Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 3

message: I just inserted the parenthetic phrase "even without stating the reason" to the part about not restoring the template no matter why the person removed it, because this is what we determined on the talk page and some people haven't been interpreting the guideline that way. NickelShoe 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I agree with you that I was using Dornon verse as a straw man, by the way, and that common sense is important in making wikidecisions.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "What this process is NOT for"

message: It looks like the prod data is somewhat askew.  Unfortunately, that time actually comes from the wikipedia database itself (categorylinks.cl_timestamp), it's not something I calculate or have control over.  I'm trying to find out what happened from one of the wikimedia admins (especially to make sure that it doesn't happen again), but I don't know what to do beyond that.  --Interiot 15:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can fix it, though, can't you?—the articles' histories show when the template got added.  Some articles got four extra days added to their current deadlines for deletion.  Surely they can be deleted once the deadline has passed, even if your tool shows the deadline still remaining, right?  I guess my question is, which takes precedence, the deadline shown in the tool, or the actual time the template was added? --TreyHarris 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, apparently it was caused by vandalism of Template:Prod.  Well, that sucks.  No, I can't really fix it easily, I don't have code to directly detect when  or  is added or removed.  I'll remove the whole list of re-prod-ed from the history tracker though, at least.  --Interiot 06:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The template is protected now.  And I have to write the -detection code sometime anyway.  And some people are pushing for PROD to be moved off of the toolserver.  *shrug*  One way or the other, prod won't die.  --Interiot 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Time nominated" doesn't seem right 

message: In practice, prod actually seems to be useful in cases that aren't uncontroversial, as a wake-up call for the editor before people start voting against it in AfD.  I've seen a couple of cases where an article which was deprodded by the creator was reprodded by someone who found prod to be a more forgiving method of deletion than AfD.  Swiftcover and Best Friends...Different Personalities, specifically.  
I can totally see this, particularly on newly created articles.  Even though prod is supposedly for uncontroversial deletions, it works well for cases of notability and verification by giving a deadline instead of asking people to vote on something based on their guess that it isn't verifiable or notable simply because they don't know about it or find it on Google.  Does this make sense?  It seems that prod is effective for this, but this wasn't its goal, and maybe it should be tweaked to emphasize this aspect a little more? Notability is technically speediable if no claim is made to it, but sticking it on prod gives someone a few days to fix that (And if prod stays, I'd be in favor of despeedying that criterion to give articles a chance without forcing it to go through AfD).  Instead of just being a streamlined deletion, it seems to work for improving articles.  If this gets rid of a few articles that had the possibility of expansion and clearer claims to notability, they'll be abandoned stubs without much information in the first place, so the loss isn't that great. Thoughts? NickelShoe 18:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that reprodding is against the proposed policy. I agree that some of the more subjective criteria for speedy deletion should be removed in favour of PROD, such as nn-bio and the controversial new T1. Deco 19:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like everything else on WP, we need to do what is best for the situation at hand. If re-PRODing is the BEST solution, no technicality should prevent it. Examples would be 1. miscommunication between creator (especially a newbie) and editors adding or removing PROD tag.  2. An accidental removal. 3. The removing editor, intending to expand an article/provide sources, changes their mind. The reason for the re-PROD should be explained in detail on the talk page of the article. FloNight talk  20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have occasionally reprodded something for some of the reasons you describe. However, the reason described by NickelShoe isn't sufficient, in my opinion. Deco 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nickelshoe, you are proposing that it be OK to place the PROD template on an article more than once.  I'm strongly against the proposal as you state it.  If you proposed a clear guideline about when it would and would not be permissible, there'd be more room to debate and think about it.   I think PROD is already too easy to abuse, and the kind of creep you're proposing simply begs for the eventual use of PROD as "Keep putting this on every article you think should be deleted until it finally slips through the cracks and gets zapped."  -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposing might be a little strong.  I was just observing something that was outside the proposed policy as it stands and wanted to know what people thought.  I guess where you and I differ most is that I don't see AfD as offering more of a chance for articles, especially not when they're nominated on notability.  In my experience, even when people provide evidence of notability, people still vote "delete, nn" if they haven't heard of it.  NickelShoe 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mostly tried to comment on PROD on this page.  Problems with PROD can be constructively addressed here.  Saying that PROD should be a flawed process because it replaces another flawed process is not the kind of argument I like to waste time with.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodding on notability and verification 

