Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 4

Toolserver may be down

Just an FYI: Due to some architectural changes on en.wikipedia.org, there's a possibility that the toolserver will be down for an extended period of time. [1] It's possible that a quick resolution may be found, and I think that, if the toolserver were to become available again, that would be the most efficient process to use. But, it would probably be best to start discussing a possible transition of the PROD process to one that doesn't rely on the toolserver. During the creation of the PROD process, there were some discussions about how to make an on-wiki prod process work efficiently, that would probably be the best place to start. There was a solution proposed, wherein prodders would add {{subst:prod}} instead of just {{prod}}, and it would automatically place the article into a prod category that held only a single day's worth of prods. For what it's worth, I felt that was the next-best solution. Sorry about this... --Interiot 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org is one of the toolserver's biggest users, and there's a smallish possibility that the toolserver could be on the mend in a couple days. On the other hand, it would be good to ensure that an extended prod backlog doesn't form. --Interiot 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. : ) We need to address this. FloNight ^talk 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The previously nominated list hasn't worked/been updated for 10 days. Which is annoying, one of the advantages was you would check de-prods and consider whether AfD was merited. --Doc ^ask? 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for whatever it's worth, if/when the toolserver comes back up, toolserver developers can write tools that enhance a primarily on-wiki process (eg. get the history working again, and make it work with daily categories). --Interiot 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be up for the single day category method. Anything that avoids manually listing nominations sounds good. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So it seemed like the biggest question was... do you have maintainers who are constantly creating and deleting categories (create Prod-2006-04-13, delete Prod-2006-04-02), or do you have a fixed set of categories that you're able to rotate through? (eg. Prod-monthday-13, Prod-monthday-14, ... Prod-monthday-30, Prod-monthday-01). --Interiot 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be the disadvantages to a rotating system? NickelShoe (Talk) 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories would be a nice solution but we are loosing control over how many people checked the page (at least from the link on toolserver). I am afraid many people would oppose process without direct controly that somebody actually reviewed proded article. This way there would be a high risk that a good article will be deleted as a result of vandalistic proposal for deletion. --Jan Smolik 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One trusted user (an admin) still has to review each article before deleting, and they won't delete something that was clearly nominated in bad faith. --Interiot 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding comments to the talk page of PRODed articles is easy to do and easy to check. Something that we should be doing any way.--FloNight ^talk 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the same as the old VfD system? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-13 07:00Z

I was actually never a big fan of the hits system. It's like telling the admin, Don't bother looking at this, twenty other people thought it was deletable. Talk page comments are fine, but unnecessary. If I'm going thru the log/category and see an obvious non-notable bio or something, I don't want to feel obligated to say, Yeah, what he said. That's defeats the purpose of prod, IMO, which is to see if anyone objects, not how many people agree. (Meaning prod is biased towards deleting articles that no one cares about) NickelShoe (Talk) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

PROD for Portals

Per discussion at WIkipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed CSD criteria for Portals, I am proposing the following:

Any Portal created as a skeleton, a stub, or a simple collection of links for which no other work has been done in over 60 days, and which has no subpages, should be subject to removal through PROD.

Any thoughts on this proposal? BD2412 T 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thumbs down. The cost of an unused portal is very small, and an interested user might come along at any time. What's the benefit, besides tidiness? This is different from a PROD in article space, and it adds complexity and instruction creep to the beautiful thing that is PROD. I would go so far as to say that (1) PROD should be for article space only, and (2) deletion of a portal is inherently controversial, due to the effort needed to set it up, and thus inappropriate for PROD. · rodii · 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Portal states that "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." Hence, if a topic is not doing that, it should not be a portal. Also, there is really no more effort to start a portal than there is to start an article. Anyone who can create an article on some local band or their high school can do the same in Portal space. However, the standard for what qualifies for a portal is much higher than what qualifies for an article. We likely agree, for example, that Gallows Pole or Levi Lincoln, Jr. or Pandeism should definitely have an article, but that there should definitely not be a Portal:Gallows Pole or Portal:Levi Lincoln, Jr. or Portal:Pandeism. Why, then, should we make it at all harder to delete portals than articles? BD2412 T 20:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I hear you. I'm not arguing against deleting portals, just against using PROD to do it. I gave my reasons above. · rodii · 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe not -- I'm cool to this. John Reid 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, why not?. Perhaps an additional policy could be added to say that you can propose deletion for portal subpages that aren't being used. Dtm142 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Premature?

[2] Is prod really non usable no matter what? is there some other process that can do what the toolserver automation does? I think saying "hold off on prod for a bit" might be OK but it's not dead yet... I've half a mind to revert that change but you know me... I'm a timid editor! ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

When will it come back?--Urthogie 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Prod's not dead, it's just that the work for admin's got harder. You have to manually check the what links here of {{prod}}, and then check the prod has been listed for more than five consecutive days. I'll amend the message accordingly. Hiding talk 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Wait! No, part of the point of the Toolserver list is that we can have not just admins monitoring for articles which have reached 5 days, but normal editors monitoring for articles which they want to contest the Prod (either just contest, or contest and improve, or whatever). If I can't do that, then we have a problem, and it should be on hold. Right now, I can't see any way to see something that someone does a new tag on past where toolserver stopped working, so five days from now articles I might have contested could get nuked... If there is another way, let me know. If not, it should be put on hold until I can somehow... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just look at what links to {{prod}}, same as suggested that admins do. People have already been told to stop adding the tag at the moment. It's harder work, but it shouldn't be a huge issue. If you don't know it's gone, how do you know you were going to miss it? It'll all come out in the wash. Hiding talk 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any instructions for how to do that... I can see it with images I create etc, but not with articles. Is that an admin-only function? If not, where's the documentation on how we do it? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need "what links here", just use the category. Category:Proposed deletion NickelShoe (Talk) 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then... since Splash said (at 16:31, 12 April 2006 in his edit summary) "no doubt someone will come along and add an image soon", I did... Revert me if you don't find it funny. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Something seems wrong in the current wording of the warning box but I am not sure how to fix it. "Editors wishing to review prodded articles should check articles in. Admins: remember to check that the tag has been in place continuously for 5 days before deleting." ... "...should check articles in" to what? What should they check them into or what should they check or ?? ... what is meant there? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c

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

By day categorisation

How about implementing a "by day category" system, simmilar to the one used by {{no source}} and {{no license}} (shorthand {{nsd}} & {{nls}}. It works pretty well for those image cats (combined with the "one click" sub category creation link in the main categories), and that way PROD would not have to be suspended whenever the toolserver is having one of it's "fits". --Sherool (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed under the section above about the toolserver, unless I misunderstand you. I say somebody who knows what they're doing go ahead do it so we can get prod back on line. Unless there are objections? I could imagine that the process might require a reevaluation if the toolserver is out of pocket indefinitely. Perhaps switch back to "proposed"? NickelShoe (Talk) 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO a much simpler and better solution than this is a manual list. Add the prod notice and add the article name to the list with a datestamp. There would be four clear advantages to this:

1. You see the 5-day time accurately (rather than to the nearest day, with possible complaints about removals after 4 days and 18 hours);
2. it's far easier to see new items when scanning a chronological list than going through an alphabetically listed category;
3. you can see changes to a list by adding it to your watchlist - that doesn't work with a category;
4. most importantly, it's far, far easier to keep track of the items that have been prodded, in order to see whether the prod notice has been removed.

