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.
7 days too short?
Often in life, people are too busy and don't stop to help a stranger. If one sees a PROD, it is likely that many people will go about their business and ignore it. Therefore, 7 days is too short for a PROD. I haven't done a scientific survey, but that seems likely to me.
I suggest that PRODs be extended to 21 days but that in clear cases of need, such as if an article says "John Smith is a Nazi, he deserves to die" that the article can be automatically removed due to profanity. 7 days is way too short for obscure articles.
I say this because I just saw an article that has a PROD. Askaquestion (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There are some editors who "patrol" the PRODs and dePROD ones they think are easily improved. While the creator might have stopped editing years ago and will never see the notice of the PROD, there are editors who do look over PRODs and remove tags that have been applied inappropriately. LizRead!Talk! 22:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I find 7 days to be too short for WP:PRODPATROL. Why only 7 days? What's the problem with extending it? ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
PRODs can generally be undeleted after the fact if someone notices it is gone later and wants it back. I don't think 7 days is too short. HighInBC 21:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:REFUND works but most of us don't know what has been deleted and can't see the material until it is undeleted so we don't know what to ask to be undeleted. 7 days is certainly not too short for editors who propose deletion. The discussion here is whether it is too short for authors and other editors who may object to the deletion proposal. Can you explain why you think 7 days is adequate for these groups? ~Kvng (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone does not know what the article was then why are they worried about it? 7 days is the amount of time we use as a minimum for RFCs, it allows for someone who can only edit once a week to see it. PROD is just to see if anyone is currently objecting to deletion, no need for it to be an extended duration. HighInBC 21:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think a bigger problem are editors who remove PROD tags who do not work on improving the articles they dePROD. I understand removing tags if they are misapplied or if there are editors who are actively working to improve an article. But randomly removing PROD tags just so they can stay in the same bad shape they are in, is counterproductive and just forces more articles to go to already overburdened AfD discussions. LizRead!Talk! 21:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The default duration for an RFC is 30, not 7 days. The reason for requesting extension is because editors may not visit Wikipedia every week.
I stand corrected, I did not mean RFC(this place is alphabet soup). I was thinking of deletion discussions which are far more relevant to PRODs. An AfD or MfD can come and go in 7 days, it is the accepted amount of time to consider deletion. I don't see why PROD needs more time. HighInBC 00:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that seven days is short, now that the project is in middle maturity and the volunteers far less dynamic. In practice, all deletion discussions (certainly contested deletion discussions) are more like four weeks. I suggest that a PROD should last 28 days, unless seconded, noting that the deleting admin is a perfectly valid seconder. Is it the practice of admins deleting PRODded articles to check the page for themselves, or are PRODded pages being auto-deleted without second review? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Admins should not delete prods without reviewing them. The admin is after all responsible for the deletion. Which deletion discussions in practice last four weeks? HighInBC 01:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The data indicate that few AfDs are closed in less than two weeks, and that the rough upper limit, excluding outliers, is ~28days. Which deletion discussions in practice last four weeks? AfD, MfD. Note the (silly) practice of relisting poorly attended discussions twice, that's three weeks, and the discussion is closed when in the backlog for the third time, in the fourth week. Much of CfD, decisions agreed by logic are closed early (after a week), but complex or messy or unclear things are not considered seriously backlogged until after some weeks. DRV is currently surprisingly up-to-date.
Admins should not delete prods without reviewing them. I am sure. Do any admins ever deleted prods without reviewing them, even when tired and on a roll? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Overzealous relisting is indeed a problem. Nonetheless 7 days has been the default deletion discussion duration going back as far as I can remember. I am sure admins make mistakes, but I don't see what that has to do with the duration of PROD.
Sometimes I take time away from Wikipedia and when I get back decisions were made in my absence. Decisions I would have wanted to contribute to. I don't think it unfair that they were made in my absence, nor do I expect them to wait 4 weeks for me to get back. Is there any examples of people missing 7 day prods? I am wondering if this is a common problem. HighInBC 01:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a big problem, but want to encourage anyone here to speak up if they see a problem. Only once or twice that I remember have I requested access to a prodded article, and it has immediately arranged and I immediately understood why it was properly deleted. The possible concern is that the number of active editors wandering mainspace is now so thin that the probability of an editor discovering a Prod tag by chance is much lower than before. Combine this with the concern of less and less active admins and more and more articles, this situation could well lead to admins becoming blasé with deletion of expired prods.
On the other hand, PRODding of new articles probably should be done and deleted promptly. But on that topic, I think it is too easy for newcomers to start new articles, I would have them be required to be auto-confirmed first, and preferably auto-confirmed based on non-reverted mainspace edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The same number of PRODs will expire on any given day regardless of the duration. When I get tired of doing PRODs I don't start deleting without looking, I just stop. I would hope that other admins would have the same sense. I do think we have a very low success rate with brand new users making articles, but we do often get something that can be salvaged so I see the benefit of putting up with that. But this makes it even more important that we clean up after them in a timely manner. HighInBC 02:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you need to be an admin to know if the admins are doing a good job of reviewing PRODs before deleting. Editros can't see the contents of deleted articles. We can't even see a list of deleted articles. We can hope for good administrator behavior but there's really no way for anyone to check. ~Kvng (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If no one notices a PROD, the default is to delete the article. At AfD, if no one notices, the article is kept (no consensus). To me this argues for a longer discussion period here at PROD. Right now it is shorter than AfD and that's backwards. ~Kvng (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
PROD is "proposed deletion". Think about this: if you extend it longer than 7 days, then we'll just see more pages at AfD (for roughly seven days) instead. I agree 7 is too short, but the time frame should match AfD. Someone want to start an RfC to lengthen the time for an AfD? If RfCs are worthy of waiting 30 days for people to respond, surely it shouldn't be an issue to have AfD do that as well. (and yes, we'd probably want to treat BLP pages/info in a different manner). - jc37 01:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
As per the figure generated, File:Graph of number of open AfDs versus age in days.png, the AfD defacto time frame is 14 days. ~0% are closed in the first two weeks. ~80% in the third week; ~5% in the fourth week; ~10% in the fifth week. The documentation should be updated to reflect practice, AfD defaults to 14 days, and agree jc37 that PROD should match, at 14 days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we can conclude that from the chart. Picking a random recent AfD Log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 13 I see that 7 new listings are already closed after about 3 days. (1 more was relisted and closed around day 10) (About 7% of new ones) My experience is also that a moderate number of clear cases do get closed in the 6-9 day range of normal closing with no relists. The chart has too much noise in the first 2 weeks, stemming randomness in nomination quantity to draw strong conclusions for that time period. Though it does provide an interesting look at the 20+ day trends. Monty845 00:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I do agree, the chart is better described as "interesting" than as "conclusive".
AfDs closed in 3 days should probably be discounted, as non standard closes per SNOW or withdrawn or inappropriate.
Some AfDs are straightforward, have participants who agree, and are closed on the 8th day. I don't think we should interfer with them in any way.
What was being talked about here, with respect to AfDs in comparison with PRODs, are AfD discussions that receive insufficient participation. I guess with confidence that these are not normally closed on the 8th day, but that they are more likely closed in the third week. If so, if the standard is that unparticipated AfDs are not closed until after 14 days, then it would make sense to document that, and to set the PROD time scale to match, at 14 days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If we extend to two weeks for obscure articles, what does that really accomplish? I'm not convinced it has any meaningful effect other than to make the length of the discussion (or notification, I suppose) go against the standard at other deletion processes. Any editor can request undeletion from a PROD if they notice the deletion in their watchlist after the 7 days. As for obscure articles not on watchlists, extending to 14 days doesn't help anything. The amount of PRODs one would have to look at per day to evaluate them all before deletion would remain the same. I don't see this having any practical benefit, while there's some hard to ease of learning about the deletion processes by making an exception to the standard 7 days. ~ RobTalk 00:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The obscure articles are on watchlists of editors that no longer look at their watchlists or do so less frequently than every week. A longer period would give more opportunity for these proposals to be noticed and would give WP:PRODPATROL additional time to review them. We're seeing a lot of deprodding towards and past the end of the 7 day period and this is an indication to me that 7 days is not long enough to catch all objections. I would actually like to see the prod period longer than the minimum 7-day AfD period. There are more regular contributors watching AfD and there are various notification systems in place at AfD which make a larger number of editors more likely to see these. ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If people are interested in the article they will be watching it. If they are not interested in it then no amount of duration is going to get them to notice. If someone only logs in and looks at their watchlist every two weeks then they are going to miss opportunities to make their opinion known on issues, this holds true for not just PROD but for every part of Wikipedia. People choose their own level of involvement.
I will also point out the the "default" response to a PROD is not to delete, the default response is that an admin makes a determination and may decide to delete or keep the article. If someone does come back from an extended break and sees their article deleted then there is WP:REFUND.
Increasing the duration would make PROD less effective and result in more people using AfD instead. We need to handle the constant influx of poor quality articles in an efficient manner or they will pile up. I am not convinced this is in the best interests of the project. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 17:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed change to PROD
Closing the discussion due to the unanimous decision to oppose the motion on the grounds that 1. This is not what PROD is for and 2. The proposal make the process unnecessarily onerous on the DePRODer. The conclusion achieved here is that PROD is intentionally easy to cancel, the first objection, regardless of the reason, permanently cancels the PROD. If the discussion, post PROD, needs to be furthered take it to AfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is PROD for;
"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles than the articles for deletion process (AfD), and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion."
This should speak for itself, and anybody reading this is most likely quite familiar with the line. I will however be referring back to this later on.
Also before I make my proposal I think it's necessary to clear one issue up first. In the past couple of weeks there have been several discussions on whether the PROD tag should be removed once the seven day grace period expires. This line from the third paragraph of the lede of WP:PROD quite clearly states that anybody can remove the tag at any time.
"The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present."
I bring this up so that no further controversy over when DePRODing is allowed comes up.
Reasons for the proposal;
The issue that I have with the current PROD policy is that I find it unfairly balanced in favour of DePRODing or otherwise objecting to a PROD. I took into consideration the differences between nominating an article via PROD and objecting to the article's nomination. Consider the difference between nomination and objection;
1. To nominate an article you should "be sure to have a valid reason for nomination" but to object to an article "You are encouraged, but not required, to... explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Why is it that you must have a reason to nominate an article for PROD but not to object, any person could come along with the reason of I don't like this tag and remove it without having to explain themselves. It also makes it difficult to discuss a persons actions when they do just this. Refer to Drama Board number 29 for an explanation of why this is. I refer to this particular incident because the discussion was divided between those who felt that WP:PROD was being abused (the spirit of the law) and those who felt that it was being applied properly (the letter of the law). There's also a discussion on this somewhere above on this talk page. I feel that neither spirit nor letter was breached, but that the letter needs improvement so that the spirit isn't needed.
