This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I suggest that there should be three dates on ((prod)):

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days. This template was added 2008-08-15 22:32; five days from then is 2008-08-20 22:32. Time now is 2024-02-13 18:53.

Objections? Renata (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem necessary to me. The template itself will change when the 5 days are up to show the time has lapsed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want articles about horror movies to be deleted so I edited the notice like it says. Hut 8.5 told me I had to come here an "persuade people" not to delete the articles. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• They're wrong. For PROD, all you need to do is remove the tag. If it's nominated for WP:AFD, that's where the discussion is needed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a thread at WT:DEL which discusses (in part) changes to this policy. Please join the discussion. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the main purpose of PROD is to handle non-controversial content deletions, and in general images are content; I suggest that Prod be amended to include Images. If you look at WP:IFD most of the discussions have no comments and are already uncontested. This would codify the current practice and make it easier for admins in managing deletion issues. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't see why not. --Closedmouth (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about IFD, but it doesn't look like it sees enough activity to need "streamlining" of the process. I've no real objection to it, but then again I don't have much idea what type of consequences the change would have, since I don't even know the image deletion guidelines. I would suggest bringing this up over on the IFD talk page too, since people there are far more likely to understand the image deletion process. They could give you better arguments for or against. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against it. WP:IFD is effectively already a PROD-like process and doesn't need the help. I'm concerned about users not being made properly aware of a pending PROD on images; it's much more of an issue for images than for articles. We could add that requirement, but then the process would be basically just like IFD except without a place for discussion, and I don't see how that would help. However, I am for revising the WP:IFD policy to make clear that uncontested nominations are normally deleted, if that is unwritten. Mangojuice^talk 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I screwed up, would someone mind checking this for me, please?

I forget where I found the template, but on Drag Racing USA, I used ((dated prod)) and now that I'm looking around a few days later, I'm seeing ((subst:prod)). Did I use the wrong template and that's why it hasn't been deleted or is there just a backlog somewhere of articles to be deleted?--Flash176 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog at Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 September 2008. You didn't do anything wrong. No worries. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I think you have it backwards, but it looks like you did it right. You are supposed to use "((subst:prod|reason))" when prodding an article. That automatically adds in a whole ton of stuff, including the ((dated prod)) template. If you -did- use ((dated prod)), then the prod wouldn't have had a date on it, and would have been fixed a while back (a few of us watch for those things). And sometimes it takes a couple of extra days because of backlogs, so don't worry. there's no hurry on these things. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Under the "How it works" section, the page lists about three reasons about when PRODS should not be added on articles, but I noticed one of the reasons saying "has previously been undeleted." I do know that the word 'undeleted' means "has not been deleted", but if an article was previously not deleted, it kind of doesn't make sense to me. Does that phrase mean that an article was deleted, but before deletion it wasn't? SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It means that the article was deleted, and then restored (i.e. undeleted). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Every time an article I started is deleted on the grounds it was an "uncontested ((prod)) I get very annoyed, and I am again mystified as to why advising the article creator and major contributors to an article is merely a recommended courtesy.

In the ideal world the wikipedia would have no vandals. Every contributor would honor the commitment we ask to reach decisions through civil, reasoned discussion.

But the sad fact is vandals and wikistalkers do exist. Those wikipedia contributor who are malicious, who are prepared to bend and break the wikipedia's policies and conventions are fully capable of picking out articles started by contributors they regard as "rivals", and prodding them as a form of harassment -- deliberately ignoring the advice in WP:PROD.

Today I saw, on my watchlist, a deletion log entry indicating an another article I started, and its talk page had been deleted after being nominated by a contributor who had not observed the policies recommended courtesy heads-up.

I have no idea who first tagged the article for deletion. It may well have been well-meaning contributor, who was unaware of the courtesy. But I have had wikistalkers. For all I know the tagger could have been one of them.

Further, one's watchlist is simply not a reliable method of letting contributors learn an article they have started has been deleted. One's watchlist only shows recent activity. People take wikibreaks.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• If an article was deleted via PROD, it can be restored simply by asking. As for your concern...if we made it required, just how exactly would it be enforced? Do we block people for not doing it? That seems rather extreme. For most people, a watchlist is fine...and if you've been away a while, you can configure it to shore more changes than the last few days. A good article usually doesn't slip through the PROD net (though it can). And even if it is deleted, we have a process to get it back quickly. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You write: "Good articles don't slip through the ((prod)) net? Can I ask what you base this opinion on? That is not my experience. Several articles I created were first ((prod))ed, then deleted, when the tagger didn't check to see if they were patent nonsense because they had been vandalized, and the deleting admin didn't check either. I have had several deleting admins tell me they rely on the initial tagger to have have done the due diligence of checking the edit history, for vandalism.
  • What should an admin do if he comes across a ((prod)) where the nominator didn't inform the article creator? Who said anything about blocking? I didn't say the over-hasty quality-control volunteer should be blocked. If the contributor who tagged the article didn't take 30 seconds to inform the article creator wouldn't it be possible for the admin to: (1) just decline the ((prod)); (2) ((subst)) in the template that tells the tagger his or her ((prod)) was declined because they didn't inform the article creator.

    I have had over-hasty quality control volunteers tell me they couldn't possibly spend thirty seconds leaving a courtesy note on the article creator's talk page, or check the article's history to see if its current bad state was due to vandalism, because it would erode the efficiency of their quality control efforts. I found this an incredibly selfish and short-sighted approach. Creating even a stub, even if it is only a short paragraph or two, even if it only cites one or two references, is going to take at least ten minutes, probably more like half an hour.

    What these over-hasty quality control volunteers are really asserting is that thirty seconds of their time is more valuable than the half hour the article creator spent drafting the article. If their laziness ends up requiring an otherwise unnecessary DRV or AFD they are going to waste hours of other people's time. It also unnecessarily erodes the over-all stock of good will we require if we are going to go on extending the assumption of good faith to others. Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, dated prods at DRV are automatically restored (just as if you ask an admin)--there is also the safety mechanism that dated prods are not deleted automatically. An administator has to agree with the prod rationale in order to delete the article, otherwise he/she may remove the prod or list it at AfD. Notification isn't required because the added burden on 100% of prodders outwieghs the benefit of catching that !% of authors that don't catch the notification in their watchlist or checking on their article. And quite frankly, you lose a lot of ground in a discussion by outright suggesting that some prod taggers are vandals. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, some are. Though I find prod -removers- tend to be vandals more often. It's a much more frustrating and effective method. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Strikes me as about the most ineffectual vandalism possible. But I still reject the notion. Prod/CfD/AfD are community processes. It is possible to disrupt the encyclopedia by misusing them but their use is not disruption in itself. It is too common that we see a mentality that deletion=disruption. I figured I'd nip that part of the discussion in the bud. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I know one can extend the period of time shown on your watchlist. It remains only a temporally limited view however -- merely a view of a longer period. So, the watchlist remain completely inadequate as an audit trail.
• Protonk writes:

"Notification isn't required because the added burden on 100% of prodders outwieghs the benefit of catching that 1% of authors that don't catch the notification in their watchlist or checking on their article."

What "added burden" are you talking about? The thirty seconds or less required to ((subst)) in the template written for this purpose? I wrote above that this argument discounts the value of the time of the good-faith contributors who started the articles.

• I want you to think about what can happen when good-faith contributors innocently commit some kind of lapse that justifies placing a ((prod)) or speedy deletion tag -- and the quality control volunteer can't be bothered to inform them of the lapse. That good faith volunteer can go on and innocently commit that lapse in other articles. I urge you to consider that the most responsible quality control volunteer would not merely tag what they think is cruft, but they would inform those good-faith contributors of their lapse. If the tagger is correct this could save hours, or dozens of hours, from being wasted. Further, everyone is fallible, and the quality control volunteer who has incorrectly interpreted policy, and who incorrectly applied deletion tags, is less likely to have their own policy misinterpretations brought to light when they place those deletion tags without informing the creator.
• I remind you the wikipedia is a collaborative project. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia contributors are asked to seek consensus.  :*May I ask you were you got that "1%" figure you cited above? Some time ago a quality control volunteer and I did an experiment. During a discussion on informing article creator that the articles they started were being nominated for deletion he cited the figure "90%". He said that 90% of new articles were patent nonsense, cruft, vanity, copyvios. So the effort of informing the contributors who started the articles didn't seem worthwhile. Or maybe he said 90% of new articles would not end up being improved, and would be deleted within a week. I captured a list of the couple of dozen most recently created articles, and I invited him to join with me in looking at what had happened to them a week later. I acknowledged that there was more cruft than I expected. And he graciously acknowledged that far fewer than 90% of the articles turned up being cruft, far fewer ended up being deleted, and that some of the articles that he thought would have been hopeless in the first twenty minutes of their existence had been licked into good shape within that first week. So, where did you get your "1%" figure. I have no problem if it is a guestimate, based on your gut feeling, so long as we treat it as one person's guestimate. Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Geo Swan (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you reformat your comments so we know who said what? It's very confusing to read. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do contribute your ideas and opinions of the above proposal. RMHED (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May I delete articles that I have Prodded? Does it matter that I declined a speedy deletion in favor of PROD? Dlohcierekim 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it says at the bottom of the page:

Note: To ensure independent judgment, an article should not be deleted by the same person who added the ((prod)) tag.