message: I don't know if we already do this, but I suggest we advertise proposed deletion on uncontroversial votes on AfD. PROD is not realising its full benefit due to many people who don't yet know about it. Maybe we could have a template that says something like this:
:*Comment. Note that uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the proposed Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process. Consider trying it out for the next nomination like this.
Deco 19:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fine idea.  I've created  for this purpose; please use and modify it as you see fit. +sj + 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent. I've started tagging discussions that look like sure deletes at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_21. Thanks! Deco 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD advertising and {{[[:Template:PRODcomment|PRODcomment]]}} 

message: Looking at the Proposed Deletion: previous nominations I notice a large number of articles marked as "reed"—all at 2006/02/25 14:31. Taking a random sample of these articles I noticed that, at least the ones that I looked at, were marked with a prod tag once, and the tag has not been removed. Is this a bug in the system?    JeremyA 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at two of these. How to Implement Your Software Improvement Plan was an article that I prod'd. Another editor then marked it for speedy delete. Someone else then reverted the speedy delete tag. The reversion is probably what caused it be marked as a re-prod, but the tag was never deleted so it really isn't. Virtual network address shows that only two edits - the creation and the prod'ing. However, there was a previous version that was deleted via Afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual network address). I'm guessing it was prod'd, de-prod'd, AfD, recreated, and prod'd again. -- JLaTondre 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I picked another two - Salmon Green & Sheldon Marcel Wagner. Both of these have not been edited since the prod tag was applied and both have existed since before prod'ing started. It must be a bug in the system. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple more examples: Universal Audio--prodded only once; Salmon Green--only two edits in total, the second edit was a prod. I estimate that there are about 400 articles like this that still have a prod tag but for some reason have been pulled out of the system. As it all happened within two minutes (UTC 2006/02/25 14:30 - 2006/02/25 14:31) I presume this was a glitch, and as it hasn't happened since it seems that it might now be fixed--but something needs done with these articles.   JeremyA 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reprodded? 

message: I found 4 (so far) articles that had been tagged with PROD twice. I've removed them and notified the editors that adding it a second time is not supposed to be done. That's a minor thing until people get a better idea of how it's supposed to work. However, this followed by this is probably not a good idea. As now you have the orphan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurs and Ethics. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found (and lost) 2 or 3 PROD tags on older articles that had survived VfD and these of course should also have not been tagged. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came back to see the reply and realized that I had forgot to close the above AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some problems 

message: I ded Spotscouter on February 21 as "advertising and protologism". The tag survived for more than five days. I have read elsewhere that there's some sort of admin backlog on prod deletions, which is fine. However, a little while ago Rory096 blanked the page and turned it into a redirect to Spotscout (which I had also ed at the same time, but was turned into a full AfD, where it is about to be killed off thanks to a unanimous consensus to delete). What is the next step in the process in this case? I have no reason to believe that any admin intentionally refused to delete Spotscouter, and it's going to die anyway as soon as some admin closes the Spotscout AfD, so I have no idea why Rory096's made that edit, and see no reason why it shouldn't be deleted now. Does this qualify as a speedy delete? --Aaron 05:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the other article is deleted, it'll be a speedy delete of a redirect to a non-existent page. But I don't think backlog is relevant at all.  It doesn't have to be deleted after five days.  If it's still there and somebody contests it, the deletion shouldn't go thru prod, it should be AfD'd or left deprodded. NickelShoe 05:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, up until the moment it's deleted, the tag can be removed. The five day mark is only when it can be deleted. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the closing administrator to remove the tag if they thought this appropriate. Deco 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when 5+ day {{tl|prod}} is not deleted due to backlog and then hijacked? 