Grutness...wha? 08:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Also note that a mob should encourage the developers to make categories sort by and display the cl_timestamp (see bug #5561)... that's the main thing the prod tracker was doing, just displaying the one extra column of data that mediawiki maintains, and it would make it so PROD would only need to use a single category (heck, it would make it so you wouldn't have to change anything about PROD, it could get running again straight away). --Interiot 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What links here

Does "what links here" on {{prod}} show the articles in order of addition of the template? —Ruud 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so, though playing around with related changes on the category can help a little. --Sherool (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Proposed_deletion now sorted by date/time of last edit

The caveats:

• It is sorted by date/time of the last edit to the article, not the date/time of prodding. This should work for most the articles though.
• The newest additions are a the bottom, not the top of the category. {{PRODKEY}} should have fixed this.
• Editing {{prod}} (not only blanking) will reset the date/times of all the prodded articles.
• Articles prodded before or on 13 April 2006 are sorted as 13 April 2006.

—Ruud 12:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What if {{PRODKEY}} is subst'ed in it? This should make the article sorted by day of prodding. Second: isn't it better to have the day of the month as the first character of PRODKEY? This way the category would be broken in one section per day. - Liberatore(T) 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

{{PRODKEY}} cannot be substituted in {{prod}} (well it can but this will either result in the eintier code of {{PRODKEY}} be pasted into {{prod}} or a fixes key, both are bad), it can however we substituted together with {{prod}}. The day of the week could be used, but I think sorting it this way would be counter-intuitive. —Ruud 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What I mean was to include {{subst:PRODKEY}} in {{prod}}. The advantage of having the day of the month as the section heading is that makes easier to find articles that are prodded for 5 days. - Liberatore(T) 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. That requires subst'ing prod in articles. - Liberatore(T) 14:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that works. If you include {{subst:PRODKEY}} in {{prod}} and save it it will cause the source of {{PRODKEY}} to be substituted in {{prod}}. —Ruud 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know crap about this stuff...but I find this method somewhat less than intuitive. What are the advantages of this system over the categories for each date? NickelShoe (Talk)

Humm. The order really could use reversing. At the moment, everything on your screen immediately is not eligible for deletion until 5 days from now. Perhaps daily subcats are a better way to go: the significant downside is the need to subst: a whole heap of nasty-looking wikicode into articles. -Splash^talk 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

When the job queue clears the order should be reversed. Advantages of this method are indeed that it doesn't require any substing. The categories method has the disadvantage that articles in one "day" category are sorted by name instead of nomination time, meaning you can in practice only efficiently review the articles nominated in previous days. —Ruud 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

$DEITY, are there 8000 articles with PROD tags on them atm? Or did another major template get changed in the last few minutes too? (If not, then this should be the death of "high use template edits kill servers"). -Splash^talk 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of editing {{prod}} three times in a row and some other templates being changed. Editng {{prod}} causes about 2000 jobs but there are onyl around 500 articles prodded at the moment. —Ruud 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The geek in me (most of me) can't help wondering why that is. Why does each article create an average of 4 jobs? -Splash^talk 14:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not substing seems to me to be a significant benefit, because editing the template in and out is the whole process, so the ugliness is a big deal (and perhaps intimidating for newbies to protest by editing something so scary-looking?). NickelShoe (Talk) 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the "per day subcat" method does not cause the actual article to be substed into the article though. The way I set it up you would do for example {{subst:prod|Vanity aritcle}} in the article, this would cause {{dated prod|Vanity article|day=13|month=April|Year=2006}} to be inserted into the article, so it's actualy the {{dated prod}} template that is used, you just hide that fact from the user so they don't have to worry about the parameters. If you neglect to subst prod then a huge red warning will appear on the page telling you to subst the template. Not too much overhead IMHO. To see how it proked before my change was reverted try transcluding User:Sherool/prod on a page with and without substing it. --Sherool (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sherool's method sounds better to me, then. Especially if the current system still has the problem of us not being able to edit the prod template. It's not like it should be edited frequently, but, again, if we're looking for something permanent, I don't think we should have something that breaks if we want to edit the template three months from now. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is one problem with this, though. The template cannot be called {{prod}} as Sherool's proposal isn't not compatible with the article that have already been tagged. This means the template has to be named differently. This may actually be advisable anyway as the way it has to be used is chnges as well. Also, there is nothing preventing us running the two systems side by side. —Ruud 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer Sherool's system. We can run the two systems at the same time, but the page WP:PROD should indicate which one is the preferred one. - Liberatore(T) 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the {{PRODKEY}} thing to my {{dated prod}} template now, so if {{prod}} is reverted to the last version I made ({{dated prod}} should be edited the way we want it first before taking it "live" so we don't overload the job que) it would use both systems without anyone having to think about it. All articles would be categorised twise, once in a by day subcat and once in the main cat (needs to be there anyway for when the toolserver is back up and running properly with enwiki) with the "magic" {{PRODKEY}} value, best of both worlds. Things might look wierd for the first couple of days before the backlog is processed, but once the backlog is worked though it should run smoothly. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory message

Okay, the message at the top of the project page says prod is suspended. But it also gives instructions on how to use it without the toolserver. Are we using prod or not? NickelShoe (Talk) 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say try not to use it at the moment, we may have an acceptable replacement in a few minutes/hours. —Ruud 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current system works well enough to be usable. —Ruud 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, people should not currently add new articles to PROD. Those articles already tagged still need to be deleted when they expire, and need to be reviewed (hopefully) prior to then. We are in a kind of in-between stage at present. It looks like people are coming up with a (hackish) way of bring PROD back online soon, anyway. This would probably also benefit from people stepping back from new PRODs for a while. -Splash^talk 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't discourage editors from using prod , even if the back end is broken for a while. That will drive away new article patrollers and choke the AfD process. Keep the pressure on the back-end people to fix the problem, even if the backlog grows. --John Nagle 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to edit the notice accordingly...the category system is okay for now. Someone can revert me if there's disagreement. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

No, actually that's a really not good way to do it. When a process backs up, it can take forever to persuade any admins to dive into to an interminable deletion task. It makes sense to suspend it until it is fixed. NP patrollers have CSD and AfD and they worked fine before PROD and will easily step into the breach in the meantime. The devs are often very slow to fix quite obvious problems, and we can't produce backlogs of hundreds or thousands (not kidding) of articles as a kind of "sit in protest". -Splash^talk 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The message indicates that admins should still be deleting articles...assuming they actually do, should there be too much of a backlog? I'd gladly help, but I'm not an admin. I misinterpreted John's post earlier, I didn't really understand it as a protest, but I think you're right that that's what he meant. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorted

Okay the category is sorted now. There is only one glitch: you are unable to browse the entier category because most article have the same key. This shouldn't normally occur unless you manage to prod 200 article within one minute. For now we can delete most of the artiles through Interiot's list. —Ruud 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Using some date math it should be possible to create a link which lets you jump immediatly to the articles that are 5 days or older. —Ruud 15:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, is this still sorting by last edit to the article? Because while this seems great as a backup, if it's not sorting by the actual criterion of how long the prod tag has been there, I don't think this is usable as a permanent solution. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't know how to solve that. A permanent solotion would be getting the Toolserver back online or maybe a robot that could crawl prodded articles or something. Note that editing an article would place it back at the front, so eventually people with start noticing and the worst that can happen is that an article stay undeleted too long. —Ruud 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. I don't think it would be a huge problem, if this was a backup, even a frequently used one. Because if an article is being actively edited we probably don't need to get in a hurry to delete it. But it just seems a little off not to be able to sort by the actual criterion, I don't know. We can certainly try this out for a while and see how it works, if people are willing. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gaming the system by daily editing to perpetually postpone deletion? If this is suspected, the article should be taken to Afd. Hopefully, done without any accusations which tends to bias the outcome of Afd. --FloNight ^talk 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Which would be more difficult than actually removing the prod tag and contesting the deletion outright. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I could see this discourage people from working on a prodded article if they aren't sure it should be kept. If I find an article up for prod and find info on Google, I'd want to add external links, at the least, so people could review it more easily. But if I'm pretty sure that it's still not notable, I'd actually be making it take longer to delete. Discouraging improving prodded articles sounds like a bad thing. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This still appears to be sorted in forward order, with the most recently edited articles at the front of the category. Can this be fixed? -

That is how it's supposed to be. Editors review from the front and admins delete from the back. —Ruud 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's going to take me how long to get to the last page of the category? -Splash^talk 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just one click of "next 200". It doesn't turn black into a non-link, so I was thinking that I didn't get to the end yet. -Splash^talk 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was huge, you could click Z on the TOC and click previous 200. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Quick question

Can someone point me to the poll, or the place, etc. where consensus was determined. I don't really doubt it exists, just curious if anything was ever done to quantifiably (real word?) gauge consensus. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By the fact that tons of people were using it and there weren't any objections. Consensus is more clearly gauged by behavior than votes. See Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Policy_time.3F. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should a poll be necessary to see that this a well and widely used process? You don't have to have a show of hands to see that. -Splash^talk 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I just haven't been around much in the past few weeks and didn't know if one was run or not. I don't assume consensus doesn't exist... those of you around could determine that I'm sure. I was simply wondering if a poll had been run. I didn't want to have to hunt through all the prod discussion though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The closest we came to a poll was in #Policy time?. Someone sort of said "hey, so this is basically policy-by-acclamation now" and everyone pretty much agreed. Also, the policy tag has stuck, which is a good indicator. -Splash^talk 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The vague definition of consensus for the purpose of policy tags would be something like "a few people looked at it and no one had any violent disagreements". Few ~= 10. Stevage 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If for two months the process is widely used without major objections, I don't think it's unfair to assume it's accepted. People would whine about it here or in AfD discussions if they didn't like it. Personally I find the fact that AfD discussions didn't frequently involve people whining about how prod wasn't working to be quite telling. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Back up?

What exactly is "down" about the toolserver? It's still a day behind, but still apparently running. Has it just recently gone back up and nobody has noticed yet? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not updating, and indefinitely so. It was actually caught up yesterday, but hasn't updated since. You read Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Toolserver_may_be_down? NickelShoe (Talk) 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive Snippage!!!

Go Splash go... that was a good cleanout, the page looks lots better now and is clearer! Thanks. (Still missing a parrot though.) ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, policy pages tend to acquire "policy plaque" when new as the community learns how it works and how it doesn't. After a little while, all the caveating and cajoling can be compressed into sentences that say all that needs to be actually part of the policy and makes it easy to pick up in a few seconds reading. Those who are good newbies will learn by example and thought, those less capable but still good can be educated by a talk page message. I think we should agree in advance to call whatever our next new process is WP:PARROT (hoping that link is red when I press save...) -Splash^talk 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to re-cruft, but should there be a reminder for deleting admins to check "What links here"? · rodii · 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Toolserver down? This process must be suspended!

Exactly how are people to know that articles will soon be deleted unless they check every article in the category? You can't really un-prod something without going through the entire category instead of just what changed from the last time you checked. 132.205.44.134 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

By not panicking and reading WP:PROD more carefully. -Splash^talk 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Toolserver appears to be up, at least for me. Are we back in business? I was checking on something I prodded 7 days ago, so there appears to be a huge deletion backlog. Should someone modify or remove the message on the main page? Hopefully some admins will be able to address the backlog, too. MCB 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's currently showing a replication lag of 2 days and 3 hours - doesn't look like it's up. —Whouk (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The toolserver is "up" but not receiving any replication updates from enwiki. I believe it shows a "frozen in time" version of the situation. So it can be used to delete for a few days if approached with caution but will not show new prods, or update old ones. -Splash^talk 11:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a time estimate as to when the toolserver will be getting updates again? Is this expected to be a long-term situation, or is it just a software or networking problem that we're waiting for a fix for? MCB 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a software problem. The mysql database, as far as we know, will normally only replicate from a single other database cluster. So right now it's replicating from dewiki/itwiki/etc, but the same method can't be used to replicate from enwiki, or from the asian cluster (kowiki_p, etc), at the same time. So we're working on finding another method to replicate those two DB clusters. I haven't heard of a good estimate yet, but AFAIK, there's hope for a solution sooner or later. The asian cluster has been down for a good while, but we have more people working on it now, so hopefully they'll be able to make headway. --Interiot 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I wonder if there might be a way to do a "round-robin" among the clusters in the meantime to keep any of the wikis from being too out of date? (Just a shot in the dark, dbms architecture is not my expertise!). Best, MCB 06:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My deletions on this page

I removed a lot of the material from the top of the page, which shows up in the page below anyway. I think it is OK to expect people to read the page in the normal way rather than cramming "quick" links at the top. Becomes disorderly and distracting after a while. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be but I think removing the pink warning box completely might not be a good thing. I did not see where in the page you moved the contents of the box. That information belongs somewhere. Further I think it appropriate that it be in a warning box, ugly or not (I agree it's ugly, now that it no longer has a WP:PARROT, but disagree that it was unnecessary). I almost reverted you but decided to come here first. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the warning is appropriate as prod is still in a flux, as I do not consider this replacement for the toolserver to be a permanent solution. (We need something that doesn't break if we edit the prod template.) When things calm down, then certainly get rid of the stuff at the top. I'm putting the warning box back. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the info in the box is in the section "Logs: What's been proposed for deletion" at the bottom of the page from what I see. Here is the warning box now:

Although the Toolserver log is unavailable, a backup system is in use. Editors wishing to review prodded articles should check articles in Category:Proposed deletion. Admins: remember to check that the tag has been in place continuously for 5 days before deleting. Discuss on talk.