Since the deleting admin is supposed to check whether the prod tag is valid, and if the deleting admin was the one who added the tag in the first place this safeguard disappears. Hut 8.5 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't seem right to me to delete what I'd prodded. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side-note, I would apply the spirit of this rule to non-urgent speedies as well. Obviously, "must go now" things like pure copyvio, pure attack, etc. where there is no clean edit and nothing salvageable can go without a second look, but A7s, A9s, etc. should not be deleted by one pair of eyes alone. "Impure" copyvio and attack pages with salvageable material can be stripped and the offending edits deleted then handled as normal, via regular speedy, PROD, AFD, or article-improvement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that Redirects and Images be added to the list of things that can be prodded. Between the WP:DFUI, WP:PUI, and WP:IFD processes, most image deletions are uncontested listings by a single person. In the same way, over half of the articles in the database are actually redirects. Again, these are for the most part uncontroversial deletions. Any other opinions? MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll wait a couple more days and make the change then, seeing as it appears uncontroversial. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• This has been discussed a few times before (see this for an example) and generally has been not well received. Check the archives for more, but a quick summary: The deletion criteria are very different for articles, redirects, and images; very clear cases qualify for speedy, something that's not always the case for aricles; there's no real need to have a PROD process for them since IFD and RFD are not nearly as busy as AFD; no real good reason to allow it; WP:CREEP. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well right now there is an 8 day backlog at IFD, a 2 day backlog at PUI. Most of the IFDs never have any discussion and just fill out a page that could be better devoted to handling the actually controversial image deletions. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Is the backlog because there's so many IFDs that admins are swamped, or because nobody wants to close IFDs? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I suspect it is from the very few people commenting at IFD, as there is very little interest in commenting at a debate where there is no opposition to deletion. One could say most IFDs are closed as non-controversial deletes, and if so, then could be prodded. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• (Drive-by reply) As I fiction editor, I often have the luck that now-useless redirects started out as nonnotable born-out-of-fan-enthusiasm articles (e.g. Hans the hare), so I just restore the old articles and prod them then. If it was up to me, I'd prefer a direct way. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that kind of like blanking the page and then tagging it as a speedy because it's empty? --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. If more content is already 100% useless, then what would keeping around less content (i.e. a redirect) achieve? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We may be going in circles, then, Sgeureka, for I will usually deal with non-notable fiction articles on prod, by redirecting them to a target--unless the parent work is non-notable also, there's always a target. On what basis do you consider the redirects non-useless? Looking at your example, wouldn't the right course be to add it to the article on characters? DGG (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I watched Roseanne for a long time and don't remember such a character, so I doubt mention-worthiness. Even if I am wrong, what should be added to the LoE - "Hans the hare is a character on this show" as claimed in the original article? Just like dab pages don't link to pages that don't mention the to-be-dabbed term, redirects should not redirect to pages that don't mention the term. Having said that, if someone comes around and finds that the character deserves to be mentioned, he can easily add him to the LoC and recreate the redirect. All of my opinion is based on having worked with Whatlinkshere links for a long time and seeing a huge pollution via redirects (e.g. just have a look at the double-redirect mess at Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Garfield_and_Friends_episodes that needs to be taken care of, with no added encyclopedic value). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can disambiguations be deleted though prod? Tavix (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this sentence be clarified then?: "Additionally, only articles may be proposed for deletion using ((prod)). Deletion of other pages, including redirects, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable." Tavix (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Are dab pages ever taken to AFD? I can't remember if I've seen that before. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• On occasion, yes. Tavix (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came here to query the same thing. Another editor (see discussion here) says that Prod doesn't apply to disambiguation pages, citing the above wording. Can I propose the wording is changed to something like this: "Additionally, only articles, including disambiguation pages, may be proposed for deletion using ((prod)). Deletion of other pages, including redirects, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable." Tassedethe (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you and have already made the change. Tavix (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend reverting until there is community consensus before moving forward. Two editors do not constitute a community consensus, and this discussion is only hours old. B.Wind (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine, but right now it's 3-1 in favor of changing the wording to reflect disambguations. Tavix (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: the United States does not select its President candidate on the basis of voting of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. B.Wind (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Does this look like New Hampshire or the United States? Besides, it's not like we are voting for president, but for the mayor of Dixville, where we should select the mayor by the basis of voting from Dixville. Tavix (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When another editor tried to delete the redirect Queen of Bollywood, it was suggested at RfD to convert it into into a disambiguation page, which I did. At that time, it was taken to AfD whereupon it was deleted. While it was in deletion review (prior to AfD but after an improper speedy), I was advised that prod was not an option for disambiguation pages as they are not articles (in this case, it was a controversial deletion, which would have nullified it as well). Actually, I agree with that interpretation; forthermore, WP:PROD should be amended to treat dab pages similarly to that of redirects (when "Queen of Bollywood" was challenged, I wasn't even sure if AfD or MfD would be even the appropriate venue, but it appears the former by precedent - this should also be made more explicit as well). B.Wind (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Queen of Bollywood was a controversial deletion, so deleting it by prod wouldn't be possible. Prod exists so that AfD isn't bogged down by uncontroversial deletions, and if there is an uncontroversial disambiguation, I don't see why it has to go straight to AfD, just to suffer the same fate of deletion. If there is a good reason to remove a prod on a disambiguation, then do it, but if it is simply because you don't want prods on dabs, that is a different issue and would just result in a flux of dabs in AfD. Tavix (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can see the likelihood of someone claiming that every proposed deletion of a dab page being controversial (save the ones with only one target, which can be turned into redirects without discussion). The (apparent) circumstances that started this discussion clearly lead me to this belief: one of the participants in this discussion deprodded a couple of dab pages while claiming that prods don't apply to them (I can see both sides to this argument and lean slightly towards his interpretation). Since this is itself has ignited a controversy, this eliminates the "non-controversial candidate" for consideration - if the interpretation is controversial, that would mean that the prodding itself is controversial and thus takes ((prod)) of dab pages out of play (think of it: depending upon how fervent the editor is, he - a colleague of mine at work - could simply state that he would be contesting all proposed deletions of dabs... which brings us back to "the appropriate deletion page"). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I offer an alternative for the community to consider: Additionally, only articles may be proposed for deletion using ((prod)). Deletion of other pages, including redirects and disambiguation pages, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable. Deletion of disambiguation pages in article space should be proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for discussion. Clearly there should be a wider discussion for dab pages, as there is for templates, userpages, talk pages, and project pages, none of which are covered by WP:PROD. B.Wind (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no reason for that though! If, for example, there was a disambiguation with zero bluelinks, and there wasn't any possibility for deletion, a prod should do fine as taking it to AfD would just result in a deletion. Tavix (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Found the perfect example of a disambiguation that needs to be prodded: Sadie (disambiguation). Removal of the prod tag would just lead to deletion at AfD, so just leave it to run it's course at prod. Tavix (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at this should suggest a better solution. Sometimes deletion should not be the first option. Had you not mentioned it here, only those on prod patrol would have noticed it. B.Wind (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Of those, only two are actually "Sadie", a dog and a band. The rest just have Sadie in them. A hatnote would work just as fine Tavix (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I struck the comments as they are no longer applicable. Tavix (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other but it the deletion path for dabs and "semi-dabs" that are half-article-half-dab should be clear and unambiguous. Either it's PROD/AFD or it's MFD. Documentation in both places should match. Also, if it's MFD there needs to be clear guidance on what do to with "half and half" or "60/40" or "70/30" type articles that are basically a DAB with an extended lead or a stub with a list of similar-sounding terms in the see-also section, e.g. "Smith is a human name, it's origins are ... several dozen words later See also: John Smith, Jane Smith, Smyth, Smythe...." Hmm, looking at what I just wrote, it's clear PROD/AFD is better than MFD for this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I found WP:WIAA most interesting (after reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages aren't articles and davidwr's post above) - it seems the former illustrates the ambiguity as to what is "counted" as an article (especially since the statistics software uses a different standard than discuss in the page's second paragraph, which specifically states that dab pages are not articles). For the most part, dab pages contain no more encyclopedic information than Category: pages (and many can argue that it barely contains more than redirects). Perhaps an option that helps eliminate this gray area for both the prod and deletion discussion areas would be something like: Pages categorized as disambiguation pages are similar in purpose to that of redirects, to direct the reader to an appropriate page that contains information that the reader is searching. For the purpose of proposed deletion, such disambiguation pages are not articles and thus not subject to ((prod)). Deletion of other pages, including redirects, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable. As far as the last sentence is concerned, I would recommend the scope of WP:RfD to be expanded to include the (rarely proposed for deletion) disambiguation pages because of their similar purposes and policies. Pages in articlespace that have the appearance of disambiguation but are not in any disambiguation category could then be stated to be subject to ((prod)) and should be discussed in WP:AfD. At least then there is a definitive, nonsubjective demarcation between cases that eliminates (or at least reduce greatly) much of the fuzziness that the current policy has. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just to make my self clear, I don't care if disambiguations are expanded to RfD. The only thing I care about is, that if they are continued to go to AfD, then PROD must come with it since everything else subject to AfD can be prodded. Otherwise when someone wants to delete a worthless disambiguation page, it isn't met at AfD with 10 delete votes and no one voting keep (which is what prods are supposed to prevent). Tavix (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps treating them like redirects would be the solution to this after all. No articles -> no prods: deletion of dab pages should be at RfD instead (lower traffic but more widespread community consensus than just burying a prod tag on something that might not be seen by others for weeks at a time). There is no reason for AfD to handle non-articles in the first place, and clearly there needs to be a bit more clarification regarding process and policies regarding dabs. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any harm in the inconsistency of the current way of doing things. Perhaps RfD would be better for dealing with disambiguation pages, but if so that's the reason to have them go to RfD. Disambiguation page AfDs work perfectly fine at AfD in my experience. That said, I don't think there's any reason to categorically disallow Prod from applying to disambiguation pages, even if many or most such cases would be controversial. Surely there are some where it's reasonable. Mangojuice^talk 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is a fundamental reason not to - and Tavix said it quite succinctly in a recent AfD: dab pages are not articles, and PROD can/should only be applied to articles. If there seems to be consensus here, perhaps we should propose the RfD route for dab deletion at WT:Redirects for deletion or WT:Disambiguation (I do not know which). At this point, I do not see consensus (unfortunately) as to the changing of the wording as proposed above... on any version. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone boldly added them, I reverted and started a discussion. See WT:IFD#Should files be eligible for PROD for a discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if an editor removes a PROD from an article then they should bear at least some of the responsibility for fixing the problem that caused the PROD in the first instance. We currently have a user who has been removin PRODs on the basis that the article is 'probably notable' or somesuch legalese. So, could we upgrade the language in the PROD article to indicate that the problem needs to be fixed when the PROD tag is removed? Greglocock (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The very act of using PROD instead of AFD is an assertion that "nobody disagrees with me" and "nobody thinks the article is salvageable or worth spending the time to salvage." The very act of removing a PROD can mean: 1) I disagree with your claim, 2) the article is salvageable and worth salvaging, or, if accompanied by re-tagging, 3) this deletion is better handled by WP:SPEEDY or WP:AFD. #3 doesn't seem to be in play here. As long as someone is removing a PROD in good faith, that means someone disagrees and your alternatives are to let it live or to send it to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• What if the "problem" suggested by the prodder is nonexistent? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then presumably no action would be required other than to remove the PROD. OTOH consider the following glorious record [[1]] . Greglocock (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