message: I see some very obvious speedy candidates being prodded. It must be mentioned somewhere that people can add a speedy tag to a prod-ded article or that an admin can speedy del a prodded one if it meets CSD criteria, just as in AFD. --Gurubrahma 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gurubrahma, I thought this was clear on the project page. Could you read it again and suggest wording that makes it more clear. The process is being used by some editors (myself included) with newbies for less bite, so some of speedy candidates may be among those. These should have written explanation to the newbie on the article and new user talk page. FloNight talk  13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably better to have it go through prod anyway, especially if it's an A7 candidate, as it will give the articles a chance to actually assert notability instead of rushing to delete articles we should probably have.  If prod ends up being kept as a form of deletion process, I'll be bringing that up in detail over there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave both on.  That way if someone decides it shouldn't be speedied, it's already going thru prod.  It's under "relationship to other processes" on the project page. Yesterday I saw someone speedy an article while removing the prod tag, and I was somewhat distressed, because it was a three-day old prod tag, and they speedied it as a hoax, which isn't technically speediable, even when it's obvious.  So re-adding the prod tag makes the whole thing take another five days.  But someone deleted it anyway, which is fine, happy ending, it was a hoax about immortal pink super pandas. NickelShoe 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Prodding an article which may be a speedy is often harmless, and may even be useful as it gives good-faith creators the chance to see the reason why their article is being deleted. Also, the total amount of work is about the same, one time-unit to add the tag and one time-unit to speedy the article after 5 days. Speedying an article which is not a speedy can be a problem. I have been changing a good deal of speedy tags to prod in CAT:CSD. Yes, there is the problem of bad-faith vandals who will remove a prod tag, but their articles typically fall very clearly into the speedy class. Thue | talk 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know I did the right thing. I would never speedy an article unless I thought it was really clear-cut--in this case it was a recreation of an article that had been deleted in AfD twice in the last three months, so I felt like I had god on my side, and it seemed unlikely that it would have been an uncontested deletion anyway in those circumstances.  ·  rodii  ·  17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not the ultimate authority on this point :). This is just my opinion and common sense. Thue | talk 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, too late for that. If I get yelled at for this, it's your fault. :)  ·  rodii  ·  22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will say, I just rescued Mark Eitzel this evening from a prod that said "Does not assert significance," which would have likely been a speedy due to that blasted A7 catchall.  It wasn't speedied, but probably would have been if I didn't decide to click on it.  Another I changed from nn-speedy to prod was Riverdale High School, Montreal, Quebec, which would have gone against the relative consensus about schools, and some time on prod will probably catch the eye of school editors and bring it around to a more viable stub.  I think those articles are great examples of where many (most?) of these speedy candidates based on "significance" would be better served sitting on prod for a few days and deleted when it can be assumed that many eyes had the opportunity to see them. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 06:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools are almost never speedy-able anyway: they usually give enough context to allow expansion, and there isn't any consensus to stretch "groups" that far. - brenneman#000000">brenneman</span>{T}{L}  06:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy?? 

message: I think that displaying the username of the nominator would make it easier to identify inappropriate or bad-faith nominations. -- Kjkolb 07:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not appropiate on an article page, and one click in history is all it takes. - brenneman#000000">brenneman</span>{T}{L}  12:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the article, on the log - at least I assume this is what was meant. — sjorford (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support that.  There's the potential for someone violating WP:POINT here, and seeing one person nominating swaths of articles should subject the nomination to greater scrutiny. --TreyHarris 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree per Aaron Brenneman. User signatures/usernames/real names should not appear in the article namespaces under any circumstances. --causa sui talk 14:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the article.  On the log where it lists what articles are up for deletion. That's not in the article namespace. NickelShoe 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree that it might add some slight amount of transparency if it was present in the PROD toolserver log page.  Of course it's not appropriate in the article namespace.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant the log, not the article. -- Kjkolb 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display the username of the nominator 

message: I prodded some articles 7 days ago.  They are still alive but they don't show up in the toolserver's current list (I thought they should turn red indicating they can be deleted). For example (Nobelcom). Is this a bug in the toolserver or are the articles listed somewhere in an admin backlog file? Thatcher131 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they're still listed but with the date of 25 Feb at 15:00 rather than the actual date and time (22 Feb at 13:47 or something).  A bug I guess? Thatcher131 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be because the template was vandalized on the 25th, see above. NickelShoe 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, Cryptic and his bot did record the version of the page just before the vandalism, see here.  Admins should be able to delete according to that schedule (or just by hand, noting which articles have been tagged for 5 days) if they wish.  --Interiot 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog? 