2. "Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a Deprod tag on their user talk page." Again this should be required, it's not a difficult or time consuming thing to do and allows the editor who PRODed the article to review the DePRODer's actions and then decide whether or not to escalate it to AfD. It'd actually serve to streamline between PROD and AfD. Right now, you have to hope that the person who PRODed the article also added it to their watchlist (which would be a commonsense thing to do, but not everybody does).
3. "Add or modify an Old prod full tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion." You ought to be able to do this while PRODing or DePRODing. This is the last thing that I think ought to be required by both the PRODer and the DePRODer since again it takes little to no effort and would again streamline the process from PROD to AfD by preventing repeated PRODing of an article.
4. The fourth recommendation about improving an article is fairly sensible, a person shouldn't have to improve the article so as to justify their DePROD, that's what their reasoning is for and why doing steps 1 to 3 ought to suffice. Of course if an editor would like to improve the article then they are free to do so.
Lastly the actual proposal
In the nomination portion;
1. Change: "Consider adding an Old prod full tag to the article's talk page." to: "Add an Old prod full tag to the article's talk page."
In the objection portion;
1. Change: "You are encouraged, but not required, to also:" to: "You should also:"<- should ought to indicate a requirement as it does for nomination.
Subchanges to the above are:
a: 2. "Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a Deprod tag on their user talk page." to: "Notify the editor(s) involved in the PROD by placing a Deprod tag on their user talk page."
b: Change: "Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised." to: "You may consider, but are not required to, improve the article to address the concerns raised" <- this proposed change is only in case the other changes make it appear as though improving the article is required. Improving the article is not and should not be a requirement for PROD.
In the patrolling or checking portion:
1. Change: "It is helpful when either endorsing or removing a prod to give an explanation. This may be placed in the edit summary and/or on the talkpage." to: "When either endorsing or removing a prod, give an explanation. This may be placed in the edit summary and/or on the talkpage."
The point of having a PROD policy is to apply it for uncontroversial topics that won't cause any controversy (drama) or other problems and that won't consume editors' and administrators' time to deal with it. It's a simple, tag PROD and explain reasoning and should be a simple, detag PROD and explain reasoning process. From here, it goes to AfD and an actual discussion is held. I have no intention of changing this, simply streamlining it so that arguments don't need to arise over a person's actions. The reasoning should serve as the defense of the action, not a university essay sized thread on AN/I.
For the Patrollers I think you should remember that: "We aren't the only ones: We are not the only line of defense against inappropriate deletion via WP:PROD. In the end, an article that has been proposed for deletion for 7 days still must be overtly deleted by an administrator. They are supposed to look at the article and make sure the prod is valid before deleting, and they do." It may take some of the adminstrators' time but it may also save some of the volunteers' time.
I hope this isn't an untimely discussion on PROD policy, I have refrained from involving myself with any PROD policy or PROD abuse discussions for the last several days and given some time to think about whether a change to the policy would be worthwhile or if its a pointless waste of everyone's time. Feel free to discuss, amend or negate the proposal and my ideas below. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Entirely PROD is supposed to work the way it does, so that it is hard to delete an article "uncontroversially" if anyone objects. If you want rationales to be required for those objecting, send the article to AfD in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get across is that, 'I object, because I can' is a hindrance to any process. That argument doesn't hold at CSD, AfD or any other deletion policy, but, unless challenged here, it does hold for PROD. It holds for PROD because you can just silently swipe away the PROD without so much as leaving a remark. That aside, what about the other changes, notifying the PRODer when DePRODing so that they can take it to AfD and placing the Prod full tag as well.? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It is not a hindrance, it is how the process is designed to work. Mass, bad-faith de-prods are dealt with as a user conduct issue, not by adding onerous extra steps to the process. This is how it has worked for ~10 years, and I don't see anything to suggest that there is suddenly a problem requiring change. The burden is on the PRODding editor to follow up as desired, and if the PRODding editor wants to make sure a closed-loop process happens, then an AfD is the route to go. PRODding is not for things that the nominating editor feels must be removed at all costs. Speedy criteria and AfDs are for that. PROD is for the editor who says "Eh, this article is useless, doesn't look like anyone cares, let's tag it and move on". If people wanted a closed loop process in the first place, then those editors were the ones misusing PROD. Jclemens (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually didn't see this response until just now. Your explanation of what PROD is for actually explains why it is seldom used (seldom by comparison to AfD and CSD). Also explains why I have heard PROD being referred to as a CFWOT. In all honesty, if your description of PROD is accurate, then I don't see a reason to use it. From the WP:PROD I gained the interpretation that PROD was for situations where CSD couldn't be used but would save editor time by comparison to AfD. But that's just me. Carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that articles I've PRODded are probably deleted without objection more often than not, I don't agree that it's a waste of time. And especially given that it takes up practically no time at all. Largoplazo (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. We do not need to revise the entire prod scheme due to a single editor's conduct. These same issues came when prod was first introduced and will continue as editors come and go. The simple truth is, if you deprod an article, someone will likely ask you about you chose to do so and if you can't articulate a reason, it'll go to AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - There is no indication that the PROD process doesn't work, so there is no reason to change it. There are editors that don't like the way the process works or don't understand how it works and then try to impose their ideas onto others. Prod is a lightweight system that encourages deletion until one person objects. Then the process stops. It is the simplest deletion process, making it more complicated is not an improvement. -- GBfan 11:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@GB fan:"no indication that the PROD process doesn't work", in the past 2 months there have been 14 thread sections (10 if you exclude the one's made since the talks at AN/I) for clarification (about 4) or changes (about 6) to the system because people don't think it works (or don't understand it as you put it). As for more complicated, is it that much trouble for people to put up a PROD full tag when they PROD or DePROD an article and to notify a user when they DePROD so that they can take it to AfD. I understand that people are opposed to full rationales because they take time (and are sort of what AfD is for) but that's only part of the proposal. In any case this is just my opinion. Carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If editors don't understand how the system works, we clarify how it works. Changing a working system to add more requirements will not make it so that we don't have people misunderstanding the process. I never said that your proposed changes would make it "far" more complicated, just that your proposed changes makes it more complicated. Any time more requirements are added to a process it makes it more complicated and more prone to misunderstandings not less. It also opens up a window to claims that one side or the other didn't follow the rules so their action is not valid and should be disregarded. That happened at the ANI. Someone read a portion of the policy and trying to claim that because it didn't say a non admin could remove the PROD after 7 days that the article should be deleted and then restored. This is a simple process with very few rules and should stay that way. Anyone can propose that an article can be deleted for any or no reason and anyone can say no it shouldn't be deleted for any or no reason. I don't understand why we are trying to make the process harder. -- GBfan 11:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I don't want to be vain here but, if you are attempting to address complaints about my deprodding activities with this proposal, then you should be aware that it's not going to change what I'm doing significatly. I tag deprods with {{old prod full}}. I provide a reason (and citations where applicable) for all my deprods. You have acknowledged that prodders who want to be informed of a deprod merely need to put articles on their watchlist and you don't explain why this is not an acceptable solution. Nevertheless, I have started leaving messages on talk pages in some cases and there are early indications that this is not always appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No Kvng, I have no intention of addressing your DePRODing for two reasons, 1. I don't think you've been doing anything incorrectly and 2. I take no issue with the way you DePROD. I actually took issue with the PROD policy, however, others disagree. I think its time to close this thread by WP:SNOW. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - The intent of policy at prod and AfD is to make keep the default option in deletion discussions. You've stated that the intent of your proposal is to tip the balance toward default delete. A campaign like this has ramifications beyond prod and so deserves a wider hearing. ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The intent was to balance it evenly between delete and keep. So that both parties have some rationale, as is, only the delete side has to have a rationale. But as I said, WP:SNOW. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - PROD is working as intended. It is intentionally easier to deprod than to prod, since the process is intended for uncontroversial deletions. Deprodded deletions are, by definition, controversial. Pburka (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion. If you disagree with a deprod, AfD is the proper venue. ~ RobTalk 20:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It may be a bit frustrating or even annoying to have a seemingly valid PROD removed for no apparent reason, but that's the price for having a lightweight alternative to AFD. If the deprod was made in good faith then the proposed deletion is controversial and the system worked as intended. If the deprod was made in bad faith then an AFD should result in deletion (if it doesn't then clearly the PROD would have been controversial, regardless of why it was removed). Meters (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I only made my suggestions to balance the system, I make no assumption of faith, it seemed logical that both parties should go in with a rationale. I merely wanted the rationale to be made public for both sides. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you putting this in terms of good faith or bad faith deprods. I'm just pointing out that that is what a deprod boils down to. If it was a good faith deprod the deletion would have been controversial and so the article should not have been prodded. The system worked. Similarly, but not mentioned above, if the prod itself was was made for inadequate reasons or was made in bad faith (for no reason) anyone can remove the prod. Again, the system worked. Asking for reasons isn't going to change anything unless we make a fundamental change to the way PROD works, and such a change would mean that PROD would become just another venue for editors to discuss the reasons an article should or should not be deleted. That's what AFD is for. Meters (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The ease of de-PRODing an article, by definition, marks it as controversial and in need of a proper discussion. This aspect of it is a feature, not a bug, and adding bureaucracy undermines the purpose it was created for. If you disagree with the person removing it, AfD is hardly an unreasonable additional strain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - PROD is meant to be easy to challenge, anything remotely controversial should go to AFD. GiantSnowman 07:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The placing of PROD tags is typically facilitated by automated tools like Twinkle which take care of formalities like notification. I am not aware of any comparable support for actions like placing {{oldprodfull}} tags and so they are comparatively onerous. It is not fair or efficient that the project's software should bias the process in this way. If the proposer wants to see more actions taken when PROD tags are removed then he should please lobby to have them built into the tag. For example, the tag might have a prominent button marked <OBJECT>. If someone presses the button then the PROD would be aborted and all the appropriate tagging and notifications would be done automatically. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, except that I specifically noted that both the PRODer and DePRODer should have this responsibility. However this conversation is now moot because WP:SNOW. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Slight tweak
Right now, the "Procedure for administrators" section reminds us to check that "The {{proposed deletion}} tag has been in place continuously for at least 7 days". What about changing that to "...tag has been visible on the article continuously..."? This is in response to the "Deceitful PRODs" section at the current version of WP:AN, in which a user has been found habitually to be prodding articles deceitfully: prod the article, comment out the tag a minute later, and uncomment it after it's expired, so that it can be deleted without any chance of review or opposition to anyone who doesn't check the history or edit the article. For ordinary purposes, my proposed change won't make any difference, but it will reinforce the importance of making PROD tags visible to everyone. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Support (here from AN); it is a belt-and-braces means of ensuring that this situation will not need to be addressed again, and if it does, there will be no need for lengthy AN threads. MuffledPocketed 12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this is really more of a user conduct issue than a problem with the PROD process or language. Occasionally someone will figure out a way to trick a few reviewing admins and eventually be caught if they make a habit of it, and then we deal with the user. That said, I don't see any harm in making that change to the language. Monty845 14:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's more of a user conduct issue. That's why I didn't suggest expanding the policy itself; if someone does this again, we can say "Policy says this shouldn't be done", but my proposed rewording really isn't any rule creep, isn't introducing any new provisions or bureaucracy. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Needless bureaucracy. If a user is shown to have been gaming the system - and this is the first I can recall having done this - we can undelete really rather quickly. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It's hardly bureaucracy to change around a few words just to reinforce existing good practice; admins should already be doing this before deleting, and tagging users should already not be doing this, so the proposal just makes our current standards a little clearer. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's bureaucracy, enforcing a check for something that one user did. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cluocracy, and most admin task lists are permanently backlogged. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. Most PRODded articles have few, if any, revisions following the tag. This adds little overhead for administrators and helps guard against a source of abuse. In this instance, it was a single account gaming the system, which made examining his past PRODs a simple matter. What if, instead, it had been done with a series of SPAs or IP addresses? I don't think it's wise to count on cheaters making their work easy to track. Rebbing 12:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Support closing potential loophole. Proposal does not make guidelines any more difficult to follow for the normal case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Support - Why not boldly add it in now? After all, it is just a clarification. -- The VoidwalkerDiscuss 21:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
SNOW Support We should definitely codify this as an inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, lest the tactic now be exploited. Snowlet's rap 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point and a reasonable concern, but I do not think the exploit itself is immediately evident from the changed wording being presently proposed. Snowlet's rap 06:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you look at using {{old prod full}} on the talk page of articles you prod. The |nom=Piotrus |nomdate={{SUBST:ISO date}} |nomreason= parameters can be used to convey the information you've been putting in the description. Of course the downsides are you need to edit two pages to prod and you've got to get deprodders to look at the talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Jocelyn Jones
The required seven days had passed for the deletion proposal at Jocelyn Jones, with the template here reading, "This message has remained in place for seven days, so the article may be deleted without further notice." An anon IP, however, unilaterally undid the deletion that had duly passed, swooping in before an admin could delete the article. I've restored the template confirming that deletion proposal was passed, and I ask, please, for an admin to complete the process. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. Any one can remove the PROD even after the 7 days are up and it is a valid DePROD and the PROD can not be restored. It is no different than if an Admin had found it first and deleted and the IP went to WP:REFUND and asked for it to be restored. It would be restored and the article would have to go to AFD to be deleted. That is what needs to happen here, if you think this should be deleted, you must use WP:AFD. - GBfan 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I am now clearly aware of the differences between AfD and PROD, but I once AfDed a PRODed article because I thought PROD was the more cautious option. Should there be some text or essay that differentiates between the two? Is there already such a passage in existence? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
PROD means "I'm sufficiently sure that it is uncontroversial that this article doesn't conform in some manner to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so let me try not to waste anyone's time on a formal discussion." There is no reason why you would start a deletion discussion on an article while leaving a PROD tag in place. One might initiate a discussion while removing the PROD tag if one agrees that deletion is probably warranted but that it isn't so clear-cut and that more input should be solicited. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The {{proposed deletion}} tag has been visible on the article for at least 7 continuous days.