...then how do you know that's not what's happening? People see "problems" with an article all the time that I don't see at all. As for that user's "record", looking at edit summaries, those all seem like good prod removals (and a lot of them seem procedural). --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

prodsum seems broken 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems almost always broken on long weekends--perhaps it needs to be run manually? In the meantime, the way to check is by using the daily lists in Category:Proposed deletion; this is much more tedious (unless you use popups), as it does not show the reason. I would urge all admins to be very careful in deleting expired prods , as articles may not have been looked at adequately. DGG (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy deletion, but you want to delete something without getting noticed and having a discussion on the Articles for Deletion, then you can use the proposed deletion tag now, and if no one notices and protests for five days, you get it erased. This is just absurd! What possible reason could you have for trying to delete something, without going through the proper notice and discussion area? We have WP:Speedy, and WP:AFD already, is there any legitimate reason for WP:Prod to exist? Dream Focus 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. The 100+ articles per day at AFD (and it used to be a lot more). You also missed three important points: 1) Prods do get looked at regularly. 2) The deleting admin still makes a judgment call over the deletion (and it's not the rubber-stamp you'd expect). 3) Any PROD can be overturned at deletion review simply by asking, at any time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• I assume lots of people watchlist User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary, which except when it's broken like it was this week keeps an updated list of articles that are tagged for proposed deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• What UsaSatsui said, though on #3 I'd go further - you don't even have to ask at deletion review, and admin can be asked. The reason for creating PROD was the overloading of AFD by obvious calls that don't meet the intentionally narrower speedy criteria. GRBerry 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Even by my somewhat inclusionist views, about 90% of the prods are items that clearly ought to be deleted. There are a certain number of articles prodded by mistake or not understanding the rules or not checking for obvious references, and a very few prodded quite inappropriately in dubious faith, but I think almost all of them get caught and deprodded. This is not like speedy, where articles are usually deleted so quickly that only a few people have chance to actually look, and where an administrator can delete single-handedly. I used to check selected prods; now, since I discovered popups, I routinely check all prods in areas where I have any knowledge at all, and I'm sure others do likewise. The main improvement needed with Prod is a greater use of it: probably bout 10 or 20% of afds could have gone here instead. DGG (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Eh, I can see how you'd think that. There's certainly the scenario where someone only checks Wikipedia once a month, and very easily an article they watch could get PROD'd in that time. But it could also get AFD'd. And they're much better off if it gets PROD'd. With PROD they can easily get the article back just by contacting any admin. If it was deleted at AFD... they need to have an argument beyond "Well I wasn't here for the AFD, I would have voted keep...", or there's no way DRV will overturn the deletion. PROD seems stealthy, especially if you assume bad faith of the process... but generally the PROD is removed if there's any objection. Or, as I learned recently, it will be removed if someone even guesses that an objection is possible, without actually knowing what that objection is. --Miss Communication (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it is necessary. The number of articles deleted through prod is about the same as the number of articles deleted through AfD (if anything it's slightly higher). Hence if we get rid of prod we will about double the number of AfDs, which will massively increase the workload at AfD for a load of articles which are very likely to get deleted. Also bear in mind that if an article is deleted through prod and someone contests the deletion afterwards the article is restored automatically, whereas to get an AfD overturned you have to go to DRV. Hut 8.5 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have requested a feature to be added to Twinkle but it needs consensus here. Basically this is a proposal to modify the prod template to automatically add the ((firstarticle)) template to new user_talk pages along with prod notification. Thoughts and comments are welcome. Thanks!—Magic.Wiki (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The current rule on de-prodding says once something is de-prodded, it must go to AFD. Should this be clarified to explicitly allow a fresh PROD when:

• the de-prodding was made by an editor banned or evading a block at the time of the de-prodding
• the de-prodder admits to a clerical error and clearly did not intend to de-prod
• the de-prodder changes his mind within a reasonable period of time, say, 5 days, and adds a fresh prod tag

I wouldn't even go with a fresh prod if it was re-prodded within hours, I would just extend the deadline by a day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The philosophy behind PROD is that nobody contests the deletion. Therefore, if the prod is re-prodded by the person who removed it, in my eyes the prod still valid (though probably not after 5 days). As for banned users, their edits are null and void, so re-prodding in that case is fine by me too (this does NOT apply to users who are "blocked", blocking and banning are not the same. You can be blocked and not banned) --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the second a third one though. In the first case, the person not was conseting the removal in the first place and in the second, it appears clear that the person withdrew there contestion of the prod. Either case should be OK since there is no one contesting the prod. --76.71.211.147 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are lists PRODable? Or do I need to take a list to WP:AfD instead? Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

to clarify that, yes, they are proddable. but many list deletions are disputed, so if you think anyone is likely to give a rational objection, you'll save time by going to AfD. Certainly if the only argument is that it duplicates a category, then someone will generally remove the prod. DGG (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently had an article that was proded for the required five days but the prod template was removed after the five days before it could be deleted. Does it still count as a contested prod although it was only a matter of time that it had not been deleted. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it still counts as a contested prod. Prods can be contested at any time, including after the article is deleted. Hut 8.5 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, understood. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors have a right to contest a prod: they have no right to arrogantly dismiss it. The policy clearly says:

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

1. Remove the ((dated prod)) tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page.

2. As a courtesy, notify the editor who initiated the PROD by placing a ((Deprod)) tag on his or her user talkpage.

3. While you're editing the article anyway, please consider improving it, especially to address the concerns given as a reason for deletion.

4. If you feel that the article should be deleted, but not without discussion, you may nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate.

5. Consider adding (or modifying) an ((Oldprodfull)) tag on the article's discussion page as documentation for others. (Articles may be proposed for deletion only once, and then either an Articles for deletion debate or a speedy deletion must occur.)

It does not say that you may simply remove a prod template, with no relevant editnote, talk page entry or attempt to address the problem mentioned. Such an action is, therefore, contrary to policy, and is vandalism. So why should we be forced through the inconvenience of an AfD procedure by an act of vandalism? Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does actually say that. Notice that #2-5 are not mandatory steps, only suggested ones. All that is needed to contest a prod is the removal of it. That said, if a prod removal is clearly vandalism...such as when it is done with a page blanking, or by a known vandal or blocked user, or a user who has done nothing but deprod several articles that are unrelated...then I'd support reprodding it. But unless you're absolutely certain it's vandalism, it shouldn't be...and simply removing a PROD tag isn't. In fact, it's exactly what the PROD tag says to do. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of the non-mandatory nature of #2-5, #1 gives permission to "Remove the ((dated prod)) tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page.": it does not give permission to blithely remove it without explanation or improvement. Contesting something means that there is an argument to be made against the proposal: responsible editing means one does not remove something without a reason. Yet here not presenting reasons, and acting irresponsibly, is of unquestionable authority, and what we are left with is a situation whereby editors acting contrary to policy (maybe I overstated it by describing it as vandalism, but it is at least discourteous and heedless of policy) cause inefficiency to those who try to work within policy. That should not be allowed to be the case. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the philosophy behind PROD. General deletion policy is that articles are deleted through consensus, and consensus is reached through discussion. PROD is a shortcut through the discussion...it asserts that the article should be deleted, and nobody, not even the creator, objects therefore no discussion is needed. If anyone does object, that assertion isn't valid anymore, and it needs to have a discussion. Any attempt to deviate from that, by allowing reprods without a reason given or whatnot, undermines that idea, and "efficiency" is not a good enough reason to circumvent the AFD process. Keep in mind PROD is the exception, not the rule, as far as deletion policy goes.