message: When a page is deleted through WP:PROD the deletion summary typically says "WP:PROD - listed for 5 or more days without being contested". This means that the reason for the article being submitted to PROD in the first place is deleted with the article. This means that anyone interested has no idea on what grounds the article has been deleted. Would it be possible to require that all deletion summaries include the original reason for submission to PROD? (See WP:HD for the discussion that brought this up) Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 15:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be, at the end of the 5 days, instead of deleting the article outright, replace it with a "This was deleted via prod" type template.  Then, the history is still available for those who want it.  Friday (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict):Of course, some articles are prodded without a reason.  I don't think it should have to include the actual text, but I think guidelines for deletion already indicate that a helpful reason be included.  We just need to remind people is all. NickelShoe 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make any sense to combine the XD with prod.  Why wait five days if you're just going to blank the article?  NickelShoe 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons 

message: It's possible to pre-specify a reason for deletion in a URL:
[ delete]
This would allow the PROD reason to be automatically filled into reason for deletion box, if people use the link to delete the page.  This would be a Good Thing.  However, there's a problem.  PROD reasons often include a spaces, and sometimes include wikilinks.  Both of these things screw up the URL above.  What's needed is a way to urlencode the arbitrary stuff in the PROD reason.  I don't know of a way to do that in MediaWiki; hopefully someone reading this does, because this would be a really nice feature to have... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding deletion link to the template 

message: I just afd'd an article, then saw at the top of the page that perhaps I should have used this process.  I suggest that someone who understands this proposal should update the afd1 template to let people know that this alternative exists.  Regards, Ben Aveling 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  I don't think it's a big deal.  You see it when you finish, so you can use it next time. NickelShoe 17:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  afd1 should flag this 

message: I have yet to have an article that I've prod tagged actually go as prod (out of at least 3 or 4), and that is because just one person who is either unaware of or uninterested in reading WP article guidelines can object and thus send the article to AfD, where it will probably be deleted.  So what prod is doing is adding another step to the process, because there's no qualification for removal required. MSJapan 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reading your comment right, you're using a sample size of 4 to decide how well this is working. I've personally deleted at least 5 times that many articles that went the distance without getting the tag removed. android79 17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, it doesn't work ideally in every case, but that's ok.  If the prod fails and it goes to Afd, that's no worse than what would have happened without prod.  However you made a good point about people removing prods for no reason.  I personally think that any reasonable editor would give a reason for undoing a prod, and prods removed without a reason should be put back.  Ned Wilbury 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the only improvement I can think of - prods shouldn't be removed without an explanation on talk or in the edit summary or they can be put back.  At the same time, though, prods shouldn't be added without summaries of why they're being prodded.  Other than that, I think prod is working great. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working great for me too. I'd like to see some stats eventually of how many prodded articles get unprodded, go the distance, stay kept, go to AfD, etc. · rodii · 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think prod is working about as well as could be expected; its not perfect, but neither is Afd.  A more general problem in my mind is editors pouncing on new articles within minutes of their first edit.  Yes, many are crap, but some have potential.  New articles, especially from newbies, should be cultivated, not crushed, if they show any potential of becoming valuble.  I think its unreasonable to expect new contributors to create brilliant articles offline or in their user space and post them in a single gloriously perfect edit.  At the moment there seem to be too many weeders and not enough gardners among editors in the RCP and those following the deletion debates.  (There are probably over 500 articles on AfD and fewer than 20 user talk pages have the  template.) It could be very discouraging and turn wikipedia into a club for the already-clued in, and a few lucky users, like me, whose first article escapes the sentries. Thatcher131 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of user_talk pages with the  template on is misleading as this is counted using What Links Here. No user pages should show up here because the template should be substed to reduce server load. —Whouk (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Thatcher131 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think PROD is working great.  It can be a success. even if the tag is removed.  A problem that exists with the old-AFD approach, is an article is often rapidly improved in the first 24-hours.  All the early votes are on the old version become moot, as the article is transformed.  With PROD, either it's fixed to be good-enough, and there's no need for an AFD; or if there's an AFD, people can see the article is "as good is it's gonna be", and vote accordingly.    --Rob 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rob. I think it has less WP:BITE for newbies, too. FloNight talk  20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only when the original prodder doesn't slap an afd on it the same day. Thatcher131 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that people prod too quickly. But as far as the extra step involved when a prod is removed, that just means those articles should not have been prodded in the first place, for the most part. For instance, people frequently prod hoax articles, right? Only, hoaxes are bad-faith edits, so the creator of the article in equally bad faith removes the prod tag, if it's recently created. They should go straight to AfD. Some borderline cases of notability are prodded, when they should go to AfD for discussion, because their deletion is not obvious. People just need to get a better feel for what should go where. NickelShoe 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are lots of pluses and minuses, but it seems like the question should be first, is it a net benefit for Wikipedia overall? If the answer is yes, then trying to make the edge cases, like bad-faith editors and unfinished articles, work better is a good idea. · rodii · 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Amen.  Can we make it better somehow?  Possibly—but there's no question that having prod is better than not having it. -- SCZenz 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hell, I'd rather see most speedy deletions that don't deal with patent nonsense or outright slander/libel be prods as opposed to CSDs.  Give articles a shot. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not working out well from my perspective... 