Hi! I just tried to use the {{proposed deletion}} tag. I'm a newbie, so I may easily have done something wrong. I got a prompt to use substitution (or something like that), and when I tried to use {{subst:proposed deletion}} it appears to have worked. So, I think this article's line should be changed to "The {{subst:proposed deletion}} tag has been visible on the article for at least 7 continuous days." Being a newbie, I'm not going to trust myself to make that change. In case you are interested the article is Syntelic. DennisPietras (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I see a PROD tag that is set to expire on Feb 2. However it does not have a reason for the proposed deletion. I suggest you load WP:Twinkle. It is a great tool that simplifies all kinds of things including tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
When you subst the prod tag, it fills in a date stamp for when the prod tag was added. After 7 days have passed, the prod tag will automatically change to saying that it has been in place for 7 days and that the article can be deleted. It won't say that until 7 days have passed though. Also, as Ad Orientem said, you do need to give a reason why you think the article should be deleted. You can add in the reason you think the article needs to be deleted by editing the article and finding the place where it says "concern = ", and then adding the reason you think it should be deleted there. Calathan (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Calathan: I added "this article does not appear to meet the notabilty standards of wp" and I see where that appears on the tag. Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I added twinkle. It may indeed be useful! Can I ask a followup: is there some way to get a list of articles currently proposed for deletion? I would like to participate in helping to clean up wp, and it seems like I could help there. Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Oh my goodness! Hundreds of pages proposed for deletion. Ugh! DennisPietras (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to get an idea of the backlogs we are dealing with, click on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
File PROD RfC Planning
After a lot of discussion on WT:FFD, consensus was achieved there for a file PROD, that would operate on the same basis. Is their consensus here or is anyone strongly opposed? -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This needs an RfC. The discussion referred to above is only a workshop/brainstorm session, which is by itself not suitable for establishing policy. -FASTILY 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Added the RFC tag. George Ho (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If this is going to be a full RfC can someone familiar with the relevant discussions summarise the background and word a neutral question? Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There is clear consensus for proposed deletion to also be applicable to files, and there was no consensus for changing the procedure substantially from that for articles, with most suggested changes receiving little to no support. The proposal receiving most support was a requirement for the file to be orphaned prior to being proposed for deletion, but this did not reach a consensus. There was consensus that a version of Template:Deletable image-caption should be created for PROD, to be shown next to images tagged for proposed deletion and added automatically by a bot.
I have created a new section, below, detailing the future steps that are necessary following this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: As of right now, files that are low res, unusable, or have other probelms are nominated for deletion through Files for discussion, and almost all are deleted after waiting a week. There's almost never participation at these discussions beyond the nominator and the deleting administrator. FFD is currently filled with such nominations, and these low-importance nominations make it substantially more difficult for our experts on copyright matters to find the nominations that require their attention.
Proposal: Allow files to be tagged with PROD, and follow the same guidelines and policies as PROD.
Support Badly needed. As one of the few admins who work at FfD, I, on a daily basis, find files that need discussion which have not been discussed because they are drowning in a sea of vanity images and other unencyclopedic cruft. -FASTILY 00:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support with the proviso that they are orphaned and unsuitable for commons: — xaosfluxTalk 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. No further explanation needed, though the PROD should not be used just to orphan and then delete the images. How PROD handles the images can be discussed at another time. George Ho (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support with the proviso that they should either be orphaned, or some notification should occur each place it is in use. (Removing the image would be an adequate notification) Monty845 01:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support per Xaosflux with the proviso that the image is orphaned and is unsuitable for Commons (so the CSD criteria would apply to non-free files). Might also need to consider an alternative for files with {{keep local}} perhaps depending on the reason it needs to be kept locally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support a great idea. Integration into the "Article alerts" for Wikiprojects would also be very useful :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#RFC on routine file deletion and ensuing discussion, the basic PROD criteria (notifications, minding previous noms) works. My only nagging concern is that File PROD will supersede the logical orphaned fair use deletion process (it's important for page watchers to see that a file is up for deletion even if they don't watch the file itself). This could be resolved through bot tagging, I imagine. Mixing non-free and free in the File PROD queue will also slow down processing, but that doesn't appear to concern the FfD regulars, at least. czar 21:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. I'd prefer this actually be a new WP:CSD, but action is better than no action. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. We should have done this years ago, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind a CSD either, as long as it's truly a CSD with the 'S' allowing for 'speedy' not 7 days waiting. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Supportwith variances 2, 3, 4 in some form, 5 per Steel1943 below, 6 in some form,[(stricken due to the option subsection below)] with guidance recommending leaving a notification for the uploader and the user who placed {{keep local}} if it is present (as suggested by the template itself). Unlike others above, I would not prefer or support a speedy deletion criteria, as I haven't seen one with a scope and definitions I could get behind. Proposed deletion gives others time to review the request. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. To the best of my memmory, this is the reason we have PROD - articles where no one even tried to oppose the deletion becoming so common. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support. This would make it a lot easier for the people at FFD. There's no reason they should have to be swamped with random crap no one is contesting when they're trying to discuss files with actual content or copyright issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support and, while we're at it, maybe merge FfD into MfD. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN: This proposal was created to make it easier for those knowledgeable in file copyright to find cases needing their attention. How would merging files in with userboxes, project pages, and other miscellaneous pages help with that? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Noooo MfD is already bogged down enough with Draft: - now if someone could resurrect DRAFT PROD or improved Draft CSD first....... — xaosfluxTalk 18:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
MfD gets more attention than FfD. The draft backlog problem can be resolved by creating a separate WP:Drafts for deletion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think WT:MFD would be a suitable venue to discuss separating the drafts, wouldn't it? George Ho (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Scratch that; drafts have been discussed there. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Support iff (1) the file is not in use, and (2) the uploader (including of previous versions) and anyone who has made a significant edit to the file page (explicitly including adding {{Keep local}}) is notified. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There is the "Nailing it down" section, Thryduulf. May you please amend your rationale and then vote on below proposals? George Ho (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Seems like a reasonable (and probably helpful) idea. The conditions Thryduulf states aren't bad ideas, either. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Sounds pretty logical to me. -- numbermaniac (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Makes sense to me. Smooth for FfD. - RYPJack (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Several possible variances from standard PROD were discussed at WT:FFD. I'm listing them all here for benefit of this discussion:
Require the file to be unusable in any article
Require the file to be orphaned (in all namespaces|in articlespace|outside the userspace)
Require the file to be unsuitable for Commons
Create a listing page connected to FFD, rather than just relying on tags
"Free-for all PROD", where the tagger can use any reason they wish, works fine with articles and books. Given this experience, it will probably work fine with files, so any additional restrictions need to be justified. On the other hand, few users browse the file namespace, and tags aren't shown on the Media Viewer. So it's less likely that a reader will notice the file has been tagged for deletion and possibly de-PROD it. Today's delayed CSD criteria have no special requirements, though they are a) driven primarily by legal reasons rather than suitability for the encyclopedia and b) primarily used on new (F4, F6, F7) or or orphaned (F5) files. Unlike these criteria, PROD is based on usefulness rather than admissibility, and is likely to affect many older files as well. Thus, I do think some additional rules should apply. To allow maximum flexibility, I'm leaning away from my earlier support of an orphaned-outside-userspace requirement. The application of {{Deletable image-caption}} by a bot to article uses of the file seems sufficient, as it provides visibility without restricting flexibility or placing extra burden on the tagger. A gallery WP:PRODSUM could also be made, though the date-sorted category already provides a gallery and is sufficient for patrolling. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts about this, Train2104. However, under the current rules of PROD, if the PROD template is removed, the PROD shall not be reinserted. Rather a deletion discussion may be needed, i.e. FFD. Just like articles, a user may reject the deletion proposal as "controversial" on a file. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, if an article went through the deletion discussion once, it is ineligible to be PRODded. Same will go for files. Right? George Ho (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Should do. 01:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course I agree with the inability to re-PROD, it's the foundation behind uncontroversial deletion (I'm assuming all the current rules are being copied over and am only considering possible additions). But the issue is in my mind is one of visibility - if I were to read a PROD'ed article, I'd immediately notice the tag and may remove it. Without the caption notice, I could see the image and never know the file was up for deletion. (didn't there use to be a bot that automatically put the notice on DI'ed files?) — Train2104 (t • c) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be two separate templates, or a parameter that specifies which one to show. — Train2104 (t • c) 06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ehh.... two separate templates would be mind-boggling, but I won't oppose the idea. Would "speedydel image-caption" and "PROD image-caption" do? If two separate templates are not a good idea, we can try the parameter thing. However, I don't know much about the coding. Shall I ping one of template editors then? George Ho (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I could see a keep local exception, but I think it's implicitly covered by the "do not delete without discussion" part of the keep local template. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 01:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Strong support "Disallow on non-free files" ... since such files already have alternative means of deletion in place, namely several WP:CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If the proposal passes (well, the decision is close to unanimous), the Twinkle system must be updated to reflect the changes. George Ho (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges, can you postpone the "Nailing It Down" section, or can you separate it "Nailing It Down" from this discussion? This is too soon, though I see unanimous support on extending the PROD to files. It's a little too distracting.George Ho (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC); edited, 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC); edited, 20:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
We can't have both orphaning the images and using the deletable image caption. If you remove the image, there's no place to put the caption. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should postpone the below proposals and then continue surveying the above proposal. I don't want the RfC discussion to devolve into a mess. Also, most of the below proposals receive major opposition. Seems that applying current PROD system to files is passing unanimously. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The simpler this is, the better. The goal is not to replace/amend FfD, and I think some folks are getting confused by that. -FASTILY 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