I don't see the point in pushing through a PROD anyways. Even if it does get deleted, it can be restored simply by asking. PROD has always been the lazy man's way of deleting things in my mind anyways...if you wanna do the job right, do it properly (an AFD is much harder to overturn). --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But that is not what the policy says. The policy does NOT give permission for mute removal of the template. It allows editors to contest the proposal, not to simply pretend it had never been raised. Is it your position that the policy should be re-written to state "If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can simply remove it. Informative edit notes or discussion on the talk page are unnecessary"? Because that is the de facto position that you are defending. Why should the policy that removal of a PROD requires meaningful contesting and/or improvement to the article carry less weight than the policy that an article shouldn't be PRODed more than once? Other edits that are contrary to policy (unsourced, untrue, OR, POV) can be reverted: why is this disregard for policy sacrosanct? If the policy can be freely ignored, and that breach cannot be reverted (possibly the only editorial action on Wikipedia that cannot be reverted), it needs to be re-written. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what the policy says - start at the introduction - "If a (((subst:prod))) tag is added to an article, the article will be deleted about 5 days later if nobody objects. If any user objects—usually by removing the tag—then the article may be taken to Articles for Deletion for further discussion." All that is needed to object is to remove the tag. Everything else is an optional step. GRBerry 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what the intro says, but that is only a summary of the policy. If it is OK to ignore the stated policy, then the policy needs to either be applied forcefully, such that it will no longer be ignored, or it needs to be rephrased, such that there is no contradiction between stated policy and acceptable practice. The status quo is that disregard of the published policy is acceptable and authoritative: that does not engender respect for the idea that this whole project is underpinned by policy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting the published policy. The published policy is that the standard method for contesting a prod is to remove the ((prod)) template. Nothing more is required by the policy. If it would clarify your confusion, maybe we should delete the language confusing you. But you are just wrong in your claim that there is a "contradiction between stated policy and acceptable practice". The stated policy and the acceptable practice both are that to contest a prod you remove the ((prod)) template, with no further actions needed. GRBerry 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept that I am misinterpreting it: I suspect that you are describing the usage rather than the text of the policy, because I cannot reconcile your replies with the policy as it is worded. The actions that are listed in the section "Contesting a proposed deletion" clearly state what an editor can do: it gives no permission for an editor to do otherwise. The section "How it works" refers to "objections", other parts talk about "contesting": both of these suggest that there is an argument contrary to the proposal, but you are asserting that this is not necessary. Please explain what words in the policy say that it is alright to delete the PROD with no explanation, because that is the practice that you are defending. The policy nowhere states that "to contest a prod you remove the template with no further actions necessary": it describes clearly what you can do, and it does not say that. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism requires "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and unexplained removal of a PROD tag can simply be a sign of laziness, forgetfulness, momentary oversight, and a host of other things. I am a proponent of requiring removals of PROD tags to be accompanied by reasons (not necessarily even good ones), but I'm afraid that similar proposals to make such a change to the proposed deletion process have failed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Think of it as applying this parliamentary procedure to Wikipedia. "I move this article be deleted. Any objections?". If one person objects, you need to go into a more significant vote. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  UsaSatsui, please add that link to the text of the page, as it is really what this process is all about, and a great reference point. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks the "spirit" of the prod guidelines are, we should not be required guess through divination or mind reading the exact reason a prod was removed. In the absence of vandalism or clearly POINTy behavior (example "removing all PRODs with the summary "deletionists suck") we need to assume that the editor removing the PROD had a good faith reason for doing so. Anything more restrictive would turn prod into a "slow motion" version of WP:CSD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tighten guidelines

Well I don't think merely AGF when there is no explanation is very helpful. And actually I just came here to propose that maybe the PROD removal guidelines should be marginally tightened. Namely (a) a PROD may be removed, but it is strongly recommended that you either fix the problem mentioned or if you don't, that you justify removal on the talk page; (b) if only one person has added substantial content to the article, that person may not remove the PROD tag unless they either fix the problem mentioned or justify removal on the talk page. For removals in contravention of (b), the PROD tag may be re-added, if the re-addition is explained on the Talk page. Basically, try and make PROD involve a bit more of the discussion process that AFD does, by not making removal of the tag quite so trivial. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I made the change since nobody had anything to say about it. It was swiftly undone [2] but still nobody has anything to say. Question? How is requiring people removing PROD tags to explain why they're removing the tag (unless they actually fix the problem) "against the spirit of PROD"? Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole thread above of people with "something to say about it" and even if there wasn't, see Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. IMHO your proposal would have prod resetters wikilawyering over what constitutes a valid removal justification or what constitutes a valid "fix". The way it is now is simple, "prod gone, game over, AFD is thataway". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know it isn't consent, I just wanted some attention :) The thread above doesn't have a concrete proposal. Anyway, more substantially, what I added didn't require justification, it required explanation. World of difference. Justifications can be argued over. Explanation is a point of view. The idea was you can remove a PROD tag with an unhelpful edit summary, but not without saying anything at all. The basis for this is the existing policy - it's really just a clarification: PRODs are supposed to be contested; contestation is more than mere rejection: it requires some provision of information. It's the difference between "No" and "No, because". Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, the escape clause for not needing explanation isn't Fix It (which can be argued over) but Try To Fix It (which is much less ambiguous). Any good faith attempt should count. "Substantial" might be a wording issue; maybe "good faith" would be clearer. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think one serious problem with your proposal is that it assumes that the problem indicated in the PROD is valid in the first place. If someone gives a prod with a stated reason, and another person believes that the reason isn't a valid one for deletion, they shouldn't be required to "try and fix it". As for the idea of "trying and make PROD involve a bit more of the discussion process"...PROD is supposed to be a no-discussion process. You want discussion, use AFD. And just a side note, trying to make that change and claming that "there was no objections", when there were several paragraphs of VERY strong objections right above you...well, it takes guts, I'll give you that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I couldn't extract any relevant meaning from the discussion above - that's why I didn't reference it in my proposal. And I'm sure you're not deliberately misrepresenting the proposed change: but it wasn't requiring a fix, that was just an escape clause to avoid having to redundantly explain tag removal when the problem has been fixed. (I thought that was pretty clear, both from the edit I made and from my comments above!) As for AFD: well the whole point is that AFD is a big step up in terms of getting more discussion. Tightening the guidelines as suggested was just intended to get marginally more communication between the tagger and the untagger. I really don't see why it's that controversial a suggestion, it's already part of the concept. PRODs are supposed to be "contested", not "rejected"; see my comments above. Rd232 ^talk 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm pointing out a problem with the change, not misrepresenting it. I know where you're coming from. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • At the very least some sort of explanation should be given in the edit summary, if only because removing the prod is much more likely to be effective if you say why, just as for any revert. Giving the reason may lead to the person who placed the prod agreeing with the reason, or at least it guides further process. As almost everyone who places prods keeps track of them, I'm not really sure of the point of notifying them, though. DGG (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • well that was exactly my thinking. But apparently mentioning fixing (purely as an alternative to explaining, to avoid requiring redundant explanation) raised a red flag for some that rather obscured the main point. Perhaps a simpler version might be accepted: "PRODs removed without indicating reason for removal may be re-added." Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I still don't think it's a good idea. First, if someone removes a prod, it's usually being done by someone who CLEARLY disagrees with it, and therefore can be considered to be contesting it. Second, there is really no point in pushing through a deletion that can be overturned with a single request to an admin or at DRV. You know, you're proposing a radical change to the prod process, and I don't think you realize just how significant it is. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • "Pushing through a deletion"? Are we talking about the same thing?? I'm asking for a little explanation, which might for instance prevent unnecessary AFDs or at least make them more productive, since that's often what happens with rejected PRODs. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Also don't forget my point that there is a difference between contesting and rejecting. See my comments above. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • And how do you know for sure which is which? How do you know the intent of someone who just removes a tag without explanation or improvement? That is the problem. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Intent is irrelevant. Contestation involves at least some minimal explanation: "No, because". Rejection doesn't need to involve explanation. Rd232 ^talk
                • Intent is everything. That's what you're not getting. That's the central issue here. Let's get into a bit of theory...PROD runs under the idea that nobody objects. Not "maybe they object, but probably not". Not "well, they object, but they don't have a reason". Nobody objects. That's the idea. Remember, the PROD process is a serious end-run around the basic Wikipedia fundamental of consensus and discussion, a practical application of Ignore All Rules, because it's claiming not a single person wants the article kept. Changing that idea undermines PROD completely, because now it's not based on the unilateral idea that the article should go.
                • Now let's say we implement this. Someone creates an article. A PROD is placed upon it for "Non-notable". Another person removes the PROD, believing the subject is notable, but doesn't leave an edit summary. The prod is put back on, and the article is deleted. That's a problem, because an article was just deleted without any discussion or consensus, despite someone's valid objection, because they forgot to leave an edit summary. And this not an "isolated hypothetical never-gonna-happen" scenario, this is a situation that happens every day...I have seen good articles saved from overzealous prodders because I caught a prod war in progress.
                • And I know this is a long now three-paragraph post, but I want to leave you with one thought: Deletion is supposed to be hard. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The place for contested deletions is AfD. If anyone contests in good faith, the community must be involved. There's really no other fair way to do it. DGG (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Forgot" to leave an edit summary... yeah. If they can't be bothered to leave even a one-word edit summary, why shouldn't it be reprodded? One could add a restriction that it needs to be done by someone other than the initial PRODdder, say. But really the mere fact that an explanation is required should ensure that one is produced, and that failing to produce one there is no reason to jump straight from Uncontested Deletion to Full On Debate (AFD). I'm not trying to get more articles deleted, I'm trying to improve communication. How are we to determine "contests in good faith" without even a pathetic halfhearted stab at communication? More generally, is there absolutely no way in which PROD can be improved with this in mind? Lo, behold, have we found the one perfect unimprovable thing in this world? How lucky we are... Rd232 ^talk 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the process cannot be improved. You have not shown how this change improves the process. All you have done is suggest a change that at best adds an unnecessary step, at worst undermines the whole PROD process, and isn't needed since if you really want an explanation, you can go hit the talk pages and try to get one. Improving communication is all fine and good, but this process does not use communication. And the sarcasm doesn't help. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of editing actions (from minimal edit summary upwards) is an "unnecessary step"? Really don't know what to say to that... Never mind. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Proposal to make unreferenced BLPs speedy-deleteable. --Amalthea 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At present, there is a conflict between practice and the guidelines. The guidelines state that an editor may "Remove the ((dated prod)) tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page.": it does not give permission to blithely remove it without explanation or improvement, and yet practice gives irrevocable authority (a removed PROD tag cannot be re-attached) to that unauthorised act.

Such inconsistency should not be tolerated. What is needed therefore is in the first instance a decision about whether meaningful contesting of the reason for placing the tag is required, or whether the fact of objection to the tag is sufficient. Once that is determined, the guidelines should unequivocally reflect that intention.