I wonder if all those lines except for the first one, about the toolserver log being unavailable, really belong there, because, again, that stuff is already below. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be okay with you trimming it. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Did now, left only the toolserver warning which I was wrong about, it was not in the text. Everything else was.

On a more general note, did you notice that Wikipedia pages tend to become cluttered with too many instructions and link farms, sometimes stacked in boxes at the top, sides, bottom, or all at the same timeOleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the backup system being used at this time. I used to check in and clean up this category from time to time, but am not willing to check all the articles and difs or maintain a list. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an option using the new parser functions might do? If a stamp could be put on the article, some wikimath might determine how long it was out there, perhaps in a linked category name? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Logs:_What.27s_been_proposed_for_deletion. It's Category:Proposed deletion, sorted now by most recent edit. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on some code to do the math on this and perhaps categorize it automagically, will post samples if they work. I'm sandboxing it now, have to wait for a date change to see if it works. If it does it will automagically change the category from PROD to CSD after 5 days (or any other arbitrary categories) without having to use a bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make them speedies after 5 days. They are PRODs, not speedies, and nothing in the policy says that they morph. Nothing in CSD does, either. They remain PRODs and can be challenged by a simple removal of the tag up until the moment they are deleted (after which they can be challenged anyway). -Splash^talk 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made them anything without discussion, probally Category:Wikipedia Old PROD's or something of the like. But my automagic settings didnt work, as although they do update on the page, it does not recommit to the database until the next time the page is edited; Que sera, sera. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Daily subcats?

I got the impression that there was support for using daily subcats to monitor prod. Am I wrong? If we can't count on the toolserver, I very much want this. Sorting the Category:Proposed deletion by last edit just isn't good enough for the primary log, as it discourages improvement that isn't intended as endorsement of the article. I'd volunteer to set this up myself, but I'm not really savvy with such things, and I want to make sure there's a clear consensus first. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Toolserver is on the brink of breathing again. -Splash^talk 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not yet. Per my talk page, the replag currently displayed is for dewiki. Enwiki is still not being replicated. (though, I suppose for the tools that are clearly enwiki-specific, I could display the enwiki replag) However, DaBpunkt yesterday noted that there may be good news soon. --Interiot 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's hopeful enough just to wait, or should we go ahead and make sure we've got a good system in place anyway? NickelShoe (Talk) 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:DaB. has been able to get replication partially working. It's not working fast enough to keep up with real-time yet, though it is making progress (~3 days of new data have been replicated since enwiki was moved to a new DB cluster). DaB is hopeful that he'll be able to get it working faster. --Interiot 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Update templates to use ParserFunctions

{{Prod}} and {{PRODKEY}} need to be updated to remove usage of {{qif}} and {{switch}}, replacing them with {{#if}} and {{#switch}}. I understand that simply doing this without taking various arcane precautions will break your process queue. Please therefore arrange that this update is performed in a controlled manner within a reasonable time-span, because deletion discussion for qif is already underway and the equivalent for {{switch}} cannot be far behind. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actualy I don't think there is any way around breaking the current queue, merely editing either of the templates will generate new sort keys for all tagged articles regardles. And since we are going to wipe out the sorting anyway this would probably be a good time to implement the dayly subcat system, as I mentioned above the {{dated prod}} template also use {{PRODKEY}} on top of the subcating so both schemes can work side by side. Sure there will be a messy tranisision period for all currently tagged articles, but if all instructions are updated to tell people to subst along with the built in warning) the categorisation should go smoothly for all future tagings. Any objections? --Sherool (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it all depends on if/when the Toolservers comes back on-line. If it will only be a few days/weeks I think we should just wait it out. The current method works well enough and (looking at it pragmatically) there really is little haste in deleting {{qif}} and friends. If we are looking at months/indefinite/infinite before the Toolserver comes back online, I'd suggest we move over to a dayly subcategory system, as the effort spent on re-education people using the new system and trying to survive the five days of chaos will be worth it in that case. —Ruud 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to steal my proposed code from Template talk:Ordinal date to avoid using the long prodkey templates, it can produce the ordinal, and if combined with a year will be able to timestamp something, and can have math done it. See also a big glob of testing at User:Xaosflux/Sandbox5— xaosflux ^Talk 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why bother?

My god, how wonderful prod would be if only editors who had evidence of the notability of a topic (rather than just those who break their necks to wring incredibly tenuous claims of unverified notability from any article, and have extremely interesting interpretations of policy) would remove them. The current spate of indiscriminate prod-harvesting is making a mockery of the system. Now AfD is filling up with nominators and keepers whose gloves are off before they even get to the AfD ring. Not good. Deizio 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? · rodii · 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. What is the reason of having WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:V, etc if people do not even acknowledge them when voting on AfDs or removing prod. Also, some users just remove prods for no good reason. Basically, it is easier to remove prods than to place them. Joelito 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The key is communication. People have to actually know that we have these standards if you want them to use them. With no examples of this supposed behavior, I can't really say what's going on. I haven't witnessed anything insidious happening. If prods are being removed, then deletions are controversial and quite possibly should have gone straight to AfD, or possibly prod was the best choice to give a chance to improve the article and the AfD can proceed without wondering if there's something the other editors don't know about that would change the outcome. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Kappa (talk · contribs). Sime of his de-prods are correct, others are not Joelito 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an incorrect de-prod. If there were, we wouldn't have prod, and would just speedy those articles. I've seen Kappa nominate things for speedy deletion - he knows where things clearly don't belong in the encyclopedia - and I don't begrudge him his right to force a decision on others. BD2412 T 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kappa may deprod things that ought to be deleted, but I've never seen him deprod anything which should have been deleted thru prod. I've deprodded things myself simply because I was uncomfortable calling the deletion obvious or uncontroversial. Some things need a full AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't begrudge him either. I question the procedure. He was just an example asked by NickelShoe. Joelito 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, but if Kappa's your best example and you don't even disagree with him, then what exactly is your complaint? NickelShoe (Talk) 23:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is with the procedure and the notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc. Some users do not follow them either because they believe everything must be kept or for other reasons. Then you tag an article with those guidelines in mind, it gets de-prodded w/o addressing the guideline or complaint, basically a judgement call. It's too easy to remove while it's certainly harder to tag an article. Then you take the article to AfD and it's kept because of no-concensus with votes that once more do not acknowledge the guidelines. Joelito 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, examples? Prod should be used for really obvious cases, so if it's being deprodded on a judgment call made in good faith, it should have gone straight to AfD. Since when is it significantly harder to tag an article than remove the tag? NickelShoe (Talk) 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taunton Antique Center Joelito 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• My main concern right now is that prods are being removed, in some cases almost instantly, without the author or contributing editors of a page (who very possibly don't spend 8 hours a day on WP) seeing the tag and having a chance to act. Editors who remove prods on "general topics" by scanning the list of current prods don't usually have any interest in personally tagging, expanding, clarifying, referencing or otherwise improving articles. I've chatted to Kappa about this (Kappa is by no means the only ed who does this, and I am sure he does it in good faith), and he said "prod is not cleanup, there are other tags for that" which is a very valid comment. However, no matter how much potential or percieved usefulness an article has, we still have rules and they should be respected. I am uncomfortable when prods are removed because claims within articles are taken at face value despite a complete lack of verification, e.g. when articles which say "This is the most famous crab restaurant in Cape Cod" are deprodded with "notable as most famous crab restaurant in Cape Cod" despite no references, or laughable ones, in the article. In such cases I would love to see the de-prodder take the time to AfD the article. Deizio 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Agreed, and I'm seeing a lot of that from Kappa, although it's an attitude that infects AfD in general. IMHO, any editor unwilling to take the ninety seconds it often takes to do the most basic fact checking has no business weighing in on prods or AfDs. RGTraynor 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How about suggesting that if someone removes a prod tag from an article in obviously poor shape, we encourage them to replace it as appropriate with {{cleanup}}, {{verify}}, {{expand}}, {{importance}}, or the like? We can add this suggestion to the prod template. BD2412 T 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Support the addition of that to the template wholeheartedly Deizio 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose It just will clutter it up. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Switched to {{dated prod}}