If you can, Iazyges, you may withdraw the proposals that receive unanimous opposition. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious (18-0 as of writing) that this proposal will pass, so let's work on the specifics. Add "support" next to any of the criteria that you support. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how "unusable" a file is, but if that's a synonym for "orphaned", and absolutely not. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Requiring the file to be unusable puts the cart before the horse, doesn't it?. The PROD'er should have to explain why they think the file is not needed. If they believe a file is "unusable", then they should make a case as to why. But they shouldn't have to if they have another valid rationale for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Even though there is precedent for some sort of "unusable" (see WP:F10), I don't think it should be a precondition. PRODs need a reason, after all. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Unusable sets the standard too high IMHO - PRODs need a reason and can be easily contested if someone does actually see a use for the image. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Defeats the purpose proposal, which is to give editors the opportunity to explain why a file is not needed. -FASTILY 07:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Require the file to be orphaned (in all namespaces|in articlespace|outside the userspace)
Support
If the image is being used (in any namespace), it should go to FFD as deleting it is/could be controversial. In the image PROD policy there is likely going to need to be a note that the image must not be used and orphaning it prior to PRODing might be considered gaming the system depending on the reasons behind it. (If it's a NFCC or questionable copyright issue then orphaning first might be acceptable, for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If a PROD is contentious, then I'm fairly certain that it'll get kicked over to FfD, which is completely fine. I believe that is the current case with article PROD and AfD. -FASTILY 07:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Support, should be orphaned from mainspace already - as for the comments that someone may orphan it then prod it: (a) more editors watch articles and would see this then if it was not needed (b) if the file is in use in an article then we are putting extra burden on the deleting admin to go clean up the articles when they delete the file. — xaosfluxTalk 13:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
(a) You're assuming that most of the 5.3 million articles are watched by active users; this is not always true.
Support - Having the watchlist notifications to effected articles that would come from orphaning an image is a lot better than a template no one may see. Monty845 14:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Your comment seems to be misplaced; you've just supported the first half of this proposal, which happens to build on your suggestion. -FASTILY 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If the file is in use it needs discussing. If the image is superceded by a better version, replace it then nominate it - this will give added visibility. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
No need to orphan the file and then PROD it. Just simply PROD the file and that's it. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think forcing the image to be an orphan will just mean people will orphan images and then PROD them. If there's a good reason to img-PROD an image that's linked in an article, I think the burden should be on the PROD'er to explain that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Bad idea. Very confident that there will be instances of people deliberately orphaning files to PROD them, which will cause extra work for people trying to keep said files. -FASTILY 07:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Extra work for the deleting admin could be solved by a delinker bot, and is likely to be limited to one article. Showing a use for something becomes more difficult once it has been removed from any article where it is used. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Same argument as "unusable in any article". — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, no need to require something. In fact, a PROD tag can be removed at any time. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Burden should be on the PROD'er to explain why the image deserves deletion. If "so bad Commons wouldn't want it" is part of that rationale, then so be it. But it shouldn't have to be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but on the understanding (maybe this should be in the image PROD policy too) that one of the actions which should be taken before PRODing an image is that it should be copied to Commons. Maybe the bot which checks whether an image can be copied to Commons, checks images which are currently PRODed first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. May encourage questionable file transfers. If a file has been PROD'd, then there is probably a good reason it hasn't been moved to Commons. IMO it'd be more beneficial to simply encourage editors to apply common sense. -FASTILY 07:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose listing page that requires human intervention. Support bot-generated summary for ease of patrol. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Using categories works fine for PROD, I'm ok with sticking with that. Although a bot-generated summary would be fine, per Train2104. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The existing category system is more manageable IMO.-FASTILY 07:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Might have issues with WP:NFC as well, specifically no non-free content outside of articlespace. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. PROD-ing should also apply to non-free files. We can work on the CSD soon after the proposal is over, i.e. lessening or increasing the criteria. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Allow, it's a better alternative to orphan-then-F5. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand why we would prohibit use on non-free files. We shouldn't wait to PROD if there's an applicable or necessary CSD, but if there isn't, PROD should be fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not, sort of ruins the point of having image-PRODing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. No, this is a key part of this proposal. -FASTILY 07:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. No need for restrictions like this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Have a bot place the captions for awareness as I discussed above. No tagger intervention should be required. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Bot-created captions are good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If requiring images to be orphans doesn't pass (if it does this is obivously moot). Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
(Switched from "oppose") Changing the "caption" template is developed at the sandbox and the testcase. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC); edited. 06:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: Hmm... A caption notification would be less effective or overlooked. When the FFD discussion on one image ended, no one else seemed to bother removing the FFD caption, which I added. Four days after the discussion ended, I had to remove it. I think the same may apply to other types of caption notifications. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this should be a formal part of the policy, but it is something that patrollers should take into account when reviewing PROD's and determining whether or not to send to a full discussion. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's "unencyclopedic", say it's unencyclopedic. Otherwise, "Keep local" is adequate enough unless a file may deserve a PROD-ding. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Burden of proof is on the PROD'er. If there's a pressing reason to PROD something tagged with "keep local", the PROD'er should be free to make a case, but the reviewer should take the keep local tag into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't be formal part of the image-PROD policy but should be something taken into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The PRODing editor should take this into account, however unencyclopedic is still unencyclopedic. Users should not be encouraged to believe that this template is a silver bullet that makes files magically immune to community processes. -FASTILY 07:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Fastily. MER-C 09:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Fastily, but the person placing the keep local tab must be notified of the prod. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Providing notification to article watchers
Because orphaning an image would make it impossible to put a caption on the image, and putting a caption on the image would satisfy one of the reasons for orphaning the file, only one of these options should be picked. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
(mistakenly voted one of above options) Changing the "deletable image-caption" template is under development at the sandbox and the testcase. If the parameter version in the sandbox/testcases doesn't work, maybe create more caption templates then. However, using any of above options to orphan the file would not benefit readers.George Ho (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as premature. We only need to consider this *if* there is consensus to require orphaning in the first place. -FASTILY 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fastily: This is the wrong section for this (Seems you and George Ho, and I all did the same thing). -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 04:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm.... #Providing notification to article watchers says that either option (requiring orphaning before PRODding or adding a caption template) is needed as justification for orphaning a media file. This is the right section. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Require notifications to uploaded and editors of file page
The user(s) who uploaded the current or any previous version of the image.
Any user who has made a significant edit to the file page or its talk page. This specifically includes categorisation and placing of templates but excludes simple spelling/typo fixes and bots.
The nominator or a bot must place a note on:
Any non-archived talk page the image is used on.
The talk page associated with any non-archived page the image is used on.
Support requiring notifications
Support As proposer Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Regular (article) proposed deletion doesn't require notification; rather it is recommended (WP:PRODNOM). The more similar this is to that, the less instruction is needed. I'd rather see a proposal for [It would be better to propose] this change to prod as a whole. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I too would like to see this applied to regular prod, but file prod will remain a separate but similar process and so it needs to explicitly apply here too. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose requiring notifications
Per Godsy, requirement is unnecessary. We can notify related projects or individual contributors of files. --George Ho (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose; on the principle that I also oppose forcing a notification for PRODs in general. It's polite, sure, but I don't think it should be a requirement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above, and also because this is out of scope for this RfC. A general notification requirement should be discussed with the community at large in an RfC specific to that purpose. -FASTILY 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Support disallowing on files marked as having derivative versions
Support as proposer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this should go to a deletion discussion to ensure that all authors of the original image have been appropriately attributed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose disallowing on files marked as having derivative versions
I don't see a purpose. As said, the PROD can be removed just once. If so, the image may not be re-PRODded per current rules. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That's completely irrelevant - files with derivative versions should not be subject to PROD. Whether an image has a derivative version is entirely independent of whether it has been nominated for PROD previously. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Having dirivitive versions is only an attribution issue - simply have someone check that all dirivitive images are properly attributed. We don't actually need to keep the old versions, only their attribution. 03:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose explicitly writing this into policy. I'm not against this in principle, but spelling out *every* single specific use case is ludicrous and amounts to pure Instruction creep. Editors are expected to apply common sense, and if they can't, then we block them. -FASTILY 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Fastily here. We don't prohibit deletion of articles that have been split, and attribution of users and sources is what matters not the actual source file. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fastily and Train2014: This is not about writing every use case into policy or preventing deletion, it is about requiring active participation in a deletion discussion to ensure that attribution is done correctly. You should also note that we do prohibit simple deletion where articles have been split - see template:Split article, particularly The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
For articles, yes, for files, no; please re-read Train2104's oppose. And yes, it is still process creep. -FASTILY 09:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pre-RfC: Extending PROD to templates?