The whole page will probably need some editing to reflect what side of the contest/object fence we eventually come down, but in short, the Contesting a proposed deletion section might (if consensus is for mere objection) have its first paragraph adjusted to read something like "Remove the ((dated prod)) tag from the article. It is considered respectful to other editors to explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." (Encourages good etiquette, but does not require it). Conversely, if it is the opinion of the project that contesting must be "no, because", rather than merely "No", that paragraph will need to say something along the lines of ""Remove the ((dated prod)) tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page. A PROD tag removed with no reason given may be re-applied if the issue described in the initial prodding has not been addressed." Other sections of the page, most obviously the conflicts section, will need adjusting.

So let's have a presentation of the reasons why we should, or should not, tolerate the unexplained removal of a PROD tag. I'll try to start off with a few for each side of the argument, bearing in mind recent discussions here, and we'll see where it goes from there. I'll try to be neutral, although I do have an opinion on the matter, but I'll repeat that my main concern is that the guidelines accurately reflect the intended application, and not that I have an overriding interest as to what decision is reached. Kevin McE (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation to be required

Good etiquette implies respect for other editors, and another editors' thought processes as to why they posted a prod deserve acknowledgement.

One word is sufficient as an explanation: why should an editor acting thoughtfully object to typing one word or a short phrase?

If editors can remove PRODs with no explanation, there is no expectation on them to be able to justify their actions: this is counter to an expectation of responsible editorship.

If every PROD can be removed even by someone with no knowledge of the subject matter, or the principles of Wikipedia, what value does the PROD process have left?

A quick and sensible rebuttal of a PROD might avoid the more cumbersome AfD process: if the argument for retaining the article is not even mentioned, it is more likely to end up in AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No explanation required

PROD is not AfD, and is not the place for debate.

To post a prod is to enquire whether anyone objects to the article being deleted: the act of removing a prod shows the presence of that objection.

If we WP:Assume good faith, we trust that there was a reason to remove the prod. Kevin McE (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• While I have no objection to clarifying that we really, really, really want people to leave a reason, I don't think I need to go into the reasons we shouldn't require one again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask whether you accept that the current guidelines do not give permission to delete without a reason? Kevin McE (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the guy below me says it pretty much right on. And I don't see how the guidelines don't give permission to delete without a reason. "Should" is not a command, it's a suggestion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It has always been the intention that onyone had the right to request a full AfD dicussion instead of a PROD deletion, without having to explain his reasons for this request. This follows simply from the fact that PROD was about saving AfD effort on uncontested deletions. The existence of anyone who thinks the article should not be deleted, for any reason given or none, is evidence that its deletion is not uncontested and so the PROD process is not right for it.

To the extent the language on the policy page suggests that a reason for contesting the PROD has to be given before the contest is valid, it is that language that is wrong and should be changed, not the way the process has always worked in practice. –Henning Makholm (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've clarified the language to reflect what seems to be current practice and consensus here. As it stands now the only sort-of-requirement is noting the removal of the tag in the edit summary (but no consequences flow from failing to do that, so that's really optional as well). Everything else is now explicitly optional. Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording ("it is likely to be helpful") is much too weak. The wording of our policy does not have to be all-or-nothing, and the dichotomy of requiring an explanation versus providing almost no guidance is a false dilemma. I have not seen anyone express disagreement with the principle that editors should explain why they removed a PROD tag; it's just that we don't require explanation. We should not be afraid to offer guidance ("you should" versus "you may"), even if we do not enforce it, and so I have restored some of the previous wording. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see UsaSatsui beat me to it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted. We still want the strong language. We want to encourage this stuff, but nor require it. The real place to make any sort of wording change would be on the template, anyways. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I promise you it wasn't WP:POINT, usasatsui, contra your edit summary. I just don't see the point of guidelines diverging from practice; this is basically institutionalised hypocrisy. Apart from anything else, it means, in effect, Strong Language for newbies (when they follow guidelines), and weak language once they find out that in practice there are zero consequences from failing to explain. The weaker wording was still encouraging, and giving a rationale too, but clearer as to necessity. (By the by, it was linguistically more consistent too, not jumping about from second to third person.) The status quo is a muddle. I know WP often finds muddles productive (constructive ambiguity; creative tension of contradictions and so forth), but I think in this case it is just muddled. Oh well. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a current proposal on WT:AFD to extend the length of the AFD discussion from 5 to 7 days and at this time there is a lot of support for it. If this happens, then should the same be considered for PROD to stay consistent? (and yes the discussion was started before Apr 1st) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. Five days is working, in my opinion and the two processes don't need to be similar in this regard. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that a PROD can be contested by anyone at any time (even after deletion), I don't think a change to 7 days is needed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it should be changed if AFD is. It doesn't really affect anything, and it avoids that "Why is AFD 7 days, but PROD 5 days?" question we'd have in 3 months...and 5 months...and 6 months...and 10 months... --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps seven days makes more sense for both - there may be people who log on once a week. (I know, there may be people who log on once a month/year as well, but most have some kind of a weekly schedule.) Agree with UsaSatsui that a good reason for keeping Afd and Prod the same is to avoid the question "why are they different". pablo_hablo. 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a good deal to be said for the same number of days for each project. Certainly, this should not be any shorter than AfD, if they change, as I hope they do. DGG (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And the verdict is in

Proposal to extend the length of deletion discussions to seven days carried by strong consensus with 45 !vote supports, and 16 !vote opposes. To ensure the reasoning behind this proposal is carried out, early closures need to be discouraged. Concerns were raised during the discussion about existing early closing, especially SNOW closes. AfD guidelines should now be rewritten to incorporate the decisions in this discussion, and to direct people to allow AfD discussions to go the full seven days unless there is a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to close early. SilkTork *YES! 00:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There is practically no input/consensus here; I didn't know about it, and it was not well advertised. Not only do I oppose increasing PROD time to 7 days (it's a delay, and it leaves time for IPs and other bad faith users to delete the tags without explanation as so often happens), but I consider the above "verdict" to be invalid and non-binding on the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I should note that the above verdict is specific to deletion discussions (AfD, DRV). Proposed deletion isn't a deletion discussion and is not bound by that verdict. By the way, I posted to AN to get more opinions on this. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support increasing it to 7 days, for the reasons I noted on WT:AFD and to bring times in line with each other. I also submit that this is not a significant change and shouldn't require a big rigamarole to get put through. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose changes to PROD per Treasurytag. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose changes to Prod per Treasurytag & Stifle. If it moves to 7 days, we should give it the same precedential power as an afd in regards to WP:CSD#G4 re-creations, and no automatic revival at WP:DRV - if someone hasn't come around in 7 days to save the article why do we assume the article was worth having in the first place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if there was confusion

I pasted in the close from the "extend AFD" discussion just to inform the regulars here that AFD had changed. In no way was I suggesting that there was any "verdict" for changing PROD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An idea for an easy way to request the undeletion of articles deleted by prod and other non controversial cases. Full proposal here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Twice in the last week, [3] and [4], I've ignored all rules and extended a prod because at the initial time of the prod, the article was under construction. The "proper" thing for me to do would be to delete the prod then, since no work was done for the last 3-4 days, send it to AFD. The other "proper" thing would be to avoid making a WP:POINT and do nothing and let the prod expire. I chose a middle ground: I reset the PROD to expire about 10 days after the most recent construction-related edit.

I'd like to formalize this by adding the following between "Seconding a proposed deletion" and "contesting a proposed deletion":

==Extending a proposed deletion==

If you believe a proposed deletion is appropriate but you believe the timing was premature, for example, the article was under construction at the time of the PROD, you may edit the expiration time to up to 10 days after the original PROD date. To edit the expiration time, change the Dated prod month, day, year, and time parameters and change the timestamp to match. The timestamp is in the format YYYYMMDDhhmmss. For example, to extend a prod that was created at 00:05 15 November 2008 so it expires on November 25 instead of November 20, change

((dated prod|concern = not notable|month = November|day = 20</nowiki>|year = 2008|time = 00:05|timestamp = 200811</nowiki>20</nowiki>000516))</nowiki>

to

((dated prod|concern = not notable|month = November|day = 25</nowiki>|year = 2008|time = 00:05|timestamp = 200811</nowiki>25000516))

If the PROD should be extended further, for example if the article is being improved, remove the PROD and use the AFD process if the article does not eventually meet Wikipedia's standards.

Any such extension should be justified on the article talk page.

You may extend your own PRODs, but in cases where an extension would be warranted, it is better to wait a few days before proposing the deletion in the first place.