Someone edited {{prod}} breaking the system for the articles prodded in the last five days. I took this opportunity to switch over the the {{dated prod}} system. Could everybody please to carefully review the articles in Category:Proposed deletion as of unknown date 2006? Articles in this category have been prodded sometime before April 24th. The category is not sorted on time of last edit. —Ruud 22:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was rely nessesary to remove the "main" proposed deletion cat from the template. The toolserver list needs that cat (or at least some other "all in one" cat to work when it comes back online. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to restore it in a few days. I'm just afraid that people might not notice that the main category is no longer sorted. —Ruud 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be reverted to pre-toolserver dying when the toolserver comes back, but PRODKEY was messing up and not putting it in order, making it harder for admins to know what to delete (as we'll see when these get sorted into categories by date; some are very old), so this works better. I'm currently going through unknown date and fixing the dates, but I may be blocked at any time, so someone else will have to take over if I do. --Rory096_(block) 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, within certain constraints, the toolserver can adapt to many of the possible setups. It'd just be good to pick one setup and keep it stable. Probably the biggest constraints are 1) it should use a cat (so I can use cl_timestamp as an easy way to find when the template was inserted, and thus find the diff that inserted it), and 2) it'd be nice if there was at least one final level of template that wasn't substed, so I could pick out the prod reason fairly easily (eg. {{some template|prod reason}}). I'd actually prefer it if you guys kept the on-wiki backup, even once the toolserver comes back up, so it's not such a big deal if/when the toolserver asplodes again. --Interiot 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't cl_timestamp affected by editing the template, like {{PRODKEY}} is, but only by blanking of the template? —Ruud 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the template instantly removes all articles from the category, and thus the database instantly forgets when they were first added to the category, since they're no longer in it. Just editing the template doesn't remove them all from the category, and so doesn't reset cl_timestamp. On the other hand, I think the category used in {{prod}} has been changed at least once since the toolserver went down, so I think the data for most articles currently in prod is not very useful at this point. --Interiot 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When we get the toolserver back, I think the original prod works better (and I like pretty graphical tools) -- Tawker 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like a combination of (pretty graphical tools) + (on-wiki fallback that's always in place). So just settle on a solution you guys can live with for a while, and as soon as the toolserver is back up, I'll adapt the scripts to work on top of whatever scheme you guys come up with. --Interiot 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We ought to re-implement an "all in one" category on top of the dates ones though, sure the tool can be adapted to querry all the subcats recursively or something, but as I understand it will be a hungry and inefficient querry, and for a high trafic tool like this that might result in noticable database lag on the toolserver. --Sherool (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The end template is {{dated prod}}, btw. --Rory096 05:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused

At least two of my prods were just switched to dated templates (by Rory096 (talk · contribs)), then reverted to the originals (by Benon (talk · contribs)). Who's right? Deizio 01:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory is, unfortunatly not everyone realized we just switched over the the {{dated prod}} system. Kelly Martin even blocked Rory for this. —Ruud 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. The subcats have seemed to have been consensually approved for a while, just nobody had implemented it yet, hoping the toolserver would come back and make it unnecessary. I'm glad we're doing it this way now. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Kelly_Martin.27s_block_of_User:Rory096. —Ruud 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ed prod

Why do prod's have to be substed in order to work all of a sudden? I think this is a bad idea; it's much better to just have {{prod}} on the page where an editor can easily snip it out rather than a big batch of substituted text. Mangojuice 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Category:Proposed_deletion_now_sorted_by_date.2Ftime_of_last_edit. Substing prod doesn't leave a bunch of text, because it's a template within a template. It has to be substed because that allows it to be sorted by date. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Returning the prod tag

If person A puts the prod tag, and person B removes it, is person A allowed to put it right back? That thing doesn't seem to be regulated. --Dijxtra 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Once a person removes a prod you are supposed to take the article to WP:Afd (if it is your desire to have the article deleted) to generate concensus. Prod is for uncontroversial articles, if the prod is challenged then the removal of the article is controversial. Furthermore, this is covered here. Joelito 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I was 100% sure I saw the rule somewhere and then I just couldn't find the exact quote. Thanks for the exact link. --Dijxtra 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

No, remember that the way our deletion policy works is "if in doubt, don't delete". If a prod is challenged it should be taken to AfD if the original proponent still thinks it should be deleted. Obviously it's in the interests of the article that the person removing a prod tag should improve it to try to respond to the reason given for deletion if it's a valid one. --Tony Sidaway 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I was saying that it should be made mandatory that removing a Prod should accompany a reason - to let the original proponent (and Prod supporters) know of the intentions of the person removing the prod. If no change is made but the prod is removed, the situation stays the same as it was when the prod was suggested. --soUmyaSch 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that we now know that at least one person objects to the PROD, which makes it a contested deletion and no longer a PROD candidate. I agree with Tony, and I believe that the original PROD philosophy of keeping the process as simple and "conservative" as possible is still valid--insisting on edit summaries is instruction creep. (Suggesting that edit summaries are a good idea is, well, a good idea, of course.) · rodii · 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The person removing the prod doesn't have to give any reason at all. The simple fact that one person disagrees with the prod is sufficient to force an AfD (or else the article is kept). --Srleffler 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PRODding and Speedy criterion G4

It seems to me to be common sense that if an article was deleted under PROD and then re-created, that amounts to contesting the PROD. As such, a re-created previously PRODded article should not be speediable under G4 (re-creation of previously deleted content). Yet as far as I know this isn't explicitly stated anywhere. If anyone objects to me adding language to this effect, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Addition to G4. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems like common sense to me and should probably be put in writing. 4.89.245.125 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there was some support and no objection, so I've added a clause to G4 that re-created PRODs are not subject to it. I'll make a note of it here too. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Three-week-old prod tag?