message: The prod seems to be working very well (beter than I expected) and I'm impressed by the history reports.  There's one problem and I don't know who to tell.  The history log doesn't filter by time and it's getting too long.  It takes a long time for my browser to display it because it's so long.  Can someone add a time filter so users can control what range of dates it displays? RJFJR 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the Proposed Deletion: previous nominations report. RJFJR 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't had time to implement the (next 50) links, etc yet, sorry.  Also, personal and work issues are probably going to prevent me from spending much time on Wikipedia for the next two weeks.  For now, I've truncated the display to just the latest 1000 entries.  The older data is still stored in the database, and it will be visible again once the (next 50) links are available.  --Interiot 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it runs much faster now. RJFJR 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod logs 

message: User:NATEamx currently appears on the Proposed Deletion log -- even though I can't find any evidence of a  tag on his user page. I note that his page formerly included a template (Template:User MAX (band)) which had been subjected to the PROD tag, but I have removed PROD from that template because PROD is not supposed to be used for anything outside the main space. In other words, I don't know how it is that User:NATEamx appears on the deletion log, and at any rate, he shouldn't. --Metropolitan90 07:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages should not be on deletion log 

message: Is this idea so crazy that no one, AFAICS, has suggested it before? --Perfecto  16:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go even further and advocate putting much of the speedy stuff based around notability under prod jurisdiction too if we end up keeping this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The prod guidelines clearly allow prod to be used for copyvios or other reasons a page might be deleted (say, notenglish), but an anon user removed the prod tag from both Villa del Undoso and Joaquin Albarran as not eligible for prod. What gives? the guidelines say you can list something as both. I would have re-added the prod tag but the prod guidelines don't allow this. Nardman1 17:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not interpret the guidelines that way.  Rather, I interpret as meaning that you can prod a copyvio or Portuguese-language of a non-notable person, so that even if it turns out not to be copyvio, it can be deleted thru prod.  I don't think you should use prod on these, because we have a waiting period on copyvios and other language articles to allow them to be evaluated first. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to handle Wikipedia:Copyright problems also 

message: The lag is currently 14 hours.  Who/how do we tell? RJFJR 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask around in #wikimedia-toolserver on WP:IRC, I guess.  I don't personally have enough information right now to be able to tell what's causing this latest replication lag.  Unfortunately a toolserver admin hasn't been available yet to look into it.  --Interiot 07:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report lag to? 

message: The tool server pages seem to be using external or tool server links, so there's no quick way of seeing which >>5 days PROD'd articles have already been deleted (redlink) and which haven't. If admins are to be encouraged to close PROD issues there should be a simple one stop shop which lists the pages which have been PROD'd for greater than 5 days and not yet been dealt with by an admin (either deleted or had the PROD tag removed). If there is such a list, please tell me where :) --kingboyk 07:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under "normal" operation (when the toolserver database is more or less up to date (give or take a minute or two) deleted items are automaticaly removed from the report in (near) real time. And deletable items are clearly highlighted at the bottom. The problem start when the database replication start to lag behind by several hours, or days even (as it is currently doing). No real fix for that though, since the toolserver is lagging behind it can't generate redlinks because it thinks the article still exist. There is a "on wiki" backup of the list (User:Crypticbot/Proposed deletion), but it links to the script redirect on the toolserver (in order to register the number of times the article have been viewed) rather than using a real wikilink, so it does not display any redlinks either. I suppose if database lag is a common problem we could look into work arounds, like having a "spider" type bot ping the actual articles on Wikipedia for entries that have "timed out" (rarely more than a dozen or two at any given time so it should not be too big of a server hog). --Sherool (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of "deleteable" pages 

