'll get to this shortly.  Regarding current toolserver lag (12 hours), it's a side effect of the other database issues that Wikipedia had today.  Replication is down right this second , but Kate is getting it up and running now, and then the replication lag should slowly decrease over the next 12-36 hours.  In the meantime, Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Proposed_deletion may be a reasonable (real-time) approximation of the "current nominations" script.  --Interiot 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, didn't mean to be impatient. :-) Deco 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Would a clickthrough count distinguish between people randomly browsing but not making any decision (like I just did in PROD) and people thinking carefully about whether the article in question should be deleted. If not, this could make things worse! Something that gets a high clickthrough count could get deleted merely because the clickthroughs were made by people who ALL thought - "well, maybe, but I'm not sure" and then wondered away again, leaving the final decision to the admin cleaning up PROD. That admin might be swayed by the high number of clickthroughs to think that lots of other people felt it was OK to delete the article - when in fact they were unsure (yes, if people are unsure, they should remove the PROD template - but many people will default to the "do nothing" option if they are unsure). Carcharoth 11:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A brief moratorium on PROD deletions might not be a bad idea anyway, since there hasn't been much reviewing/deprodding going on today, I assume.  If a backlog collects because of the toolserver lag, that's probably a good thing.  Chick Bowen 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process relies on monitoring by editors 

message: I note that the mention of this page on the AFD template suggests that AFD is only for "controversial" deletion proposals; this page says it's for deletions which are not "contested". How can I, as a random editor, tell which deletions will be controversial other than by trying? There are a few obvious cases (previous AFDs, debate about validity on talk page, etc.) but these are rare. In most cases, any "controversy" will be from the author of the article, if they are still active on WP and have watchlisted their own article. 
Is it the intent (presuming this process becomes official) to have all (or most) articles go through PROD first and only go to AFD once someone removes the PROD tag? If not, can we start to develop some guidelines to help editors anticipate whether an article will be "controversial"? 
This question also applies to speedies. If an article is tagged for speedy, but the admin determines that it doesn't meet CSD, should they always (as they do now) send it to AFD? Or should it go here? Always or sometimes? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't tell if it's going to be non-controversial.  By sticking the  tag on an article, you're saying "I think the deletion of this article is non-controversial.  Does anyone disagree?"  If someone removes the tag, that constitutes disagreement, at which point you either agree the article shouldn't be deleted, or you run it through AFD. --Carnildo 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. You could say that the very purpose of PROD is to determine whether an article which you believe to be non-controversially deletable in fact is (in which case, it's deleted). Otherwise you either choose to take it to AFD where the controversy can play out, or you change your mind and let it stay. Regarding your last question, admin discretion - non-speedies marked as speedies can be either PRODs, AFDs, or keeps. Deco 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be best in some cases to leave the "process" open-ended.  Too many rules, procedures, etc. can make things less efficient and lose their effectiveness. Peyna 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So just tell people they can remove tag when claimed to be non-controversial.  I oppose this whole process as it stands.  Gene Nygaard 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Template:Prod does tell people "they can remove tag when claimed to be non-controversial", doesn't it? As of the current version, it says: "Remove this message when you've improved the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion, but please explain why you are removing it in the edit summary." This seems to be what you are asking for, yes?  Would you explain further what you object to? JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you tell what's going to be non-controversial? 

message: I've seen several articles (Shucks, Skin up, Surmised as much) which were already marked with , and now are doubled up with .  That seems like a bad combination to me.  WP:WINAD endorses the move tag over deletion.  Should something be added to the project page regarding this (ie, don't  the  articles; but move them instead?  I've held off on removing the  tags from those articles since it is irreversible, until a consensus forms one way or the other.  Neier 12:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Shucks and Skin up are already at Wiktionary, so they probably are PRODable.  The third one is not, and should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. Peyna 13:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I added: If you created the article, please don't take this personally. Instead, improve the article to the point it would obviously be one to keep.. Marking any article for deletion feels to the creator like knifing their baby; this is my attempt to soften the blow and let them know that the best thing to do about it is to make the article better. Feel free to change or remove it as is sensible - David Gerard 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me.  Maybe a link to WP:OWN would be a useful addition?  Friday (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, should we add a comment telling the creator not to remove the tag. Had this happen once with a new user. I ignored it since that article was a keeper. (after heavy editing by three more experienced users. : ) FloNight talk  20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section above entitled "Can article creators remove this tag?" Peyna 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for refreshing my memory. I remember reading it now. I was thinking about newbies that don't fully understand the situation. Probably the best solution is a personal note on a new users talk page explaining PROD. FloNight talk 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my template below regarding this. Deco 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie-non-biting addition to template 