Could somebody look at reusable bag? Prodded on April 13th, nothing has happened. Glitch? 4.89.245.125 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. The delay was probably caused by the switch from {{prod|reason}} to {{subst:prod|reason}}. - Liberatore(T) 13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the bot that fixed all the prod templates had a little bug. If an article had been prod'ed multiple times (wich is not supposed to happen) the bot seems to have been using the earliest version rather than the most recent. The result is that such articles went "off the grid" as it where, since they do not show up in any existing categories (this is why a "catch all" category is handy). I though it only applied to one or two articles, so I didn't think much off it at the time, probably not a huge problem. Might be worth mentioning somewhere that people should raise a flag if they come a cros a proded article with a redlinked date category. --Sherool (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use Special::Categories to find red-linked categories. Unfortunately, you have to play with the offset to get to the right location which can be a pain. This link (about 1/4 down the page) shows there are currently 4 red-linked prod categories with 1 article each. -- JLaTondre 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore there aren't! ;-) Angr (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

if ANYONE

About Contested prod deletions. I think this should be amended, and the template as well. A anon (likely vandal) removed the {{prod}} tag from The Girl Who Turned to Stone.[3]

I respect the right of people to use WP anonymously, and anonips should therefore be able to remove tags just as registered users, but "anyone" who removes the prod tag should at least note on Talk why they think the prod is not legit. This would eliminate the simple case where a vandal removes the prod tag to avoid the deletion - removal of this kind is not truly a "contested deletion" and shouldn't have to go to AfD. Can we work on an amendment? Kaisershatner 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes you call it vandalism? I think you should read WP:VAND sometime. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." People throw around "vandalism" entirely too much for edits that, basically, just bug them.

Edit summaries are a good thing, but they're not mandatory either at Wikipedia in general or with PROD in particular. So I disagree with your premise--removal without an edit summary is truly a contested deletion. · rodii · 20:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I suppose there's a way you could have made it without suggesting I've never read WP:VANDAL. And maybe you're right, and there will be an Activision video game based on a TV show about a seven year old girl who is slowly paralyzed, and the page about that created by a user with four sockpuppets might be a good-faith change intended to improve the encyclopedia. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, Kaisershatner 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, and I really didn't mean to imply that you hadn't read WP:VAND--my annoyance at how freely people throw that charge around spilled over here. My apologies. However, I still think that even if one person (or n people, for that matter) deletes prod templates in a bad-faith way, that doesn't say anything about the motives of everyone who deletes them. You can't call vandalism unless there's real evidence of vandalism; WP:AGF dictates that we assume people are responding genuinely. And many, many people in that position are relative newcomers who don't really know about PROD and are simply responding with bewilderment that someone doesn't like their article. I have argued before that PROD works best for articles that are essentially abandoned--the original creator didn't stick around and there aren't enough other editors that care.

When PROD first started, it was very controversial--deletion without a full community review and consensus? Inconceivable! The only way to make it possibly palatable to more process-oriented people was to make it as easy as possible to contest it--you just delete, no other requirements at all, if there is any objection, no matter how trivial, it had to go to AfD. As it has become more entrenched as a deletion method, people have been wanting to raise the bar and make it harder to contest. I think that tendency should be resisted--the genius of the original proposal was its utter simplicity. So to reiterate what I said above, only without casting aspersions, yes, edit summaries would be good, but I'm against changing the rules of PROD just because some users are annoying. If they remove the template without saying why, we're no worse off than we were before. · rodii · 12:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On a more practical note a requirement to include edit summaries with prod removals would just lead to prods being removed with comments of "Don't delete this because it is very important", which does not really help anything. I think the only thing that could be slightly effective would be "prod cannot be removed by the article creator", but that is probably not politically possible. Also, spammers would just begin using IPs or sockpuppets to remove prods, and there is no way "anon, article creators, or new users cannot contest prod" could ever gain consensus. Henning Makholm 12:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the other responses. Someone may remove a tag solely to waste as much of our time as possible, but without reading their mind it's difficult to distinguish this case from the "well I think it's a good article" motive. I think preventing article creators from removing PROD would be a big mistake, as it may be the case that the article creator is, for example, an experienced user with clear good intentions, or perhaps a specialized expert who understands the relevance of the article better than anybody suggestings its deletion. In a full AfD, they would have the opportunity to defend it, and may have the opportunity to set a useful and more visible precedent than could be achieved on an article or user talk page. Deco 14:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with rodii; do not make it harder to remove prod tags. Thatcher131 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

PROD times

With the old toolserver system, PRODS went red at the exact hour they were eligible for deletion. Under the new system, are we still concerned with the hour the PROD was put in place, or is everything in the dated category ready to be deleted on the 5th day, regardless of the time of day the PROD tag was put on? Joyous | Talk 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO it should be 120 hours, not the vague "5 days". There are too many time zone issues, etc. Ardric47 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - 120 hours is the best way to interpret this. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This (or some other convention, if there is one; see [4]) should be mentioned somewhere on the actual page, since I still don't know what the time is supposed to be. Ardric47 03:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "dated prod"

A correction to {{dated prod}} has been proposed at Template talk:Prod#Edit protected request. It seems correct to me, and I was about to make the change myself, but I do not want to break anything so I am asking here if there is possibly any problem with making that change. - Liberatore(T) 10:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That edit won't break anyting (it's in the <noinclude> section), I just fixed it myself. --Sherool (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest Thoughts

So, prod has passed its trial period. This looks like an excellent idea, on paper. However, not everyone implements proposed deletion in the way that was intended. Not only have I removed prod tags from articles whose deletion would be controversial, but also from articles that are ineligible for deletion! This wasn't just today, but rather almost every time I check the list. I think it's been getting worse, too. Has anyone else noticed this? Ardric47 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "ineligible for deletion"? Like user pages or portals? · rodii · 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ineligible" probably wasn't the best word. I was referring to articles that pass the various notability guidelines (even the guidelines that are ironically cited as reasons to delete). Ardric47 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not ironic!!! — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus, I don't see how one can stop others making bad nominations. - Liberatore(T) 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier this week, I removed prod from Saul Fathi. The reason given was "nn author, fails WP:BIO". In fact, Fathi passes WP:BIO. It is ironic that the supposed justification for deletion was actually a justification to keep the article. Ardric47 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it's clear. The ground for the nomination was that the article didn't make evident why the subject passed WP:BIO. In other words, it said "author of stories" but didn't clarified that he is a published author. - Liberatore(T) 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

ambiguous instructions

ive been getting some complaints becuase im following the instructions on WP:PROD. it says there:

Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, and optionally  
try to address the concerns of the tagging editor;  
OR
2.	Alternatively, nominate the article for an Articles 
for deletion debate.