message: Is there any reason why I shouldn't use  ? The forn  does not work if a diff is mentioned in the reason, probably because of the = character in the URL. See User:Jitse Niesen/sandbox for an example. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change the reason to 1=Reason instead of Reason.  I demonstrated this in your sandbox for you.  Hope that's okay. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that's okay. Thanks very much. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wny shouldn't the template be subst'ed? 

message: I thought I recall something about prod not being for redirects, but I don't see it on the page nor did I see anything when I skimmed through the page history. Skull Trap is currently a redirect marked for prod. Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion operates similarly (nominations with no objections result in deletion), but it has less traffic & the criteria for keeping redirects is different than with articles. I'd recommend that we leave redirects to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Any other thoughts? -- JLaTondre 19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems corret. Better to have these go through a process specific for them. --FloNight talk 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, sending it through a specific process would be a good idea. Redirects are more likely to have the  go unnoticed, and when it does get noticed (i.e.- someone tries to use that redirect), it might take a relatively experienced user to be able to say, "Where did this redirect go? Why was it deemed unuseful? How can I restore it, or redirect it somewhere else?" In addition, prods are usually challenged by the removal of the tag; but in the above case with Skull Trap, if a user were to just remove the prod, it would become a worthless blank page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Our "test run" has been live for a couple of months now. It seems to me that most people think Proposed Deletion is doing its job, and I see it talked about as if it were policy. Would now be a good time to get consensus to make it an actual policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that PROD should be an alternative not a step before Afd. PROD should become policy, part of the deletion process. I don't think a poll is needed. Lets get consensus here. I do think the process should be evaluated now for any other tweaking. I made a list of ways to evaluate more than a month ago per the concern of some editors that PROD was being pushed on the community. I think there is value in collecting some of the information for evaluation. Regardless, it should go forward as policy because it has been a success. --FloNight talk 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy time? 