The backlogging and low participation of WP:templates for discussion were addressed around last year. Nothing has yet resolved the issues of the process. I brought the idea of extending/applying PROD to templates earlier this month, yet there were no replies. Therefore, I would re-discuss this before starting an RfC on templates. Alternatively, there can be a separate "Template:" PROD. Thoughts on the idea? --George Ho (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Not too much a fan of making it a PROD given how obscure templates are. Even as TFD becomes backlogged, it's nowhere as bad as FFD was. Compared to the volume of templates at TFD, the number of T3's are quite small, and that's supposed to be the relief valve. The other major category of templates at TFD now are navboxes with few/no links - perhaps something similar to P2 should be developed. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Not much of a fan of "instructional creep"-ing the CSD, i.e. adding more criteria. The CSD policy still has issues, especially the WP:T2 one. Why burdening it with one more criterion? --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Opposed, backlog is not sufficient to justify another extension of prod, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Implementing File PROD
Per the closure of the above discussion, these are the steps I have identified that need to occur for the implementation of File PROD. There is likely more that needs doing, so please add to the list as necessary, and mark items as done. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Before doing this I think there should be a discussion as to whether or not to use the same page. WP:BPROD is a totally separate page from WP:PROD. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a first pass at the lead, but undid because I wasn't aware of WP:BPROD, and I agree it may make more sense for a separate page, though I think I would advocate for adding the information here since it was decided above that the process and rules would be essentially the same as for articles. Sam Walton (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, use the existing page plz. Too many pages make memorization difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, if at some point down the road FPROD ends up being so different from normal PROD that it needs its own article, it can be done. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Updating the existing page, PROD, is better than creating a separate, new one. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
History logs merged. George Ho (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that the update is implemented, I want to PROD an image. May I do it right away? George Ho (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If it's orphaned, I see no reason why not. If it's not orphaned you'll have to add the caption tags by hand. The first file PROD was File:SelectTV logo.png, though that could've been F5'ed anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd personally prefer that the template made mention of proposed deletion, or linked to the page (either here or a new page, per above) that described the process. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
See the testcases for the full functionality of the template. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. That looks great! Sam Walton (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 00:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The sandbox version is not yet implemented into the main template, which is template-protected. May you please do the changes? --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Self-trout Done. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice fish ;). Anyway, I updated the documentation after some testing. Guess I'll try PROD-ding with a caption right away then. George Ho (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The "click here to object" link doesn't remove the file prod template from the edit box. I'm going to ask at WP:VPT since I know nothing about MediaWiki URL parameters. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Saw the removal. BTW, the template has used dates without using |date=. How do I insert reason without |reason=? George Ho (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Aliased parameter 2 to reason. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all the best. George Ho (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Caption bot
A bot task should be filed to add and remove the caption template automatically.
What about removing the caption template? I removed one four days after the FFD discussion ended. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Added "and remove" :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Bot request filed. While writing the request I ran into a question - should the caption template also be added on user pages and talk pages? — Train2104 (t • c) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: You mean, should captions be added if the image is present on user/talk pages? I'd think so. Sam Walton (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was my question. I guess there's nothing bad about doing so. There's no point in editing talk page archives though. When the file is deleted the bot should also be removing or commenting out the image. — Train2104 (t • c) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
PROD template
Template:Proposed deletion should be updated to read and function correctly on file pages, or a new template should be created.
I've created Template:Proposed deletion/dated files/sandbox, but I need someone more familiar with the intricacies of writing for substitution to put a conditional in the main template (file goes to this, all other to the article version). I'm also not sure of the wording to use...suggesting the user edit the file description page to address the concern seems like it won't work for most of the common FFD deletion reasons. Suggesting the user upload a new version may be a little WP:BEANSy. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The template should also include some form of Commons-detection, if possible, so people don't prod files on Commons. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I implemented a hackish Commons checker by looking for "/commons/" in the filepath...not sure the false positive/negative rate of that. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Done I've made it live now since it is completely backwards compatible; there is no change in behavior when tagging an article. The template places also {{book-prod/dated}} when in the book namespace - but not in the userspace (for user-books, use {{subst:book prod}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Substitution is never easy — Train2104 (t • c) 13:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: I previewed using PROD template on Olivia Hack and File:ToE Cover.jpg. The PROD template can detect a past AFD nom, but it doesn't detect a past FFD nom. How can it be fixed? George Ho (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Past AFD and MFD noms are easy to detect since they're on their own their own subpage for which existance can be checked. Unfortunately, that's not possible for the other XFD's. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There are 15 of these, which is a lot. It shouldn't be too hard to make them vary their content based on file vs article, but do we need all 15? I only see a handful that are actually routine cases (notify creator, notify on deprod, page ineligible for PROD). The rest seem like template-creep to me. I wouldn't object taking some to TFD. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You can do TfD if you want. I don't object to the nomination. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Partly doneTemplate:Proposed deletion notify/sandbox, which is perhaps the most important of all of them. The same logic can easily be copied to the others, pending TfD. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Luis150902: Is there are reason you're invoking String instead of using magic words and parser functions alone like I did in the sandbox? Among other things, this will not work with "Image:" prefixes. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Get a bot to create the daily categories and a version of WP:PRODSUM.
I'll claim this. When the PROD template and its (new) parameters are finalized, ping me and I'll set this up. -FASTILY 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fastily: Template seems to be up and running (see above). Sam Walton (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'll try to have this done by early next week. -FASTILY 03:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104, @Samwalton9: Apologies for the delay, just finished the bot. It reports out to User:FastilyBot/File PROD Summary. I'll have it running automatically (refreshing every 6 hours) starting sometime this week. Regards, FASTILY 09:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Could the various reports FastilyBot does be run on a separate account without the bot flag, so we can watch it? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Train2104. Glad you like it! Could you explain your reasoning for your request? Yes, it's possible to toggle the bot edit flag, but that seems like a strange thing to do for a report that will be run on a consistent schedule. Also, it is already possible to watch the page, and toggle the filter to show bot edits in your watchlist. Regards, FASTILY 22:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess I could toggle the bot edit filter, though I really don't want to... – Train2104 (t • c) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this point - I haven't looked at the sandbox code yet, but if {{prod/dated}} is modified to work in the File: namespace, then Twinkle won't actually need to be updated. Saves the update. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
My idea was to use two different /dated subpages with the same master template and syntax. Twinkle would still need to be updated to show the PROD option on file pages.
I've filed a task, and will update as necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Some bugs to work out first...also, I don't think it should go production until the bot is up and running. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
May we implement the changes without Twinkle then? George Ho (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Twinkle is ready. MusikAnimal also took on the task of the caption bot, which is what we're waiting for right now. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've started work on this, but just to let you know this will not be easy. For instance, if the image were in an infobox, the bot has to know what the image description field is called, which may differ infobox to infobox. I'm not sure if there are other templates used to show images, and what to do in those cases, and also properly update descriptions in <gallery>...</gallery>'s, etc. When it comes time for a BRFA I guess we'll have to give the go ahead for this new process, otherwise there's no way we could do an accurate trial. I'll keep you updated on progress — MusikAnimaltalk 13:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
There have been various iterations of such bots in the past - did they not take into account these cases? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Going by the source code, it doesn't look like Sambot handled infoboxes. What other bots did similar tasks? — MusikAnimaltalk 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought SoxBot 19 was a different bot, but it was just a different botop reusing SamBot's code. In the worst case the infobox part can be done semi-automatically, I can't see images being used that prominently PRODed that often. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I apologize to all that I'm going to have to back out of this project. See Special:Permalink/774487746#File PROD bot for more. In short, someone who works with Python or AWB may be able to do this a lot easier than I can. For me it will require more time than I have :( I'm not sure how urgent it is to get a bot up and running, but I personally would not consider it a blocker for rolling out the new File PROD process. You may in for a long wait, while doing this manually shouldn't be too much of a burden given high-use images would seemingly be less likely to get PROD'd. At any rate, I do apologize to have misled you all and to have kept you waiting. I am going to get to work on updating Twinkle, though :) Regards — MusikAnimaltalk 20:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
That sounds fair. @Fastily: When you write your summary bot, could you include the number of uses each file has, so that manually adding the templates is easier? I agree that it's not a blocker to rolling out the process, the Twinkle update should move forwards. I will update the policy page. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Regards, FASTILY 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Umm... may Twinkle be updated without the caption bot? George Ho (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
After going through my first batch of deleting files under the newly amended PROD criteria, I can't help but if this was the best approach to the concerns that led to the RFC. Aside from dumping file deletion nominations over to PROD, I came across a few issues that only feel like an additional workload for admins working in the area due to how broad the nature of the process is, and how specific issues are for files. As I was unaware of the discussion and change up until last week, I had zero opportunity to analyze the proposal and its possible drawbacks.
Instead, File PROD is being used in a far too general sense. There is hardly a difference between it being nominated as such or at FFD, the workload remains the same; file gets tagged for deletion, no one comments on it, and an adminstrator deletes it. What hoops did we jump around? We moved the backlog from one place to another.
A much more narrow approach is needed, with the rigid requirements of being an unused (obviously) freely licensed file with no foreseable encyclopedic use. It would have made more sense to follow the procedure at WP:FCSD. WP:CSD#F12 could have been formed as "F12. Orphaned freely licensed images, no foreseeable encyclopedic use" (or something less of a mouthful), with an appropriate tag like {{di-orphaned free use}} (ie, {{di-orphaned fair use}}) or something along those lines categorized under Category:Orphaned freely licensed Wikipedia files (ie, Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files). The scope is clear and distinct, the files are neatly categorized with others with the exact same issue, and are easier to review for admins. This is much more manageable approach for me. ℯxplicit 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Applying PROD to files should reduce the backlogging of FFD. However, not everyone knows that PROD-ding is extended to files. I notified others about this. Also, I started the discussion about speedy deletion criteria for files, but it got ignored. I also started another discussion about the F7 criterion, "invalid fair use claim". --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 07:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, too many criteria, and CSD still has issues besides criteria for files. I read that criteria for articles have been contested disputed in the project talk page. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 07:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, what difference does it make where the files go? It's either pushed to a different area where the same admins work and their backlog remains the same, or to admins less experienced in handling files and increasing a backlog for them. "Too many criteria" is a really poor excuse and I fail the perception of other criteria have to do with anything. ℯxplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If the proposed F12 is created, how many days until deletion? I don't see the point of creating F12 if the length is "seven days", the same length as PROD. Also, that would lead to another one of those unnecessary "di-(stuff)" templates. I would hope shorter length to deletion. BTW, struck out my previous poor rationale to oppose another criterion. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about this, Explicit: a delete-file user right? Recently, the consensus approved the autopatrol-file right, though it's currently stalled. George Ho (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at a day's worth of files when they showed up in prod patrol. It seemed that the process is being abused by the editor User:Jon Kolbert who has a gauge on his user page indicating that he plans to nominate all orphan files regardless of their potential. That's about 100,000 files. Many of these wouldn't be missed but the indiscriminate purge would include files such as File:Aker bilk.jpg – a picture of the famous musician – Acker Bilk, which would fit nicely into that person's article. When one contests such PRODs, the editor just nominates again. Notice that the editor has already nominated that file for deletion three times now, including twice for PROD. As due diligence is not being done, I suggest that this editor be topic banned from the use of PRODs but perhaps there's another side to this and so they are invited to justify their behaviour. More generally, the process seems quite broken in that it's difficult to review hundreds of nominations without a better interface which should include thumbnails of the images in question. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"The workload" may remain the same, since an uncontested FFD was a delete, but the benefit of this new process is that it reduces the number of things at FFD so that the ones that really do require the attention of other experts are not lost in a mess of uncontroversial deletions. The original proposal as put forth had some of the restrictions you mentioned, but the consensus was that additional restrictions beyond that of article PROD (which is very open ended) amounted to instruction creep and were unnecessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This appears to have made a clear point that File PROD maybe shouldn't have been pushed through. If anything, this just shows the capability of how detrimental this change can be. A file nominated under File PROD can be viewed by as little as two people—the person who tagged it and the reviewing administrator. Although FFD is not a particularly popular venue, it was not uncommon for random users (who did not upload the file and were not regular participants) to argue to keep a file due to a beneficiary use the nominator could not see. File PROD has eliminated that possibility almost entirely. As it is consider non-controversial, much less care is taken into account over something being nominated at a deletion discussion venue. ℯxplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I don't know. Per current PROD rules, if PROD tag is removed, or if a previously PROD-ded image is undeleted, a file would become ineligible to be PROD-ded. Nevertheless, some uploaders are no longer active, some other uploaders are not easy to communicate with, and image pages are hardly visited. We have the image caption template informing readers about the deletion, but sometimes those "caption" parameters in infoboxes can be overlooked. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's very important to note a few things here.