so according to that if i remove the prod tag and dont try to address the concerns of the editor i have to nominate the article for an afd debate. the only other way of reading that instruction is that if i want the article kept i leave the template there but take the article to afd, which doesnt sound right. people at afd are saying that if i remove the template and dont think the article needs deleting its up to someone else to nominate it for deletion (which makes far more sense than talking it to afd and saying "keep"!). i think that if thats the case the instructions need seriously rewording! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 09:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The key word in that first sentence is "optionally". If you believe the concerns of the tagging editor are misfounded, you can simply remove the prod tag (and please note briefly in the edit summary that that's what you're doing and why). —Whouk (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

as you say the key word is optionally. you have two options: you can opt to address the concerns of the editor, or you have to take it to afd. that is what the instructions say. simply removing the prod tag and saying why doesnt address any concerns, so you have to take the article to afd according to the instructions. the other key word is "or" - if you remove the prod tag without addressing the concerns of the editor and dont take the article to afd you are doing neither of the permitted options. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says in the excerpt you've quoted above, but that's because you've omitted the numbering from the instructions:

If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion:

1. Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, and optionally try to address the concerns of the tagging editor; OR

2. Alternatively, nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate.

i.e., you can do 1. (which includes the optional bit) or you can do 2. However, I've moved "OR" to a new line in the instructions to make this absolutely clear. —Whouk (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not sound like a correct parsing. It impples that if I take it to AfD I should leave the prod tag in place, but is that a sensible thing to do? I think it should be: (1) Remove the prod tag AND optionally do either (2a) try to address the concerns OR (2b) take it to AfD. Henning Makholm 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I've reworded it to attempt to make that clearer. —Whouk (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks it makes a lot more sense now. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes less sense that way. If the prod tag was added for some ridiculously bad reason or no reason at all, of course it's sensible to remove the prod tag and not do further editing to address the "concerns" of the tagging editor. For example, if I slapped a prod tag on the Moon_landing article and gave as the reason "The moon landing was faked and shouldn't have an article in Wikipedia", should the person removing the tag be obliged to edit the article to make clear the "fact" that the landing was faked? Should the article be taken to AfD when it's clear that deleting it would be stupid? Geoffspear 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "optionally" is hard to understand? Henning Makholm 07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest the following wording:

• If you do not agree that the article should be deleted, remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. You may if you wish further edit the article to address the points raised by the prod tag.
• If you believe that the article should be deleted, but not without discussion, remove the {{dated prod}} tag and nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate, noting this in the edit summary.

Grutness...wha? 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Grutness's version, as I think it pretty clearly lays out the options. I often do option #2 when I'm not sure if something should be deleted, and perhaps would even vote "weak keep" in an AfD. Not sure if the wording should reflect that possibility; it's probably fine as it stands right now, as I'm not sure how many editors would actually take this path. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Link...

Could this page have an obvious link to the list of Prod'd pages, please! (Don't like to add one myself, in case I stuff up).JackyR 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean This page? I can't figure out how to link to it, either! Fake User 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You can link it like this [[:Category:Proposed deletion]] which shows up as Category:Proposed deletion. Hope this helps. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is right to keep allowing pages to be added to prod without providing an obvious means for people to review them? — RJH 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, just go to CAT:PROD to review them. What's the problem? --Rory096 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The prior tabular list format had much more information, including how many had reviewed the page and a summary of the reason for nomination. By comparison categories are nearly useless for this purpose — I just don't have the time to go through every single page. It's unrealistic. — RJH 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the toolserver was very useful, but it's not replicating correctly right now, so we have to make do with what we've got. --Rory096 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta for link. Rory, you had to know about categories, plus the name of this particular one, to work that out. And if you knew that, you'd probably know most of the other stuff on this page and wouldn't be reading it... JackyR | Talk 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Tprod

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

Change in policy or guideline

Following the link from the {{Policy-change-warning}} to here. What was the change in policy? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the switch to subst'ing the prod template. From the page's history: "23:43, 2 May 2006 King of Hearts (→Nominating a proposed deletion - {{Policy-change-warning}} (now we're using subst:))". -- JLaTondre 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, patrollers!

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

issues with removal

Okay, so I know one of the problems with the prod system is that people can remove them with no edit summary or talk discussion. Would it be worth a compromise, perhaps, that, like speedies, the creator of an article is not allowed to remove the prod, and if they do, it can be added back? One would imagine, at least in theory, that many of the removed prods are by people who created the articles. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone (even the creator) removes the prod template, then it is controversial. Ardric47 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And speedies are non-controversial, too, but that rule is in place there. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think speedies are non-controversial "by definition," since a page that meets the criteria for speedy deletion is considered to be unworthy for inclusion. Prod is based on opinion. Ardric47 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. I disagree with it, but it's a legitimate argument. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the creator (or anyone, really) should need to provide a reason for removing the prod template for it to "stick". If they can't think of a reason why they're removing the template, it's harder to buy that it's so controversial. --W.marsh 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, if we force people to give reasons, we will just get vacuous reasons ("This is important and should stay") instead of no reasons. Nothing gained, except instruction creep. Henning Makholm 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted pages are not un-controversial; they are merely those pages which satisfy the CSDs. CSDs are decided on based on two factors: 1) they should be sufficently obvious that one expierenced Wikipedian can judge if a page fits with minimal research; 2) they are so frequent that putting them through a longer process would produce an unacceptable backlog. Uncontroversial is not the issue. Some CSDs, such as: G4. Recreation of deleted material., A7. Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages., and I4. Lack of licensing. are or have been regularly controversial. PROD is defined by it not deleting things which there is any dispute about, CSD is not. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:CSD: When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy. It's meant to be uncontroversial. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"When there is reasonable doubt about whether a page does [fall under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion]" - the CSDs are meant to be "sufficiently obvious"(as I said above), not "uncontroversial" - Where there is controversy over the applicability of a criteria, CSD should not be used - but when there is any other type of controversy, CSD still remains a valid option. It's a subtle, but important point. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "uncontroversial"

When this article says uncontroversial, what does that mean? Morton devonshire 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• When some articles go to AfD, they get deleted with a whole string of delete, delete, delete votes. After a while, you get an idea of what kinds of articles attract this kind of response. Those are the uncontroversial ones. Joyous! | Talk 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• That wouldn't be my take on it. I think this would be a good point to go back to the beginning and look at the first few sections in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 1. The idea then was that a PROD deletion had to be truly uncontroversial--that is, if even one person objected, for any reason, it was controversial and wouldn't be deleted. At the time, a number of people thought this essentially meant no article would ever be deleted because there would always be someone to champion it, but we gave it a try, and lo and behold, many deletions turned out to be truly uncontroversial. Anyway, the "official" definition of uncontroversial as it applies to PROD is: a deletion that not a single person will object to for any reason. · rodii · 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I actually think that your take and my take aren't very different. If not even a single person would object (your take) then it would have been deleted via AfD with a string of "delete, delete, delete" (my take). Joyous! | Talk 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to sound argumentative. I was thinking more of Morton up there, who may see your answer as indicative of... groupthink, or something--and wanted to point out that there was also a purely procedural answer. · rodii · 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Darn. I was gearing up for a good argument. Joyous! | Talk 22:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, it's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here. · rodii · 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5 days or 5 days?