message: I just had a look at this in action and it looks pretty awesome. I like the concept. Q: The "policy in a nutshell" prominently states that the prod template may not be re-added but what exactly stops that from happening? Moreover, if I run across a crap article, does this mean I have to interrogate its edit history to be sure it hasn't been previously prodded, before I do so? (And how will that be enforced, because it doesn't seem likely just yet.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should look at an article's edit history if you're planning to nominate it for any deletion in any case, so that you won't nominate a good article that just happened to have a vandalized version on top. If someone prodded it and another removed the prod tag but neither of them indicated that in an edit summary, re-prodding could still happen, but that's not the re-prodders fault and if the article stays prodded for 5 days, it should probably be deleted. The actual problem would be when someone continually prods an article while another person keeps reverting it. In those cases it's better to just put it in afd instead of edit-warring over a tag. - Bobet 14:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What stops this tag being added to an article more than once? 

message: The list is backwards. The newest prods are at the top and the oldest are at the bottom, and the hours listed on the right are largest for the newest ones. Can you please fix?  Deco 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in which way does this make the list "broken"? —Ruud 23:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's how it has always looked.  The hours countdown, and I should imagine the new ones are at the top to allow people to see what has been added since their last look quicker. Hiding  talk 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I thought the times were an age. That's why I expected the expired ones to be at the top and not the bottom. Everything makes sense now. :-) Deco 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is broken 

message: I've created Template:PRODWarning for (completely optional) warning of contributors whose pages you're deleting, explaining that you're proposing it be deleted, the reason why, and giving appropriate action for them to take. Please feel free to edit and/or give feedback. Thanks! Deco 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks rather nifty. I think the phrase "be warned" is a bit strong though. Might tone it down to just saying that it could still go to AfD, where they can be overrulled, not really a warning, more of an advisory. --Mathwizard1232 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only problem I see with the template is that when the "edit" link for the new section is clicked it opens the template for editing.  Not the user's talk page.  That's actually a rather serious problem.  James084 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the header until it can be fixed, since that is what caused the problem.  Peyna 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:PRODWarning]] 

message: I think we should make it clear... When this should be used. Should people go and place this when? Lets say there is an issue of , the article would then be not verified, the article would be a candidate for deletion. Recently this happened with my nomination of many article that where linked to the Template talk:Olympic games medal count?
What happened in the above case is that I didn't follow WP:PANIC and I wanted a solution. I didn't give enought time between one step and the other. As woohookitty said so elegantly on my user talk:CyclePat#It's simple Pat "Or in the case of the Olympic articles, putting them up for deletion when actually, you just felt like they should be sourced. You should *only* put articles up for deletion when you want them deleted...no other purpose."
May I sugest that we have a certain time spand between the process of placing a tag for WP:V or WP:CITE.  I think it would make wikipedia much friendlier place for the new comer. (unlike when I first got here). 
Now for merger of articles... I don't really think it's necessary to list anything on deletion. If you're merging you obviously need to delete one. Once a consensus has been reach... perhaps something formal like the afd then I think you should just be able to preferably 1) redirect or 2) delete.
:If you're merging, you should never delete one. Think about it - someone created the article in the first place, without knowing about the other one. Therefore if don't leave a redirect in place, someone will do it again. Add a few logical steps, end conclusion: Any article problem that can be resolved by merging should never see AfD or PROD. Stevage 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, GFDL requires that we keep the history, either by a history merge (which requires admin intervention) or by having the history at the redirect. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While it's a fine idea to lay out alternatives to deletion, determining exact processes and time spans for them is far too creepy for my tastes. android79 15:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... isn't this entire process about cutting down on the afd. We should hence go to the grass roots. Where does it all start? I find it a little funny and kinda of ironic considering this entire process is all about a type of creepy, don't you think? --CyclePat 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I do undestand your point. At least we should enumarate some process that should be taken before hand. And talk about the standard/usual amount of time that it take. (a suggestion so peopel keep cool and keep afd away for a day!) --CyclePat 15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current set of "rules" for when prod is appropriate are more than sufficient.  If you think it is an uncontentious candidate for deletion and beyond all hope, then you put the prod tag on it.  If another editor thinks differently, they remove the tag.  Poorly written articles and transwikis are never uncontentious deletions.  Transwikis become an uncontentious deletion after they are transwikied, and in that case can be properly speedied. Peyna 16:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone knows that. And if that's the case say it don't just beet around the bush. --CyclePat 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But, If I read between the line, you've allready got your mind set on theses rules because supposedly this proposed policy is already being applied (Test Run). I can't blame you because ironically within the page itself we state that it is "difficult to change a process while it's running!". I think JzG is right... (not funny though... maybe for you, not for me) on that one... my barrow is getting heavy. I think you might as well nail me in right away. Let me hang until some Godly figure comes to take my place. Go figure... I'm either to late or to early... never on time. <mumbling discruntly> Excuse the assumptions here, but if that is your reason I find... and I think it is a little unerving, considering the enormous contradiction and irony that exists. --CyclePat 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List all the other processes that should hapen before hand! 