--end--

Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your actions in both actual cases. I think that if a page was truly under construction, and not just marked improperly with ((underconstruction)) while not being developed, the author would have had plenty of time to be aware of the proposed deletion and respond to it appropriately, so it's totally reasonable to delete pages in circumstances like these. I would like to see a bit more of a case study in this concept before taking seriously the idea that this should become part of the policy. Let's see how these two articles do, and feel free to WP:IAR again if it seems right to you... but eventually we'll get a better sense of whether extending prods has any effect on the encyclopedia. I wouldn't approve of this if it turns out to be unnecessary WP:CREEP. Mangojuice^talk 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A 10-day limits seems like a good idea. It would let editors who log in just once a week (ie, those who are not addicted severely) to see things 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. If someone only edits on the weekend, they shouldn't go and find articles they like erased without being able to say anything about it. Dream Focus 12:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

compromise: I 'd like a longer period, but I'd also like to get trid of them expeditiously, so i suggest 8 days, which will cover the once-a-wekek editors, with a day to spare. But let me mention that there is nothing to prevent clearing the obvious ones earlier, if they turn out to fit under speedy. I do that fairly often, and so do other admins. DGG (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need an extension. There is a rule saying "if you are not 100% sure the article has to be deleted then don't delete it". So simple. Admins can contest prods as well. When I am not sure I am removing the prod or leaving it for another admin to check it. after 5 days doesn't mean immediatelly after 5 days. Sometimes I have seen articles beeing there for almost 6 days. And more more thing, the extension of time for T3 is now so big that I really prefer to send staff for TfD and this causes more work. Keep also in mind that we can overturn a deletion done via prod. If someone discoveres an article was deleted can always protest and ask the admin to undelete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If the creator cannot come up with an explanation in their edit summary or the talk page for doing so, then they shouldn't take it down in the first place. This rule basically protects vandals and bad-faith users. I proded this page after I did some research on the subject only to find out that there was NOTHING validating the subject's existence, and therefore it was a hoax. Still, the article was so elaborately written that it was why I decided against a speedy deletion nom, just to make sure. The creator (who has the same name as the article he created) took down the prod notice, I restored it only to remember I can't put it back up, so I tried to undo my edit and then an IP came to edit the article. Nonetheless, the article was speedy deleted, and as you can tell by looking at the page's deletion log, the reason was "pure vandalism or blatant and obvious misinformation". So my suspicions were correct. I don't know how the article was noticed so quickly (maybe because someone tagged it for speedy deletion), because it was deleted probably more than an hour after its creation, but it could've easily hung around for a couple more days. So my point is, that no one, especially the creator should be allowed to take down the prod notice without a reason. If they want to contest it, then the same provision made for creators of speedy-deletion article nominees should be made for them: place a hang-on tag and provide an explanation on the page explaining why it should stay. If you can only post the article for AFD after the prod gets inexplicably taken down, then we might as well get rid of proposed deletions and just make the rule that articles that aren't clear-cut candidates for speedy deletion should be nominated for AFD. I know I'll have plenty of people disagreeing with me on this, but that's how I honestly feel. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

prod is a short cut for articles that are not going to be challenged, either because the person has left Wikipedia, and nobody else cares, , or because the merit of the deletion will be obvious even to the creator., If it is not, and the article does not fall under speedy, then there has to be a discussion. The place foe such discussions is AfD. If you have a good case for deletion, afd will support it. The division is simple: either its obvious enough for speedy, or it has to be discussed on request. Anyone's request. If it's obvious enough for a speedy, nominate it as speedy in the first place. When checking prods, I change a number of them to speedy if they meet the criterion unambiguously, and anyone can do the same. DGG (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, prod is for possibly deletable articles "nobody gives a damn about". If an article has just been created, then of course the creator "gives a damn" so it's not a good candidate for PROD. If an article hasn't been edited for a year, then it is a good candidate for PROD. Basically, if you have any reason at all to suspect that the deletion of an article would be controversial, then AFD it from jumpstreet. This would include any article with recent edit activity. If you're patrolling from the back of the newpages log, some of those could be prodded if there hasn't been any edit activity for a month or so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But you've pointed out the problem in your own rationale- the standard for uncontested deletions (which include prod and csd) cannot be that nobody objects. Clearly, the author wanted that page there, or else they wouldn't have created it. (One exception would be test pages- then it might be clear the author was performing a test.) But anyway, in a great many cases, we already know that the author wanted the page. Go delete crap on new page patrol sometime, and you'll get all sorts of objections to deleting obvious junk. So, we need some standard other than literally "nobody objects". A good standard might be "would any reasonable person object to the deletion of this page?" or even "would anyone familiar with the goals and policies of Wikipedia object to the deletion of this page?" We're not here to do what's popular, we're here to make an encyclopedia. Looking for no objections of any kind is an impossible standard in most cases. Friday (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet, hundreds of pages get deleted via prod every week because, quite literally, nobody objected. People create articles that they later realize they should not have. People make an article and never come back, thinking that's it. People want their own article deleted but can't speedy it because another person worked on it. It's not as rare as one might think. As for a "reasonable standard"...well, that's a nice idea, but if we have a subjective standard, all of a sudden there's going to be arguments over what's "reasonable", and it's gonna be different in every case (ask a lawyer just how flexible "reasonable doubt" can be). That simply can't be our rationale for non-consensus deletion in a consensus-based project. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not because nobody objected, in most cases. It's because nobody showed up in the right place and filled out the right form to "officially" object. The "reasonable standard" that sounds so impossible when you describe it is in fact applied to a great many deletions in practice, all the time. Go out and do new page patrol, and/or observe how other people do it. You'll find that it's pretty subjective, in practice. If the rules were really that firm, we'd have a bot doing it, instead of people. Friday (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those "rules" that becomes obviously absurd if you look at it too closely and interpret it too rigidly. In practice, I think people generally treat things a bit more fluidly. If you consider the pathological case, prod easily becomes useless. Yet, in real life, it's far from useless, as it saves us from a great many AFDs. Friday (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

we have no way of deciding what's "reasonable" if that is challenged except to get the feelings of the community. Of course, i think my own standards would do, but nobody else here is likely to agree. Still I use them when I think its obvious, at the risk of being overturned. DGG (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We agreed above to match the AfD time, which has now been changed to seven days. It will be easy to change the policy wording, but we need to change the templates also;it seems easy enough to do, but there are a number of templates. I propose to make the changes, and have posted a note to that effect on Template talk:Dated prod, since this is one of the templates that requires notice. If there are no objections, I will go ahead in a day or two.DGG (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the policy page, as planned, and am about to change the templates. I'm waiting another day for the templates to be sure. DGG (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have gotten all the templates changed. If I've missed any, just adjust them yourself, or ask me. DGG (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "this page in a nutshell" box still says five days. Mtcv (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; fixed DGG (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Proposed deletion needs updating. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated Category:Proposed deletion, Template:Prod subcategory starter, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, & Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling to reflect 7 days. I also notified User:Cyde about the change so he can update Cydebot if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What? Where is the consensus for this? The 10 day discussion above where 2 out of the 6 people disagreed with it? Mr.Z-man 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was following DGG's lead. Sorry if such was done in error. (For the record I agree with a consistent 7 day standard). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is practically no input/consensus here; I didn't know about it, and it was not well advertised. Not only do I oppose increasing PROD time to 7 days (it's a delay, and it leaves time for IPs and other bad faith users to delete the tags without explanation as so often happens), but I consider the above "verdict" to be invalid and non-binding on the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

why should it be different from afd, where the same applies? If there's any reason for going quicker, there's speedy. Seems to me, based on long experience at prod patrol, that the times when tags are removed unreasonably are the first day or so after putting them on, but the time when people actually find time to improve the article is longer. I saw this as a trivial extension of the afd decision, for consistent process, and so people would only have to keep track of one time. I suppose we can continue the discussion, if you like. Anyone who wants to improve articles would I think want to give the longest reasonable chance. The key argument at the afd discussion was that many people visited Wikipedia once a week only, and it would be fairer to them. DGG (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DGG. The same logic applies here as it did for AfD. Furthermore, don't assume someone removing a tag without explanation is acting in bad faith - there is no requirement to make such an explanation. Finally, people often complain that PROD is a form of "secret deletion." An extra 2 days would mitigate that complaint (slightly). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• See AN thread here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Julien, I suggest we treat that as a notification--discussing the same thing in two places is a recipe for confusion. DGG (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this as well. I would have opposed the AFD discussion had I known about it as I think its just adding a pointless extra amount of time to an already strained process. The benefit for PROD is even more minimal, as the PROD can still be contested after deletion without requiring a DRV. I agree with TreasuryTag that this just gives people acting in bad faith (or at least without the best interests of the project in mind) time to remove the tag without fixing anything. It may give infrequent editors more time to contest it before deletion, but it requires the nominator to monitor it for even longer. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your changes, DGG. There is no consensus for this change and there was very little discussion about it (see above). I also oppose it, which I stated above. If consensus supports the change, so be it, but it needs discussion first, before the page is changed, so lets leave it alone for now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see any disagreement so much as I saw "Meh, not really needed", which is more apathy than disagreement. And I'm sorry, I can't get behind the argument that it should be less time so that there's less time for people acting in supposed bad faith to contest it. The times should match up. There's no good reason for them not to. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is the rational behind different times? ---kilbad (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have data on how long prods usually last in actual practice? I've been generally deleting them as I find them, with no regard to timeframes. If most deleters are doing the same thing, then there's little point in debating this. Friday (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you define "deleting them as I find them" do you mean removing the template or deleting the article. If you mean deleting the article, you are probably deleting PRODs less than 5 days old as most are uncontested PRODs closed (deleted) between 5 days and 5.5 days after being tagged. (Which, is precisely why the time frame matters)--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ones I find I'm generally seeing on new page patrol. So yes, the ones I delete are almost always far less than 5 days also, but they're also things where speedy is a better choice than prod. People often appear to use prod as a catch-all meaning "I wasn't sure how to categorize this." Friday (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand now - you are talking about SPEEDY deleting articles that could have been so tagged, but were tagged PROD instead. (I would argue this is most likely to users using automated tools, but not knowing the difference between the two buttons.) For articles that are deleted like that, obviously the length of PROD period is irrelevant. However, (as a very rough estimate) 30-40/150-200 tags survive the 5 day wait and are deleted as "expired PRODs." It is these 30-40 articles daily that deserve the extra 2 days wait. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So an additional 10-15 can have the tag removed and end up putting more stress on the AFD system? Mr.Z-man 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. More like 2-5 (which may not even end up on Afd). Most PRODs that are contested are done so within the first few days - just like how most AfD comments are within the first few days. In both cases, the point of the extra days is to give parties interested in the specific articles (not the process in general) a chance to respond. Besides, since when is AfD over stressed. Almost every nom gets 1000+ page views (obviously most choose not to comment). For contrats, most prods get 20-50 page views - most of which is from normal traffic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost every nom gets 1000+ pageviews? What? I checked 8 random ones from the April 12 log, the most pageviews that any had was 224, some had less than 50. If people aren't commenting, that's still a problem. A dozen or more AFDs are relisted every day due to not having enough comments. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support the change - the argument is actually stronger to have PROD move from 5 to 7 days than it is for AFD - the whole point is that PROD is saying "does anyone want to oppose deletion"? Weekend editors should get the chance to chip in, since in many cases PRODs are on articles which only the creator can rescue. And we already have speedy delete for things that need deleting quickly - PROD is for things we're not sure about. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why not have them sit for a month just in case? I don't see why people keep making the reference to CSD. Is 5 days somehow "speedy" all of a sudden? The difference between speedy and PROD without this change is already minutes or hours versus days. As I said above, people being able to contest a PROD before the deletion is not as important as an AFD. After a close, and AFD needs a full DRV to be restored, and it would have to be proven that the AFD was improperly closed, not just disagree with the outcome. An article deleted via PROD on the other hand can be restored on request with no discussion required, so how is it "more important" to contest it before deletion? Mr.Z-man 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "more important" to contest before deletion than AFD. I said that PROD is supposed to be seeing if anyone objects to deletion, so there's a balance between deleting too quickly (before people have a chance to notice the tag) and waiting forever and a day unnecessarily. The "weekend editor" argument applied in extending AFD from 5 to 7 days applies more strongly to PROD because these are often articles only the creator can rescue. And as I said, PROD assumes that there is no pressing need to delete the content (for pressing needs, there's speedy delete). There's an argument for 7 days (weekend editors), there's an argument for 30 days (more occasional editors, who are more likely to create PRODded articles), what's the argument for 5 days? Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many prod removals already are frivolous. Search for "prod" on an AFD log page, a significant portion of these are getting unanimous delete results (as in, even the person who removed the tag hasn't come to comment in favor of keeping it). Such nominations probably make up ~5-10% of AFDs (not counting legitimate prod contests), diverting attention from the articles that really do need discussion. Also, if only the creator can rescue the article, then it almost certainly fails WP:V. Mr.Z-man 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous prod removals... Hm, I seem to recall a discussion related to that above (I wanted to require PROD removals to at least have a minimal explanation, and the minimal sanction of allowing re-adding of the PROD tag in the absence of any explanation for removal), I don't recall your support... Also if only the creator can rescue an article, it's often because it fails WP:V, yes, and only the creator knows enough to fix it fairly easily. Rd232 ^talk 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