message: I think we need some sort of tool or possibly addition to AWB to help with the deluge of pages. When I first saw this a couple months ago, the influx of articles to be deleted was managable and acceptable. Now, however, it is a different story. I just deleted about twenty of over 100 or so articles marked red by the toolserver. While a few pages do require admin attention, others just sit there, with few picking up the slack. There's a massive backlog, and it's very difficult to deal with. A possible js monobook extension or addition to AWB would be greatly needed and appreciated, I believe. Is anyone willing or able to create such a tool, or do possibly have to revise the policy? Enough admins patrol AfD and there are enough tools that it isn't as much of a problem, nor with CSD, but I think the level here on ProD is over-the-top. Anyone else think so? -brennemanblack">Mysekurity</span> [m!] 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the problem is that the toolserver is almost 2 full days behind real-time. Many of the articles on the list HAVE been deleted, but the long lag-time keeps them from falling off the list, making it look like there's a massive backlog. When the lag is shorter, the list of articles that qualify for deletion is much shorter. Right now, it's frustrating to try to find which articles need to be deleted, and which ones are already gone. Joyous | Talk 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.... approximately 20 of them had been deleted last I checked, and I deleted about 20 more, but that still left about 60. Maybe I'll request something at the AWB page to deal with this. Honestly, it really shouldn't take this much manual labor....there's no reading of the article involved—or at least there shouldn't be, except in obvious cases of wrong—and waiting for the page to load, then the delete dialogue, then the confirmation, and all that is just tedious, and seriously limits ProD's benefits. Is it just me, or am I seeing a lot more ProDs than there have been previously, vastly eating away at the chunk of AfDs? In any event, in order to keep WP in the top 20, I guess this is a trade-off. Thanks again, brennemanblack">Mysekurity</span> [m!] 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not totally comfortable with the idea that a prodded page be deleted without the admin taking a look. Making it easier to delete is fine, but to say "there's no reading of the article involved" seems counter to the spirit of the proposal somehow. When PROD started, the biggest worry people had was the idea that good articles would be deleted without oversight. I see review by the deleting admin as the minimum of that oversight. It would be possible--maybe not the norm, but possible--for a worthy article to get through the five day period to the "deletable" stage without review from anyone but the original proposer. At least one other pair of experienced eyes should take a look before it's deleted, in my opinion. · rodii · 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prodded articles are definitely supposed to be reviewed by the deleting admin.  Doing otherwise is very much wrong.  The policy page isn't explicit about this, but somewhere in the talk archives, this was made clear to be the way the process is supposed to work.  The closing guidelines require the deleting admin to be different than the proposing editor to ensure an extra pair of eyes--because there has to be a guarantee that at least two people looked at the article and thought it should be deleted. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with NickelShoe and others that an administrator needs to review each article at the time of deletion. To my knowledge, there has been no attempt to draw attention to the backlog. Rather than a tool for deletion, maybe a tool could notify willing administrator if a big backlog develops. FloNight talk 04:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with this (and I'm a janitor myself).  I've done a number more, and made a list with red-links working out of this version of the on-wiki backup list.  Feel free to use it to finish up the rest of the (not too big) backlog. And bug whoever you can about moving the log over to the main servers(and off the toolserver)... JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Re to Rodii: Heh. I knew that would come back to bite me... What I meant to say is that careful reading is not required. If you've used AWB, you know that it shows you the page before. I'm not saying delete 'em all without looking, I'm saying that it would be a lot more efficient to have some sort of tool to take the tediousness out of it. ProD is supposed to be easier with that, not harder. Thanks for all your comments, guys, and sorry to have not made myself clear. Perhaps someone with more experience and leverage could bug whomever is responsible to get it on the main server? Thanks, brennemanblack">Mysekurity</span> [m!] 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand (though I'm on a Mac, so no AWB for me :( )--but it's possible to use AWB responsibly or not. I see people making AWB-assisted changes sometimes at the rate of ten per minute, and you just know they're not doing a very careful review of their changes. So the issue is not the technology, but the care taken. I totally support what you're suggesting, I just wanted to get that concern out there. · rodii · 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll make a Mac AWB one day... especially with the Wintel chips and Boot Camp. Thanks for the understanding, and maybe it'll come in place one day soon? -brennemanblack">Mysekurity</span> [m!] 14:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tool? 

message: I want to bring to notice, the Car dealership article. I removed  from the article. User:UtherSRG feels otherwise. Who is going to keep track of all these articles that deserve to exist? I managed to fight for just one. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UtherSRG acted wrongly in this case.  99% of the time, a  tag with no reason is wrong, as it was in this case.  His reversion of your removal was also wrong, although he did quickly fix it by listing the article on AfD, where it is looking quite likely to be kept(possibly temporarily redirected).  Many people do watch the list of PROD'ed pages to find wrongly tagged ones; as someone who's deleted a number of PROD'ed pages, nearly all the wrongly tagged ones have already been filtered out before I get to them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking time to explain. I will keep a look out too. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failing to understand this process 

message: Is it implied within the policy, and should it be explicitly stated, that it is considered bad form (and maybe even is prohibited) to remove the PROD tag on an article that you have created? I have been PRODing a number of nn and vanity pages recently, only for the people - usually very new users - who have made the page in the first page to remove the tag straight away. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I reinstated the tags, but was what I did strictly against policy, and if so, should it be? Batmanand | Talk 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod is strictly for uncontested deletions. The creator has the right to contest any page deletion (prod, speedy, or AfD). If they remove the prod, you should not restore it, but send the article to AfD. -- JLaTondre 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but who is going to create an article and then willing see it deleted? I think the policy should be changed; "contested" to me suggests contested by someone other than the creator. Batmanand | Talk 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Agree with JLaTondre.  The only utility of prod in situations where anyone objects is simply to verify that fact that someone does, in fact, object.  To delete things whose deletion someone objects to requires AfD (or in extreme cases, administrator discretion(where the discussion happens after the deletion, and generally on the mailing list or RfC, etc...)).  Don't use PROD for that, but please do use it for any uncontroversial deletions. (added after edit conflict) As for examples of people who created an article and then were willing to see it deleted, see any of the PROD'ed articles that are deleted, for example(among the ones I just deleted a few minutes ago): Maurice Postal, Girlhour, etc... JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the general consensus, then that is fair enough, and I will desist from reinstating the tag in future. Thanks for the clarification. Batmanand | Talk 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's certainly fine.  If someone wants to do a bit of newbie helping and manages to successfully educate someone that an article they created is not right for Wikipedia, the article certainly doesn't need to go through AfD.  In fact, it doesn't need to go through PROD, either.  The creator can simply tag it for Speedy Deletion (giving as the reason: created by accident), and it will be deleted. Mentioning this on the PROD page would certainly be fine, although I'm not sure it's required. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This may have been asked before but... 