1. As for the File:Profile pic of my chosing.jpg case, the file was tagged, a few hours later the editor decided to include it on their user page. This, for me is a perfectly acceptable result, but I don't go around tagging userpage images that are in use - which seemed to be how it was laid out.
2. As for using PROD over CSD in not-so clear copyvio situations, a lot of these files were uploaded 5-10+ years ago. With PROD anyone can take it down and the file cannot be sent to PROD again, whereas CSD-F9 that isn't one of the criteria. Either way, most of those images I found fitting that would've been in Wikipedia orphaned files anyway, so a slight tweak of wording in the rationale should rectify that should people be too bothered.
3. I've heard that some say my goal is to nominate all 100K files in the category PROD... for those people I'd encourage them to check out my contributions on Commons. I don't think it's too radical of a position to take if we have 100K files in a backlog - being that we should separate the ones that are useful, and transfer them to commons. The other half of that is weeding out the ones that aren't, and running them through a consensus-based deletion process. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Who's doing the work of separating the useful images? Please could Jon Kolbert explain his process? Me, what I do is use CAT:PROD to see what has been nominated. The file names are not very informative and so it's then quite a chore to click the files individually to inspect them. From my sample, I reckon that I'd remove the PROD tag in about 50% of cases. This seems like a lot of unproductive churning. As the process of nominating 100,000 files is likely to exhaust editors, the likelihood is that no-one will actually check for cases such as the file above. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a fresh example from the expiring batch. This seems like a credible image but Kolbert claims that there is no clear usability. I'm going to remove that PROD immediately but there are about 160 more files to be checked. The process is broken. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
2. A prime example of File PROD overstepping its bounds. If the validity of a copyright tag is put into question, it needs to be sent to FFD for other editors to review it and determine whether it needs to be deleted or have a different copyright tag. Some editors are good with certain aspects of copyright, but not in others (threshold of originality, PD-old, PD-SomeGovernment, etc). File PROD can not handle this.
3. The approach to orphaned freely licensed images has always been "unused, no target article, must be useless", even at FFD. I have, at various times, completely ignored a deletion nomination and moved a file to Commons because it is clearly within project scope. For example, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 28#File:Impossible cube made in AOI.jpg. It remains ununsed to this day, but to argue that it holds no encylopedic value it completely wrong and damaging to the project. ℯxplicit 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Expired file PRODs not in category?
I'm not sure if this was by design, but expired file PRODs aren't showing up in the expired PROD category. Design feature or flaw? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look. --joe deckertalk 15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, *files*, got it. Yeah, let me do a test and see if that'll work--it should, I'll do the appropriate BAG request. --joe deckertalk 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Does an article deletion reset WP:PROD eligibility?
I came across this PROD, which raised an interesting question: if an article was previously AfD'd and then independently re-created later, is the new version eligible for WP:PROD or not? I can see different, reasonable interpretations that would yield opposite answers. One is that rule applies to the article title and PRODing is disallowed, which appears to be what the template warning implies. The other is that rule only applied to the article instance, and since the prior delete wiped the article history, the new article is a separate entity and is again eligible for WP:PROD. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I would say yes. Certainly if it's an article with the same title but different subject, such as two different people with the same name, then PROD is open. If it's a recreated article on the same subject there's a very good chance that speedy deletion would apply anyway. ReykYO! 16:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
PROD is not for things that have been to AfD, whether or not they were ever deleted. If an article has been to AfD, then it's back to AfD if CSD G4 doesn't apply. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Add an exception?
Should I add an exception to this page that specifies that if the tag is removed by a banned or blocked user, it may be reinstated (see WP:REVERTBAN). Ups and Downs (↕) 07:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably not necessary, since it's already understood that the prod can be reinstated under those conditions, but it would not hurt to add it either. ReykYO! 08:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Quick PROD ?
Sometimes I propose an article for deletion in the New Page queue, providing a rationale, such as that it has no references and is too short to add encyclopedic value. It is typically a stub whose subject doesn't fall cleanly into any of the A7 subcategories. There is enough content, just barely, so that it isn't no context or no content. Then, maybe 12 to 24 hours later, I see that the article has been deleted with the explanation of Expired PROD. On the one hand, I don't disagree with the deletion. However, it doesn't appear to be the way proposed deletion was meant to be used. It appears to be a case where an administrator has decided that the article needs deleting, which it does. However, if the deleting admin thought that it qualifies for A1 or A7, I would have been able to learn from their choice of subcategory for future use. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Think it would be better if it was speedy deleted by the admin then the reason would be clear Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no way in which the course of events you describe follows our deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't just happened once. I agree that it would be better for the deleting admin to use a speedy code. I might actually learn that that is a case for speedy deletion. I PROD an article if I don't think it meets any of the speedy criteria, such as it makes no credible claim of significance but isn't one of the A7 subjects. I would always rather use speedy if speedy is possible, so I would like to see why the admin decided to speed up the PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Such deletions should be raised at deletion review as clearly out of process. If there is a pattern of such actions by a single admin, that person should be brought to WP:ANI for admonishment, and if need be, to ARBCOM for desysoping. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Please note, however, that not all deletions in this time are inappropriate. For example:
பீண்டி பஜார் was deleted under A2 (foreign-language articles which are on the correct language's Wikipedia)
बालविवाह was deleted under A10 (areticle which duplicates content from an existing article)
This covers all articles you tagged during the past week and were deleted already. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Amendment to policy
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Snow opposed.This is not just a change in language but essentially seeks to alter the fundamentals of PROD-Deletion--and that has been unanimously opposed by every participant.Also, there seems to be a major problem with the assertion that all prodded-articles always gets deleted.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently policy states "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." This shouldn't be allowed. It simply wastes time at AFD for articles that obviously won't survive yet don't explicitly meet CSD criteria. We don't allow the page creator to remove speedy tags, and no one is allowed to remove AFD tags except after the discussion, so why are we allowing PROD templates to be removed? Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose amendment That clause is very important. If there's any opposition to the deletion and PROD is removed, there's nothing preventing any editor from either improving the page or re-nominating it for a discussion at a larger forum such as WP:FFD or WP:AFD. At least then, more editors can take a look at the specific circumstances regarding the page instead of a process where it's possible only two editors are involved. I use proposed deletion a lot for files, there have been cases where the original uploader has removed the tag for perfectly valid reasons and I think their right to do that is a key part to balancing the process. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - It's intended to be a very lightweight approach for uncontroversial deletions for any valid deletion reason, unlike CSD which requires clear, quasi-objective reasons. The author of an article can't simply disagree with a CSD tag that was placed accurately, but can disagree with a prod because his/her objection makes deletion controversial. On some obscure page, the author might be the only one watching. AfD creates a forum for others to notice and get involved; otherwise, it's much too likely nobody else would see it and the article would be deleted. Prod is designed to take some of the burden off of AfD that way... but not too much. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose suggested amendment: The Prod is intended to reduce AfD workload for an uncontroversial rationale-based deletion; removal of a notice is sufficient indication of disagreement as to make AfD appropriate if the deletion is to be pursued. Sometimes too, the article creator will have addressed the Prod rationale with improvements as well as removing the notice. Frustrating as it is, especially with low participation leading to multiple relistings, but AfD is the appropriate place for material discussion. AllyD (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. If a PROD tag is removed, that clearly indicates that somebody is unhappy with the deletion, so it deserves a discussion. I personally have witnessed many deprodded articles going on to survive AfD. Altamel (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per others, allowing removal of prod is intentional. This section should be closed per WP:SNOW. GeoffreyT2000(talk, contribs) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. PROD should be subject to the same rules as CSD and AFD. KMF (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose CSD, PROD and AFD are used for singifivcantly different cases. In theory, everything (other than housekeeping and Office Actions) should be deelted only under XFD; however, due to the overload to XFD which would result, the community has accepted some shortcuts which apply under strict rules. CSD applies to a small number of reasons, based on the understanding that nearly every page which meets each of these criteria would be deleted under an XFD discussion. PROD works on the claim that no one, not even the author, explicitly opposes the deletion. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The PROD page is often large and cluttered, and there is no assurance that an interested third editor will notice and examine the topic and find it worth the effort to improve and save it. If an article creator is willing to defend an article written in good faith, they're entitled to a true hearing as in AfD. We have speedy deletion categories for articles that are very very likely to be no good to the encyclopedia. But prodded pages get saved every day; I've personally expanded and saved many such articles myself.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose PROD is designed to be an easily contestable deletion process. Since it gives the author time to improve the article (rather than deleting outright) there is no reason not to allow that author to remove the tag if they have addressed the issues raised. Yunshui雲水 10:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Snow oppose: If the PROD tag was removed, it should been AFDed after that which is not timewasting, and makes no sense. KGirl(Wanna chat?) 11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. PROD is intended solely for uncontested deletions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PRODs of re-created articles that are substantially different than previously deleted version
The policy says: PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.
I agree that this makes sense in the case of articles where the result of a previous discussion was keep.
But what about articles that are re-created several years after they were deleted as a result of an AfD or FfD discussion. A {{db-repost}} speedy tag may not be appropriate because the new version is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and given the passage of time a re-evaluation of notability may be appropriate.
Could the eligibility of such newly re-created articles for PROD tagging be reset?