They weren't frivolous to the person who removed the PROD. The fact that the article was still deleted (even unanimously) doesn't make it frivolous. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In using the word "frivolous" I was quoting Z-man, and I took it as meaning "unexplained". Rd232 ^talk 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment was directed at z-man. Sorry for any confusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And if 'too many' are frivolous already why not go to 3 days or 1 day or just expand CSD to cover all articles? I mean if all these "bad faith" editors would just stop screwing around and removing PROD tags we could get rid of all those annoying articles that aren't "done right", yes? So lets just make it easier to get rid of articles as minimal chance for oversight as possible! --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about people removing the tag, not fixing anything, then forcing an AFD that ends up with a unanimous decision to delete (which is pretty much by definition not controversial). It wastes people's time for no good reason other than to keep an article around for an extra 7-21 days. It may not be acting in bad faith, but its still not acting with the project's best interests in mind and reduces the amount of oversight that other AFDs get. I'm not in favor of less oversight, I'm in favor of not wasting people's time. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would be nice if everyone who removes a tag at least attempts to correct the problem(s), but it is not required. Arguing the system doesn't work is not, IMO, a valid reason to make it easier for an article to disappear with as few people as possible getting a chance to dispute the deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support 7 days. We should be friendly to the weekend-only wiki editors. Having a consistent 7 day standard across AFD, PROD and the timed CSDs is a good thing. Dragons flight (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support 7 days per Dragon flight. II | (t - c) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, this is a vote now? --Closedmouth (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the change as well. There is no compelling reason not to do it, and we should err on the side of allowing as much potential participation as possible in all things related to deletion. The fact that more prods will be removed if we allow people more time in which to do so is, if anything, an argument in favor of implementing the change in my opinion.--Dycedarg ж 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instruction creep, bureaucracy, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does this qualify as either of those things? The rule specifies a time period, this would make it specify a slightly longer time period. It's not adding a rule, nor making an existing rule more complicated, nor even requiring more rigid enforcement of an existing rule.--Dycedarg ж 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed too. this is a lateral. No rule is being created or destroyed here. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a solution looking for a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I also support this change. I believe the reason the five-day limit was chosen in the first place was to match Afd; the whole point of the proposed deletion process was to avoid having Afd's which wouldn't gather any opposes during the life of the Afd. Now that Afd is 7 days, prod should also be seven to match.--Aervanath (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree too; the main argument for extending the AfD time to 7 days (to give the article creator - who might come to WP only at weekends, for example - time to respond) seems to apply equally well to PROD. And if an article isn't speedyable, there's no hurry to delete it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Also support. This is no big deal. Garion96 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's simple and fairly sensible to have them match. But, in both cases it should be emphasized that this is a typical timeframe, rather than a set-in-stone rule. Friday (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support and move to close; there is absolutely no valid reason to consider PROD separately from AfD, and quite a few reasons to consider them simultaneously. As an example, to hold back this change is only to support instruction creep itself, as it introduces more complexity into the deletion processes. But what kills me is many of the opposes to this are identical opposes from the AfD argument. It is a trivial matter to say the consensus from the AfD argument applies here, and I beg those opposing to step back from this situation and rethink their approach to opposing this change in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen no good reason to keep it at 5 days other than people wanting an excuse to cram through a prod that might otherwise be contested. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  That's unhelpful and untrue; WP:AGF. There is simply disagreement on choosing between Type I errors (deleting junk too late) and Type II errors (deleting worthwhile stuff too soon). The process inevitably leads to both. Rd232 ^talk 13:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I "assume" nothing, I'm only making an observation based upon what I saw at the time...the only reason being given to keep it 5 days was to give people less time to object. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Any junk that hurts the encyclopedia just by existing (Type I) should already be covered by the speedy deletion criteria; PROD was not designed to take care of that stuff in the first place. That only leaves the type II errors, of which extending PROD would hopefully cut down the number.--Aervanath (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no valid reason to have a different time span than AfD, that is silly and confusing. Seriously, why are people still talking about it? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support The same reasons that apply to extending Afds apply to Prods. In fact, it would make sense for Prods to be made longer than the Afd time, since a much smaller segment of editors have a chance to see and decide about them. Edward321 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose oddly enough. I supported afd going to seven days but I oppose this. I think the shorter time span will be a benefit, seeing the process used more. There's no need for it to mirror seven days at afd, because there's no debate which would need increased input. Prod is very much reliant on random variables which an increase in time wouldn't affect to any great benefit. Hiding T 18:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  "there's no debate which would need increased input". No, there's a need to wait for any input. The argument for taking account of weekend editors is stronger here. Rd232 ^talk 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Flawed premise. All articles prodded are not prodded on a Monday. The proposed deletion method is governed by random elements which will not be altered to any great benefit by increasing the limit to seven days. I was in favor of extending afd to seven days to increase debate, i.e. people actually talking to each other and working out what's best for the article, not to get more eyes on it, which for me isn;t the problem. Extending prod does nothing to address that, because there is no debate. A prod can be cpontested at any time. Even after deletion. Therefore there is no basis to teh argument that we need to increase the period an article is prodded to allow further input. There is no deadline for input on an article which has been prodded. I will happily restore any article which was last deleted as a prod for any user, period, and so will any admin, per due process. Therefore this proposal has no legs. Hiding T 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree the premise is flawed, and I wish people wouldn't anchor their advocacy of this change in the whole "weekend editors" bit. But for the life of me I can't see how this is so controversial. AfD is zeven days. Image deletion is seven days. We hope to make prod seven days. In the end I hope that all non-speedy deletions on wikipedia will be seven day discussions/whatever, just so we only need to keep one number in mind (since there is no inherent reason that a debate be a specific number of days). Why not support it from that standpoint? Protonk (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Because I think having prod shorter would actually be beneficial. It would highlight it as a first option and hopefully help to create a culture where we start focussing on the merits of articles rather than ideologies. When a prod is removed, one would hope prodder and de-prodder would then engage over their differences and discuss ways of compromising on their views. We've never tried havoing prod shorter than afd. We know how prod works having a similar time-scale to afd, but we don't know how it works with a different timescale, and how that will impact on us as editors. The arguments boil down to standards for the sake of it against learning something new. I want to learn something new. If it breaks prod, fine, then standardise, but at the minute we have no way of knowing what's going to happen. I'm hoping the changes will be beneficial to our culture. Let's find out. We don't have to standardise for the sake of it. And if standardisation is the goal, I'd suggest the first place to start is at afd, which should be standardised to afdiscussion. Oddly, proponents of this standard oppose that standard, so it isn't simply about standardising. Hiding T 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  "When a prod is removed, one would hope prodder and de-prodder would then engage over their differences and discuss ways of compromising on their views." My experience above (about requiring a minimum of explanation for tag removal) led me to conclude that prod isn't about discussion and improving the article, it is purely about finding out whether someone, anyone, opposes deletion. Anyway, reading between the lines, I think your requirement is really for an additional process between CSD (stuff which should almost certainly be deleted straight away) and PROD ("does anyone at all oppose deletion?"), perhaps a "Presumed Deletion" - stuff which should probably be deleted, and fairly quickly, but doesn't meet CSD. Combined with an easy Requests for Undeletion, that would be logical; but it would require extra bureaucracy. I would support trying it I think. Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand you. You seem to be suggesting I propose prod. It's here. Why would I do it again? I haven't specified any requirements, I've suggested we learn what happens when prod has a different timescale to afd. Hiding T 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• And do the same for CFD Yes. Lugnuts (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as hiding. Wizardman 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hun? How does changing the period from 5 days to 7 days equate with "hiding?" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  User:Hiding, I presume. Amalthea 21:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Duh @ me :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable, consistency is good. rootology (C)(T) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most prods are hopeless, just one formal step outside speedy limits. Just how many prodded articles will benefit from the extension, going from hopeless to hopefuls? Not much, I believe. Better clean the mess earlier. NVO (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  That isn't actually true. About 2/3rds of tags are removed for one reason or another. (Whether a contesting or for procedural reasons - previous PROD, sent to AfD, speedy deleted instead). Even so, I have found a number of articles that are very near or past the 5 day mark that are worth saving - either because they are borderline & deserve discussion, or because they are clearly notable but poorly written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support 7 days. I stopped taking breaks longer than a few days because articles would get prodded and deleted. So would then have to be undeleted, what an unneeded pain. I wish we universalized this so more input would likely result from those who only edit on the weekends, etc. If something is going to be deleted then I don't see this issue if it lingers a few extra days. -- Banjeboi 09:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per NVO. — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I opposed the AfD 7 day change, but, now that it was already made 7 days, let's make this the same. Consistency is key. hmwithτ 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I have "formalized" the proposal above. Comments are my effort are welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I removed it, with apologies. I think it is far better for people to read the debate than cherry pick arguments after the event without the appropriate rebuttals. RFC's are supposed to be neutrally framed, and for me that didn't really put both sides. Hiding T 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just rebut/add counter points rather than remove? In any case, I will re-post my reasoning inline instead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure that would be acceptable. Hiding T 09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Because Seven Days is really awesome. Also, per Hmwith (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support although I essence I agree with Hiding. However, I see a bit more benefit in having a consistent time across the non-speedy deletion process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my posts at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. I believe that it's only fair to allow editors who may be inclined to edit only on the weekends a voice in these matters. I don't see the extension of the discussions going from 5 days to 7 days as any big change in policy, or procedure. It's just common sense. I don't see the extension as any mandate to disallow the snow or speedykeep closes either. This is starting to look like more red-tape than getting elected to some high political office. I know we all love a debate, and love to voice our opinions folks - but again, common sense. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the following reasoning (I have commented above, but never with my full reasoning, so here goes): --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The first reason for this change is consistency. The recent discussion at AfD resulted in the period of discussion being changed from 5 days to 7 days there. The same reasoning used there (gives users who may only log in once a week a chance to participate) applies here as well.
2. PRODs operate under the theory that no one objects to a given article being deleted. Therefore, it is important to give as many users as possible a chance to object (& remove the tag.) If two extra days leads to the tag being removed then the article in question was not completely uncontroversial (to at least one person).
3. Unlike AfDs which typically receive several hundred views at minimum, most PRODs are barely noticed, typically receiving little or no boast in traffic. A typical PROD is viewed by whatever normal traffic it gets, the closing admin, and (likely) under 5 other editors. It is not uncommon for the combined traffic to be less than 50 views over 5 days. Thus such articles could potentially benefit from 40% (7/5) additional "normal" views.
4. Not all articles that are deleted under PROD are actually completely uncontroversial, as indicated by the number that are later undeleted upon request. The two extra days may reduce the number of articles that later need to be undeleted.