message: That is to say, if after five days nobody has stated any reasons to keep an article, can it be deleted based on the rationale of this policy even if not enough people to establish a consensus want to delete it? —Doug Bell talk 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  Not if the article ever had a contested prod or prior AFD in the history.  Otherwise, I would say that it could be closed as if a PROD had run, rather than as an AFD consensus close.  That seems to be the spirit of the two deletion processes, although it probably skirts the line on the letter at the very least.  GRBerry 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: i don't think that's really a good idea.  AfD assumes a controversal decision, and there's no need to muddy it further, methinks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here is the AfD that got me wondering.  It almost certainly would be deleted at this point if it had been nominated using PROD instead of AfD.  It's apparently non-notable enough that nobody cares to comment on it, which is true of many things listed on AfD. —Doug Bell talk 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That specific one has a prod removal in its history, so I wouldn't say it is appropriate to treat the AFD as a prod.  I'd relist I guess.  GRBerry 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this concept apply to AfD articles? 

message: I've been looking at them every few days, and about 1 in 10 are worth thinking about. But unless a number of people do this regularly looking for different things--(I check for anything possibly religious or political or ethnic, to prevent using prod for expressing prejudice.) -- the 5 days is much too short, especially with newbies. I suggest ten days -- for all prods. It will get rid of just as many. DGG 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people will be less apt to use prod if they know it takes twice as long as AFD.  If the newbie misses the countdown, the article is recreatable/restorable.  NickelShoe (Talk) 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed for reasons discussed in the archive.  Some people prod, hoping that no one who cares enough  to reverse the decision will see it in time. Calbaer 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time for a prod 

message: There should be a more visible list of reasons for the prod template. KevinPuj 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons that the policy exists or reasons for prodding an article? The latter is clear enough: it is appropriate to prod an article iff one reasonably expects that it would be deleted (near-)unanimously if it were to go to WP:AfD instead. Henning Makholm 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons 

message: Currently the intro says that "Articles that have been previously proposed for deletion or undeleted, or discussed on AfD, are clearly contested and are not candidates for ."
I have tended to assume that only applies to AfDs that resulted in "keep" or "no consensus."  Is there a more clear way to express this without being wordy? NickelShoe (Talk) 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think such articles should not be prodded.  An article that is recreated after a prod deletion should be taken as a sign that someone objects to its deletion -- couldn't the same be true for AfD?  WP:CSD#G4 takes care of the bulk of such cases; in the rest, a re-AfD is probably more appropriate.  However, articles that have been through AfD and have no mark of it may get prodded anyway, and deleted, because no one notices the AfD; it's not such an easy thing to check for.  So, basically, don't bother. :) Mangojuicetalk 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Previously discussed on AfD" 

message: There was recently a prod for the reason  "contains erroneous capitalisation." DGG 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So deprod it, move it, and explain to the prodder.  It's a simple newbie mistake. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I found the article in question, and he said that the organization "fails to assert notability", and you deprodded it because you didn't like his secondary reason?  NickelShoe (Talk) 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a new reason

message: This has been brought up time and time again, we far too often have templates that are being deleted almost procedurally. They are deprecated/unused, and there is no reason whatsoever to hang on to them. However, we must go through the mess of listing on TFD, waiting 5 days, and closing. As a TFD regular, I can assure you that TFD is *often* backlogged with these never-opposed deletions, and it gets quite tiresome. While I would love to cite WP:IAR and start clearing out CAT:DT (by using CSD G6), I know more than one person would raise a hand and object. I've attempted to get CSD to adopt a criteria, but we couldn't managed to hammer one out that worked 100% of the time (which CSD needs to be), so can we please attempt a PROD for it? ^demon[omg plz] 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting More Discussion