I patrol for {{error}}s and such errors where articles are PRODed when technically ineligible occur frequently. For example, we currently have:
In each case, the previous AfD is very old. Thoughts on this? I don't know whether this issue has been previously discussed, as I didn't search the substantial archives. If it has, a link or two would be appreciated. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If an article subject was appropriate to go for an AfD discussion previously, then I would say any new article on the subject is not eligible for Prod and a new AfD discussion is needed. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Noting that ThinkTank Learning was just deleted via PROD, even though there is a previous AfD in the history. I'm not contesting the deletion, just noting that it wasn't strictly by established procedure. WP:IAR, I suppose. I'm not sure anyone is actively patrolling Category:Proposed deletions needing attention, as ThinkTank Learning would have been sitting in that category for a full week (sorted to D) before it was deleted. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Deprods by blocked users
Currently, WP:DEPROD states that tags removed by banned users may be restored. Does this also apply to blocked users? User:Kuyabribri deprodded He Who Dreams after User:JJMC89 reverted a deprod by a sockpuppet of the blocked creator, claiming that the creator was only blocked, not banned. I suspect it should match WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:G5, but perhaps there's a reason it doesn't. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This should be only used in cases where it's clear block evasion has taken place. The language could be extended to something along the lines of tags removed by banned users or users evading a block may be restored so it's more clear. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I rewrote the sentence to clarify that point. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with aligning with WP:BE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Objecting section
I'd like to propose some possible changes to the "Objecting" section, particularly this sentence:
If the page has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion. Any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion will be undeleted upon request (unless there are other reasons for keeping it deleted, such as a copyright infringement), but it may then be nominated for a deletion discussion.
Here are my proposals:
Append at the end "or moved to draft space for further improvement."
Rationale: I encounter prod undeletion requests from editors with an obvious COI, whose intent in restoring the article is for SEO purposes or for making substantive changes in violation of WP:COI guidelines. In some of these cases, the prodded article might not be appropriate for main space, but also isn't appropriate for AFD because the subject might actually be notable. So I find myself restoring the article to draft space and instructing the requester to submit it for review via WP:AFC. This is a perfectly valid response to an undeletion request, that can happen instead of an AFD nomination.
Change "will be undeleted upon request" to "can be undeleted upon request".
Rationale: The word "will" implies an obligation to undelete an article even for bad-faith requests. I have seen requests like "We wrote this article to publicize our product and demand that it be restored!" Such requests I'm disinclined to honor, preferring a request from an established and trusted editor (the recently created "extended confirmed" right is a useful indication). Declining such requests is consistent with the years-long standard practice over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, in which a request to de-list a blacklisted websites gets taken seriously only if requested by a trusted high-volume editor, not by an editor with a COI.
Rationale: At the moment, if I see a request from a company representative to undelete a prodded article, I ask that the user bring himself/herself into compliance, before I agree to restoring the article. This allows the article, once restored, to be improved without the requester risking being blocked for account-related policy violations, allowing article improvement to continue. If their username is unacceptable, I ask them to change it. I ask them to review WP:PAID and comply. If they're a sockpuppet, I ask them to get their original account unblocked first. If the user does these things and responds positively, then I undelete. If no response, it remains deleted. This may seem like I'm placing a burden on the process, but my objective as an administrator is to minimize disruption, and encouraging requesters to follow the rules accomplishes that.
I expect my first proposal would be non-controversial, but not the other two. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Support proposals 1 and 3. These are just explicit statements of existing policy A) Anyone can draftify an article for further improvement within reason, no discussion required, so an admin restoring something and then draftifying would not be violating any polices and B) if someone is obviously violating WP:PAID or has a promotional/shared-use username, they should be blocked on sight, in which case we can ignore their requests. Sockpuppets are covered under G5. Oppose proposal 2 as only allowing established users to restore is counter to the goals of PROD. The idea of not allowing article creators to deprod has been shot down multiple times, this is essentially an equivalent. Nothing prevents an admin from undeleting and immediately sending it to AFD on their own. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In some cases, undisclosed paid editors are acting in good faith and not intending to violate any rules, they just don't know the rules and will gladly comply if they're adequately informed. The author of ZipBooks is one recent example, he got himself into compliance and he's now trying to be productive outside his COI. So I do try to give such accounts a chance rather than blocking on sight. Of course, for every one of those, I encounter several others that unquestionably deserve a block. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Support all three. I think these are uncontroversial changes. You should go ahead and make them. Lourdes 03:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I added the proposed text of proposal #1. I see the consensus on favoring to add proposal #3, but I haven't added it yet. Here's my draft for proposal #3: "A requester must comply with WMF's Terms of Use and Wikipedia:Username policy." I'm wary about adding "WP:PAID", but I don't mind others mentioning it in the policy page. George Ho (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If an article is deleted years ago as a PROD and someone creates a new article about the same subject is the new article subject to PROD?
For example, the article Streamate was created in May 2006. It was proposed for deletion 14 January 2007, an IP removed the PROD tag 18 January and another editor proposed it for deletion again 31 January. On 6 February it was deleted. It was created again in November 2010 and deleted G12. Fast forward to 2017 and it is created again.
Is the current creation eligible for Proposed deletion? ~ GB fan 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so, the policy page says that PROD doesn't apply to pages which have been previously proposed for deletion. By creating an article about the subject someone was effectively contesting the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not for Draft?
As I'm checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to delete articles, I find many that are in draft space and have been tagged automatically by a bot because 6 months have expired. Since I'm not a bot I sometimes see a reason to not immediately delete an article, such as at Draft:Last Names of Telugus. Now, when I replaced {{db-g13}} with {{prod}}, it adds in big red letters "Please use PROD only on articles." - without saying why not, or what to use instead. I searched this project page, its talk archive, the template history edit summaries and the template talk archive for "draft", but all I could find about drafts was /Archive_14#Draft prod, which contains no reason for such a limitation, either. I will therefore remove the red text for now. — Sebastian 09:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Pending a reply from Sitush, who confirmed my impression, and because I haven't seen the source for the warning text yet, I will not make any changes for now. — Sebastian 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sebastian, you are back after how long? PROD doesn't apply to any draft.If you want the exact verse:--PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Books may also be proposed for deletion, using a similar process. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. On a side note, you can decline any G13 per your discretion and that resets the clock by six months.If you are confident that the draft deserves to be main-spaced and will survive an AfD, kindly move it yourself.Winged BladesGodric 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the relevant text, User talk:Winged Blades of Godric. That answers my question: It was added after this discussion, which was triggered by PROD on a talk page. The exclusion of draft articles was never explicitly intended; I would regard it as collateral damage.
Thank you also for pointing out the workaround of extending it by 6 months; that's much more than I think is needed in such cases, but it's at least better than the other extreme of deleting it right away.
Even though there is a workaround, I would like to repair the collateral damage and count draft articles as articles for the purposes of this policy, so we're not forced to extend a draft article longer than a mainspace article. What do others think? — Sebastian 12:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
For clarity this is the direct link to the discussion. ~ GB fan 13:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Admin instructions- minor reword?
for at least 7 continuous days.
. Should this exclude vandalism (per DENY). If so, can this please be made clearer. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 10:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Bellezzasolo, vandalism pages should be tagged {{Db-g3}} for speedy deletion. For more information see the WP:NPP instructions for patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of this being a major problem? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This is already covered elsewhere in the policy: This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. Hut 8.5 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Consistent user experience across processes: suggestions
This is a follow-up to part of Andrew Davidson's comments in the discussion above. I have long felt that process inconsistencies make it too easy for an inexperienced article contributor to stumble into trouble:
An article creator who seeks to oppose a CSD is not permitted to remove the notice from the article. If they do, they fall under an escalating process from {{uw-speedy1}} to {{uw-speedy4}} and a block.
An article creator who seeks to oppose a PROD is guided to remove the notice from the article.
An article creator who seeks to oppose an AFD is not permitted to remove the notice from the article. If they do, they fall under an escalating process from {{uw-afd1}} to {{uw-afd4}} and a block.
An opposed PROD will often be followed by an AFD (especially if the opposer provided no persuasive rationale), so the inexperienced editor finds that the behaviour which was stipulated at one moment is sanctioned in the next.
Inconsistency is poor for editor experience and possibly retention.
PROD is the odd-one-out of the 3 processes and so seems like the one to fix? For example, relative consistency could be accomplished if the PROD notice on the User Talk page provided an optional rationale area and CSD-like button which could trigger (1) copy of the PROD (and PROD2) content, along with the opposition rationale if offered, into {{oldprodfull}} on the article Talk page and (2) removal of the PROD content from the article. This would not prevent a PROD being removed as part of normal article editing, but would improve user experience and (to some extent) information retention.
Aside from that suggestion, and again noting Andrew D.'s observations about ambitions for use of the log files when the PROD process was introduced, it could be worth reviewing what is logged and whether it can be reused, for example for a bot addition of {{oldprodfull}} when a new article instance is created or other assistance to minimise re-nominations?
I disagree. CSD is the odd one out. Article creators used to be able to remove these, and there is no reason why an article creator should not be allowed to remove, for example, a CSD A7 or A9 as these are not unlikely to be erroneously placed, and do not relate to harmful content such as attack pages. James500 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is providing a reason for contesting a PROD not required?
It seems a bit unusual that we allow, for instance, COI-SPAs to blank PROD templates without explanation, but we don't allow the pages to be re-PRODded in those cases. If the PRODder proceeded to open an AFD with the same rationale this page requires them to provide up-front, and the one who contested the PROD shows up and says "oppose" without providing a reason, and no one else comments, the AFD closer will throw out the oppose !vote as not having a clear policy-based rationale, and the page will be deleted, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The idea behind PROD is that it's supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. Therefore there isn't a need to have the same kind of review that we do for deletion discussions in controversial or potentially controversial cases. If somebody removed the PROD template then they are objecting to the proposed deletion and the deletion is therefore at least somewhat controversial, even if the person didn't articulate their reasoning. AfD does work in a similar way to PROD, if someone nominates an article for deletion and there is no meaningful opposition but also not much support then the discussion will likely be closed as WP:SOFTDELETE, which functions exactly like a PROD deletion. Hut 8.5 09:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, the freedom to remove a PROD for any or no reason has started being misused by people aiming to annoy editors performing what usually turns out to be uncontroversial maintenance. I wouldn't oppose changing the PROD rules to make leaving a rationale for dePRODding mandatory. It'd make it easier to identify people only in it for the obstructionism. On the other hand, tools like Twinkle make just starting an AfD easier than it used to be and I'd also endorse the nominator saying "Deprodded without rationale by [[User:Blerplederp]]", which would serve the same purpose. ReykYO! 10:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The point of PROD is that anybody can remove them, no reasons need to be given. Like Rekk suggests, adding "Deprodded by [[user name] OR article creator], no reason given" is useful, and certainly something I have been doing at AFD for a number of years now. GiantSnowman 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I oppose this. In general, we should allow article creators to request a formal discussion before the deletion of articles they've created, without requiring a reason from them. Even in the case of COI editors, this is beneficial, as further re-creations can be deleted WP:G4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Improve PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions and so don't provide support for discussion. Typically, a PROD is placed with Twinkle, which provides a prompt and then takes care of everything else. Contesting the prod is less clear because there's no button or Twinkle option for this. You have to edit the page, find the template and remove it. The reason for the prod then goes away with the template, leaving nothing behind. Myself, I then usually go to the talk page to place the {{oldprodfull}} template. I might put some other templates on the talk page but leave it at that.