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

Should be 120 hours. See "PROD times" section just above for some recent discussion. · rodii · 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Prefer AfD rant

Kindly don't take offense to this, but...

The current implementation of proposed deletion (using categories) appears to me to be more cumbersome and much less scalable than AfD. Now a reviewer has to visit every single page to determine suitability, a very cumbersome, time-consuming process. I much prefer the AfD process where the reviewer can at least read a summary of the reason for nomination and has some indication of trends by other reviewers.

I tried out the new category scheme today and it took an average of over an hour per day to go through a day's entries. (Including typical slow WP upload time.) Compare this to a typical 10 minutes or less for a daily review of AfD. I'm also finding pages that to me seemed inappropriately nominated for proposed deletion, perhaps in an attempt to bypass the tighter scrutiny offered by AfD. :-/ — RJH 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that too (#Latest Thoughts). Ardric47 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been steadily going through these lists the past few days and I'm finding a lot of pages that would be controversial if presented on AfD. It looks like this is being used as a tool to get rid of pages that individuals may find non-notable. I.e. in the hope that others find it too cumbersome to bother. So I feel it is quite reasonable to object to any page that I think might survive an AfD. (Yes it is still a pain in the backside to go through this list and I'm hoping it will get dumped at some point. But for now I think it needs lots of aggresive gate keepers.) — RJH (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling. Ardric47 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes well that's something. But it still doesn't address my main concern, which is that this approach may actually be less scalable than AfD. What this does is require every viewer to review every single article, without learning the viewpoint of other reviewers. I find this to be a tremendous time-saving aspect of AfD, allowing me to focus on articles that have only a few reviews, or to check for mistakes by past reviewers. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a fourth step

The current three-step procedure tells readers how to propose deletion. I propose to add another step to tell them why (not) to propose deletion. It is step 1 in the following (steps 2, 3, and 4 are the present procedure):

• If you think that an article is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion:
  1. Consider whether the article might be better on a different Wikimedia project. Many articles that violate WP:NOT are perfect for Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource, or another sister project. Do not propose deleting these; instead, propose transferring them through the Transwiki process. After the transfer, deletion is often non-controversial and can be handled by proposed deletion.
  2. Review the article's history to confirm that it has not been recently vandalized. If it was recently proposed for deletion before, nominate it for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you think it should be deleted.
  3. Add {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the main article page. Use an informative edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
  4. Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ for this.

Fg2 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• IIRC our transwiki processes are rather backlogged. At any rate, PROD appears to be mostly used on non-notable people, bands, neologisms and linkspam, none of which would qualify for a sister project. >Radiant< 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find a reference for it now, but I believe that transwiki to Wikinews wasn't allowed (something to do with the licensing. So if this line is added and if my remark is correct, then the mention of Wikinews should be removed. Fram 11:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • So someone told me today. I'm crossing it out. Fg2 11:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor tweak

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

Conflicts, and removing prod

A reality-based hypothetical question. As the page says not to reinclude the prod tag, even if it's removed in bad faith, it can be listed in articles for deletion? By removed in bad faith, I mean ignoring the tag, sweeping it under the rug et cetera, even if the article is blatantly non-notable...

So if the prod tag stays for five days, the article gets deleted without a discussion? So it's sort of halfway between speedy and AfD? Can one nominate for AfD directly after a prod tag is removed, if it's clearly not notable? </trainofthought> --Dane ^~nya 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I have prodded articles, then when the original author challenged them I took them to AfD, which resulted in a delete vote. This seems a perfectly acceptable way of doing things to me - you're starting off by asking those with a vested interest in the article if it's notable, then if you and they disagree you ask for input from the community at large. If it goes through AfD with a keep vote, then end of story (at least for a few months). Mike Peel 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Just needed that cleared up, because I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia, and proposed deletion in particular. --Dane ^~nya 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. By PRODding an article, you're basically saying "I don't think anybody objects to deleting this". If someone removes a PROD, that means they're saying that yes, they do object. So you have a disagreement, and it's not unreasonable to seek wider input on that disagreement. That would be AFD, where the article is examined and discussed by more people. >Radiant< 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

An article can only be PROD'd once ... right?

I thought that WP:PROD used to say that if an article had been PROD'd but anyone removed the PROD tag, that article could never be PROD'd again. Anyone wanting to get the article deleted after the PROD had been removed once would have to go to WP:AFD.

But I don't see that mentioned on this page anymore. Was it intentionally removed? --Metropolitan90 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, it's still there in the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are editors allowed to remove a prod tag?

Are editors other than those who left a prod tag on an article allowed to remove it? This sounds like a cut-and-dried yes but there is debate on this going on at User_talk:Madchester#The Amazing Race, User_talk:Evrik#The Amazing Race and Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. Can someone please advise me on this so we can stop the argument? Thanks! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but doing so without addressing the concern which lead to the prod is unhelpful. However if there's disagreement, you can always take it to WP:AFD- prod is aimed mostly at uncontroversial deletes. Friday (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with Friday's explanation is that it presumes the concern which led to the prod was a valid concern. If someone thinks the prod tag was invalid, then simply removing it is OK. As you say, if the original tagger (or anyone) wishes to pursue the matter, they can take it to AfD. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I thought I had done it correctly. Next time I'll post my comments before I remove the prod. --evrik ^(talk) 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific prod templates: PROPOSAL

We have speedy templates {{db-bio}}, {{db-empty}}, etc. Maybe we should have some prod templates for frequently-used reasons: {{prod-hoax}}, {{prod-bio}}, {{prod-bollocks}}, etc.

• Advantages:
  • Easier for experienced users to prod articles with common problems
  • Encourages use of prod over AfD
  • The templates will have more complete explanations than the typical prod reason, which makes it easier for new users (or non-editors) to understand why their/an article has been prodded
  • Better user warning messages (like {{nn-warn}}, but for prod)
• Disadvantages:
  • People may overuse these templates, much like {{db-context}} is currently overused.
  • Some users may not realize they can supply their own explanation.

Comments would be appreciated. --N Shar 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some standard reasons to my user-script prodder a while ago, and then removed them again. I just wasn't using them enough; prod reasons are a lot more varied than speedy reasons. --ais523 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've created {{prod-nn}}, which I think is preferable to just giving a reason of "nn"... Addhoc 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd reaction

At User:Biimaal I tagged it here but had to put the links for the differences outside the prod. With the next edit I was able to move them inside the prod. If you try to include the links in the prod template in one edit you get this. Any ideas why? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the character = in a template parameter unless you quote it using 1= (or 2= for the second parameter, etc.) before it. For an example using {{1x}} (which just returns its argument):

• {{1x|test}} produces test
• {{1x|test=test}} produces {{{1}}}
• {{1x|1=test=test}} produces test=test

so you'd want to write {{subst:prod|1=reason including = signs}}. --ais523 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)