• Oppose changes to Prod; Prod is a way for crap to stay here longer shaming Wikipedia. If we want to make it like afd, then let's. But if it moves to 7 days, we should give a prod deletion the same precedential power as an afd in regards to WP:CSD#G4 re-creations, and no automatic revival at WP:DRV - if someone hasn't come around in 7 days to save the article why do we assume the article was worth having in the first place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea of making Prod deletions "harder" is something to discuss, but not right now. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - For two main reasons — (1) making seven days allows weekend editors to participate in the discussion, and (2) consistency with AfD. ---kilbad (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I was opposed to lengthening the AfD duration to 7 days, and I still am. However, I see the PROD totally independently of AfD. It is a less prominent venue that AfD. In addition, the outcome is markedly different - silence is a presumption for deletion at PROD but for retention at AfD, so there really is no need to be consistent because of these inherent differences. I believe the PROD process here can should be lengthened to increase exposure/transparency without creating any extra work. I consider the extra time for AfD is a bureaucratic waste of time as all but the most difficult (or ones arousing the least interest) deletions are closed well within the 5 day window. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - while it's conceivable 7-day AfDs might get more input in the last two days (though they do seem to drag on forever now), that's not the case with prod, which doesn't have debate as part of the process. Given that prodded articles are more likely to be junk that AfD'd ones, and that there's a fairly small chance rescuable articles prodded on a Monday will be untagged by nobody in a five-day span, there's not much benefit to extending this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Couldn't give a shit either way. Quit WP:VOTEing. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think we need an extension. There is a rule saying "if you are not 100% sure the article has to be deleted then don't delete it". So simple. Admins can contest prods as well. When I am not sure I am removing the prod or leaving it for another admin to check it. after 5 days doesn't mean immediatelly after 5 days. Sometimes I have seen articles beeing there for almost 6 days. And more more thing, the extension of time for T3 is now so big that I really prefer to send staff for TfD and this causes more work. Keep also in mind that we can overturn a deletion done via prod. If someone discoveres an article was deleted can always protest and ask the admin to undelete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I don't think there's any need to match AfD, but the argument to let weekend editors have a look is a good idea. Ray^Talk 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Consistency in policy is rarely a bad idea. Given current attitudes about proposed deletion -- that the entire idea is to delete only those articles where no one has objected to deletion, where one or more users have reviewed and agreed with the proposal to delete, and to undelete the article in response to nearly any reasonable request made in good faith -- I'm not sure why the exact same arguments that led to AfD's extension wouldn't also lead to an extension, here. This change wouldn't lead to any additional backlog (since we'd still be deleting these articles on a daily basis), but would allow for a longer comment period and greater consistency within policy and practice. I'm all for reducing confusion. There's no harm in moving a touch more slowly, as far as I can see. Allowing "weekend warriors" a better chance to participate is getting more appealing to me, lately, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. WP:Deletion policy and WP:PROD still say 5 days; any objections to changing them? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion should probably run at least seven days and we are at about 5 1/2 right now, so hold off making any changes for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like the change won't make this month's WP:Update, then. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an ironic exchange. :D – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I make the change 2.3 hours from now and then revert back a few minutes later, just after midnight UTC? That will let me add it to the WP:Update, and if it doesn't pass after all, that will go in the next month's update. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is pretty clear and we are just about at 7 days of discussion, so you are probably ok making the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support – why not? PROD might as well be consistent with AFD (which is consistent with RFA, ad nauseam). MuZemike 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support seven days, to bring PROD into synch with AFD. It is much easier to explain that the normal deletion process takes seven days than to explain that this process takes five days, and that process takes seven days. Also, agree that the weekend editors should have a chance to review any PRODs made. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support seven days. Gives more time to fix, find sources. Gives more time for the declining number of admins to exercise due diligence. Dlohcierekim 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Conclusion(?) : We are just over 7 days of debate not and I think it is pretty clear that the majority are fine with a change to seven days. I do realize that great numbers != consensus per say. Ideally, both sides should compromise to a mutually agreeable position. However, this is basically a yes or no question, so compromise isn't realistically an option. Given that, would anyone object to going ahead and making the actual change to 7 days now for procedural reasons? (i.e. not because you disagree with the change, but rather because you feel not enough debate happened/consensus wasn't reached) I would say let the debate go another day or two, but Dank really want to get this in the next WP:Update, which is only a few hours away. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I do see the 7 days people ahead, but I think some of the 5 days people have some valid concerns...I don't think that they're solved by keeping the prod time at 5 days, though. While I still strongly oppose making PROD harder to contest, I think a discussion on making PROD deletions more permanent is in order. Really, when a PROD can be overturned at DRV at any time, any sort of time limit is useless. and realistically any objections beyond 7 days are going to be rare. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

more than just ahead--I see the count as 27 to 11,DGG (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the change a few minutes ago then reverted. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 00:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think decorum could've been respected and this left until the next update, whatever that is, all things being equal. Hiding T 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, in the 9 months I've been doing the monthly WP:Update, I've never made a change before when there was an ongoing debate; I felt in this case that it's important to publicize what appears to be consensus. I self-reverted immediately, and it's not my intention to close off debate. The updates are a quick way to look up monthly changes to policy and general style guidelines pages; have a look. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 16:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• COMMENT. You need to work out the implications and how to do it. I've left a message for User:Cyde, since they maintain User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions which feeds into Template:Admin dashboard. There's more to this one than just changing a few words on a process page, and it'd be better if people can co-ordinate the end result smoothly to avoid drama. Hiding T 10:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CydeBot has been updated. I am going to view that as an uninvolved editor determining consensus and will use AWB to make this change site wide in instructions and such tomorrow, unless anyone objects before then. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wow a discussion of this magnitude should have been publicized better....I would have objected as well. -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Publicized better than at WP:CENT and WP:AN and WP:DELPOL? I would assume that this discussion had decent exposure there. Where else did you have in mind?
    Amalthea 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Something that changes a major procedure of the wiki I would expect would be on a watchlist notice. -Djsasso (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Well that's obviously too general a statement, isn't it? Minor changes to a major procedure aren't going to be given a watchlist notice. So the question is how major a change it needs to be; and it seems it wasn't felt this was major enough. BTW, this is just the sort of thing a Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines might serve - a general discussion on how to announce policy change discussions. And well there we are, there's one trying to get started. Rd232 ^talk 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I would say the change of time limit isn't minor, it changes the whole idea of prod. But that is just my opinion. But you are right, probably need some standard. Because I hardly think the number of users above who !voted on this qualify as a wide enough spectrum of editors on the wiki to have made this kind of change. I would hardly call it a quorum. -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes made: I think I got everything, including many references in little used articles (and user essays and such). An admin has been kind enough to edit the fully protected template. Thus, I think we are good to go. See these contributions --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)