message: *I like the above.  I'm concerned that some of the data will be hard to obtain, especially the User satisfaction data. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Everyone, See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.  Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is nothing but an alternative deletion process.  I'm sorry, guys, I think this talk page and the article page is overloaded with issues and concerns already well settled on these two articles.  Go read them!  --Perfecto  22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're completely missing the point of this.  This is meant to be a parallel process to the established deletion processes.  You calling it an "alternative deletion process" is exactly the intent. Mo0[talk] 08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Guide to deletion 

message: I notice the list is a whole day out of date by now. Anyone know what is going on with the database syncing? It's usualy no more than a few hours behind most of the time. --Sherool (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, I see it to be 1 day, 6 hours out of date.  I don't like this; I think it ought to use a completely on-wiki based system, with maybe a toolserver running as backup.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current category-based "backup" system doesn't work.  You can't see which articles were recently added.  This is a serious problem, especially since we're now nearly a day and a half out of date.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't?  Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Proposed_deletion  --Interiot 06:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's helpful.  It's not great, though - it lists every edit to articles currently up for PRODding.  I'm sure you'd agree that having the toolserver back up would be better.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toolserver database lag 

message: I nominated Lucas Wynne for PROD on 11 February. An annoymous user blanked the whole article today. I reverted that, but am uncertain about how the PROD process covers a complete blank of the article. In my mind, that's not the same as removing the PROD template and is more a "vote" for deletion then for keeping. Anyone else have thoughts on that? Should it stay under PROD or should I send it to AfD? -- JLaTondre 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave the tag on; it'll reset the counter, but that's not particularly a problem - it's not a particularly urgent article to delete, is it?  I can't hardly see how deleting all the text of an article could be considered expressing a wish to Keep the article, so I see nothing wrong with leaving it in the PROD process. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slippery slope - but I agree.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't look like that actually reset the counter since it's been deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there was talk on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about treating blanking by the original author as a request-for-deletion-by-author, which is speediable. But with anons you never know. I think this is just a case of "use common sense": I don't think anyone is going to reasonably complain if you just restore the tag. Deco 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to note the situation in your edit summary when you restore the tag. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Blanking 

message: The toolserver script will now track the number of times someone clicks on an article.  Hopefully this will help make sure every article gets reviewed.  Currently, it ignores multiple hits from the same IP address. Unfortunately the replication lag is hindering use right now, but hopefully a toolserver admin will be available soon to fix it.  --Interiot 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, replication is back up, hopefully it will be able to catch up by tommorow morning some time this weekend.  --Interiot 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just hits from the prod tracker, unfortunately we don't have stats on individual articles.  No, meta robots isn't there yet, I'll add it.  I had the explicit numbers, but I dislike how, for instance, "1" and "7" are visually so similar, even though they mean significantly different things.  If articles start going much over 10, I'll probably shorten it down to "|", and if they go much over 20, I'll go back to numbers.  --Interiot 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I didn't realize that one plus sign meant one clickthrough.  You might want to put something like "+" = 1 clickthrough at the top of the toolserver page, for folks like me.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is really cool. Thanks for implementing it! I like the pluses personally, the visual difference is very strong, easy to scan down the column, which is important since they're sorted by time. Deco 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea. It is even more useful that it only tracks clicks from the log. It means somebody intentionaly reviewed the article rather than randomly gotten there. Thanks for implementing it. I only have one comment. It would be even more useful if table in log had terms explainded. Especialy Hits is not intuitively clear (it could also mean Google hits or something else). Also Hrs would deserve explanation (it was clear to me, but generaly abrevs should be explained).  --Jan Smolik 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, hours was not clear to me - I thought it was "hours since proposed". Deco 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit-tracking 

message: Are adminsitrators just deleting whatever they want to delete now? That was not the intention of this process! Merchbow 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, close, but not quite. The "Prod removed" list includes all articles which have previously had a tag but for one reason or another have had it removed, including articles that were PROD'd for five days, speedily deleted articles, and articles that were later deleted via AfD. It's just the link on the main page which is misleading. Nifboy 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the wording of the history view to be "Articles are listed once they are deleted, or have had the  template removed" to try to avoid confusion, but feel free to suggest alternative wordings.  (sorry the toolscript interfaces aren't editable)  --Interiot 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the articles which have had prod removed have been deleted! 

message: Where (how) can I protest a deleted prod? Before y'all throw dung at me, notice that I have tried to figure this on my own, but failed. --Ezeu 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First look up the page title in Special:Log/delete and talk with the admin who did the deletion, if you can convince him or her to undelete the page for whatever reason then fine. If the deleting admin disagree that it should be undeleted you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review, it is the place to go to contest "controversial" deletions. --Sherool (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I hath complained there. --Ezeu 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest a prod 

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

message: For some days now, the toolserver tables (, ) don't display correctly for me. The tables are not adjusted to the browser's window width, but appear to be fixed at circa 2000 pixels width. Is it just me (MS Win XP, Firefox 1.5.0.1, dual-monitor display) or is anyone else having problems with this? -- Sandstein 09:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * On the contrary, the tables are too wide (as I said, circa 2000 pixels wide). It's the last column, in particular, that appears to be around 1000 pixels wide. Sandstein 17:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, now that I'm working on my laptop (also MS Win XP, Firefox 1.5.0.1), table  renders fine, but table  is still too wide. Sandstein 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toolserver table width issue 

message: #On http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_prod_history , the most interesting items are the articles where the prod tag has been removed but the article still exists, since this is often articles that should be deleted through AFD (it is often the author who removes the prod tag). The articles which have been deleted, redirected, or AFD'ed are not really interesting (to me at least). Right now the uninteresting items are cluttering the list - would it be possible to create a separate list? Thue | talk 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, I'd like to see some way of detailing articles' history of deletion status; I've seen some go from PROD to AfD only to be speedied a day into the AfD. Nifboy 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps just split the history page up into "deleted pages" and "still-existing pages" which has kept, redirected, re-proded, and afd'ed articles? The bulk of the clutter is from deleted articles. Thue | talk 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this seems like a very good idea to me. I would very much like this. Paul August ☎ 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for toolserver tools 

message: I recently removed the prod tag on Wellstoning due to the fact that I felt that the article derved a "broader discussion on the matter of an article's deletion" and posted it on AfD with a neutral vote. Another user stated "Don't deprod things unless you want them kept." I do not read that sentiment into the current letter or spirit of the proposed policy. Should it be mentioned that prod tags should only be removed if you think the article should be kept? Or should prod tags be allowed to be removed merely in order to have a discussion? I tend to think that with such a bold new policy, we should err on the side of caution for now.  youngamerican (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your actions were acceptable.  I have removed a couple of prod tags only to move them into AfD as well.  James084 13:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PROD, to my understanding, is a non-confrontational process. An editor can remove a tag to speedy delete, merge, fix-up, or take to Afd, or any other valid WP measure. We are suppose to respect the tag removing editor's assessment. There are measures in place in the other deletion and clean-up processes to deal with conflicts. I can see how this misunderstanding could happen, though. PROD is working well without lots of debate. I don't know if this is due to the type of articles selected or the goodwill of the editors involved. Maybe both. There seems to be a spirit of collaboration here that is lacking in some other parts of WP. My 2 cents. FloNight talk  13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Your actions were in line with the letter and spirit of the rule. You should not prod things unless you want them deleted, but you can deprod things for any reason at all, as long as you're doing it in good faith. If the prodder feels jilted, they can participate in the AfD discussion. Deco 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just an additional note.  If I do remove the prod tag and move to AfD I will typically leave a message on the "prodding" user's talk page explaining why I've done so.  James084 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any user can remove the PROD tag for any reason, including the one you state.  Otherwise, this process becomes very different from what it is, and very unacceptable.  Of course, any user can also attempt to bully, chivvy, distort, or otherwise misrepresent the process.  That's probably inappropriate behavior.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for removing prod tag??? 

message: Check out Herrmann & Kleine...the "edit this page" link within the prod template takes you to Hermann?  I'm guessing this is from the ampersand?  Is there any way to fix this? NickelShoe 14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's a bug;  should be able to escape this correctly. Will report on bugzilla. --cesarb 15:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: bugzilla:5064 --cesarb 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Edit this page" not working properly 

message: Can some explain how September 2003 is on the Current nominations list? It doesn't seem to have a prod template. Paul August ☎ 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the transcluded date pages had been prodded and then de-prodded, and the transcluding page September 2003 stayed in the proposed deletion category until somebody made a null edit (an edit without changing anything) that updated the database. Kusma (討論) 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[September 2003]] prodded? 

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