The reasons for removing the prod are implicit and obvious; that one doesn't want the page deleted and doesn't regard the nominal reason as adequate. The edit summary is not a suitable place to get into details. Edit summaries are supposed to be brief and to describe the nature of the edit. Per WP:REVTALK, we should "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... [as] this creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!". The edit summary created by Twinkle when the prod is placed doesn't contain any reasoning and so, for symmetry, the closing summary shouldn't either.
If you look at the early archives here, you can see that the process was kludged together in 2006. The original process had a log file but I suppose all that has gone away with the toolserver. There was some talk of recording reasons in the log but I'm not sure how much of that was done as I've never seen a log.
To improve the process, the prod template should contain a button which deactivates it and takes care of any updates like the {{oldprodfull}} template. The process is supposed to be lightweight and so should be streamlined to be easy and fuss free.
Oppose. There is no question of requiring a reason to be given for removing a PROD when there is no requirement to give any reason for placing a PROD, let alone give a valid reason for placing a PROD. Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, the freedom to place a PROD for any or no reason has started being misused by people perpetrating deletion sprees. More than half the PRODs I have seen (and I have seen many) were placed for demonstrably invalid reasons, typically on articles that were notable or eligible for WP:ATD, such as merger or redirection. The last thing we want to do is make that problem worse. Counter proposals (1) Require a valid reason to be given when placing a PROD. (2) PROD should be confined to topics that do not require expert knowledge to assess notability (in the same way as CSD A7). James500 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who almost saw their first article creation in years get speedied because of an incompetent "deletionist",[1] back when "deletionists" were apparently an actual thing to be worried about, I think (2) is at least interesting, but the problem is that that 2012 incident made be a better contributor, and we need more better contributors who write articles that properly demonstrate notability off the bat; we don't need more garbage articles penned by snowflakes who will leave the project when ever anyone criticizes their work. The problem now, as opposed to 2012, is much more with editors removing PRODs and opposing deletion/redirection at AFDs in specialized topic areas, as far as I can see; Andrew, who removed the PROD that inspired this thread, is the worst offender in this area, but he's hardly the only one, and I basically think that at present there is far too much of a burden placed on the "pro-deletion" parties in these cases, given that our content policies generally tend to favour removal, not preservation, of bad content, so both James's proposals would actually make this worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Support If we require a reason to add a PROD, why not require a reason to remove one? Otherwise you are undermining the judgement of the person who placed the PROD and not placing the burden of explanation on the PROD remover. Surely if there is a good reason for removing a PROD, the person can explain it. Not giving a reason is pretty much always in my experience due to the person taking ownership of an article and not wanting to give a reason such as "I want this article to stay because I like it/made it".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem with what you say is that we presently do not require a reason to be given for placing a PROD. Anyone can slap a PROD on anything for any reason, no matter how absurd, or for no reason at all. James500 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
oppose any change. I’ve prodded articles, had them de-prodded without reason, and then taken them to AfD. I rarely have any problem with someone not giving a reason; whether it’s the creator of the article or someone watching the page the AfD process means that if they still object they now have to give their reasons. The AfD is the time for discussions and arguments so it makes sense for them if they want to explain their reasoning to do it there. I.e. it works fine now.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Support I guess this is the second time in as many months that I've proposed an amendment to policy without realizing it. In case anyone else (a closer?) doesn't realize that proposing an amendment was what I was doing, I should clarify that I do support requiring rationales for both proposing and unproposing deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - it's annoying, yes, but allowing editors to keep removing PRODs for no reason is the best solution. GiantSnowman 10:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The PROD process is solely for uncontroversial deletions. The fact that someone is removing it means that, by definition, it is not uncontroversial and not an appropriate candidate for that process. We have other processes for contentious deletions, and complaining editors need to get with the program on needing to get consensus rather than try to misuse the PROD process to bash through contentious deletions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: The process seems to be working well now; I don't see a compelling reason for a change. If someone improves and article & then removes a PROD, that's very different from a SPA removing it with no improvements. AfD would quickly follow in the latter case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: You said exactly one month ago that the process seemed to be working well, and honestly I had not seen enough evidence to disagree with you (this was another one of those things where I posted to the talk page asking a question about why such-and-such was the case, not proposing a change to such-and-such), but then this happened: what about when a PRODder cautiously uses PROD instead of one of the speedy deletion tags, even when he/she really would be justified in the latter, and the article's creator reverts with a nonsense edit summary (if you try to read a meaning into it, that meaning is a lie anyway, so AGF says it's nonsense), resulting in an AFD discussion, where the consensus is unanimous in favour of speedy deletion since the article clearly does not meet our inclusion criteria? Wouldn't simply disbarring lies/nonsense as a rationale for contesting PROD result in less red tape? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious which WP:CSD criteria you think applies to this article? (WP:A7 seems closest, but clearly isn't applicable.) Pburka (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pburka: I'm not sure why you would think A7 "clearly" doesn't apply. I was assuming based on what little the article did say was that it was web content: it's not a paper book that went through a publishing process. That said, I will admit that I am not all that familiar with the speedy deletion criteria, and hadn't noticed that A7 didn't apply to books that aren't web content; I would assume that its application to "real people" is meant to delete articles I wrote about my friends' dads, but that clearly can't be the case with Utsunomiya Yoritsuna despite one admin (now globally blocked!?) deleting the page and one other admin (who later became an Arbitrator) later seconding the deletion. (Full disclosure: I have no recollection whatsoever of what my original draft said, beyond that it was one sentence long.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If a PROD is removed on spurious grounds, there's always AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
A coatrack template was added to an article I created. I removed it and in my edit summary said "take it to an AfD if you disagree". Another editor restored the coatrack template then, three minutes later, added a PROD without notifying me. The PROD was removed by another editor on the basis that "there is an ongoing talk page discussion that should have a consensus first or taken to WP:AFD". Nearly a week after I removed the coatrack template the article then went to AfD by the same editor who added the PROD, again without my being notified, and then I happened to notice it.
In the AfD discussion I asked about the lack of notification of the AfD. The other editor expressed surprise and pointed out that I had said "take it to an AfD if you disagree". I then noticed the PROD / removal of PROD in the edit history. I asked about the lack of notification which, unlike AfD, is listed as something editors are supposed to do rather than a matter of politeness. I also asked about the basis on which he thought it was "uncontroversial" to add a PROD. He has not answered me on either of these points.
Is there a reporting procedure for non-notification of a PROD, adding a PROD when you know it is "controversial", and failing to answer when questioned about it? An ANI seems drastic to me. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, giving notice of a prod is instructed in WP:PROD and is best practice but it isn't a rule and there is no reporting procedure concerning it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I could spend a few hours coming up with new wording for the WP:PROD process and then start an RFC on that wording: or we could run an RFC to just require people to use Twinkle to do PROD deletions. Which will probably make everyone just as happy. In practice, changes to Twinkle get more consensus than changes to these policy pages anyhow. @Black Kite, Swarm, The Gnome, and Ivanvector:power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Never going to happen. There's no good reason (that I know of) to exclude non-autoconfirmed users from the PROD process (which requiring TW would do). It would also exclude those who do not use javascript, and mobile editors. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
For most of these concerns, my answer is "use WP:AFD". I'm fine limiting the PROD process to auto-confirmed accounts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm kind of thinking it would be better to just deprecate PROD entirely, excepting BLPPROD. Just, if you think an article about be deleted and none of the speedy criteria apply, start a discussion at AfD. This also would exclude non-confirmed users, but maybe that's ok. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, to the question: I'm against requiring anyone to use a tool for anything that can be done manually in wiki-markup, unless there's some specific issue with a specific editor. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
There's some been slight disagreement for a number of years.
The suggestion at WP:PROD that it be placed alongside the nomination was added by an IP in 2008 following increased development of the template itself.
The latter would seem to take precedence — there was at least some discussion, and it came after the template had been established and (presumably) used for a few years — but the text on WP:PROD has been kept for a decade largely unchanged, with far more viewers. Based on the roughly 9,600 transclusions, I'd guess that {{Old prod full}} isn't being used that often, but at least in theory when should it be added to the talk page? ~ Amory(u • t • c) 22:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the WP:PROD should be changed, because if it's placed at the same time it can be confused that the article has been deprodded before, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm all for it being added at the time of the PROD. I think the confusion should be minimal: the {{Old prod full}} is dated, after all, and it would really require misreading the notice to use the documentation of a PROD as the basis for the removal of the PROD that it documents.
The article will either be deleted as part of the PROD or not. If the article is deleted, the issue becomes moot. If retained, then the old PROD is documented, which is the purpose of the template.
By placing it at time of PROD, it can be part of the tools that perform PRODs (e.g., Twinkle), so the placement of the template can be pretty much assured. Retain-ending PRODs usually end with someone just deleting the PROD notice, and not placing the template on the talk page, so placing it at dePROD time is unreliable. And it's really a hassle to determine if an article has been PRODded in the absence of this template.
There's an open issue for this, which is what led me to seek clarity on the apparent contradiction I outlined above. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a technical solution which might allow OldProdFull to be added at the time of nomination, but hidden unless the (matching) Prod is removed? That would allow tools like Twinkle to add it without causing the potential confusion Atlantic306 mentioned. Pburka (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
As someone who deals with PRODs daily, I hate seeing {{Old prod full}} on the talk page when it's a result of the article being proposed for deletion in the first place, and not following a PROD being contested. For me, it has always been confusing even if it's dated because I'm not looking for the date, I'm simply looking for the template only. If the article's talk page is created as a result of {{Old prod full}} being placed there, that also adds to my workload. The template is sparingly used otherwise, and I never remember to place it on talk pages where I decline deletions, so I actually find it ultimately useless. If applied, it should be done so following the removal of the PROD and not before that. ℯxplicit 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Combining the above insights, perhaps the best outcome would be to (i) add new code that hides the template within the initial ~7.25 days, (ii) automate placing the template at the time of PRODding if using TW, but only if the talk page already exists. The new code should include inline comments in capitals e.g. "remove this and the following XXX line if the page is not deleted". – FayenaticLondon 09:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I just had it pointed out to me that PROD cannot be applied to drafts. I hadn't noticed that, because this page does not explicitly say so, although it is clearly intended under "pages in any other namespace". Currently we say
PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Books may also be proposed for deletion, using a similar process. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.
I propose that we add "drafts" to the list of namespaces that it cannot be used for. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed, as it's (as you say) clearly covered by or pages in any other namespace. But then again, I tend to read instructions very carefully, perhaps too carefully sometimes :). Adam9007 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This would be helpful to people like me who don't always read the fine print, or internalize all the implications as well as the direct statements. To me, adding it seems harmless and potentially a helpful clarification. But you may be right and it's unnecessary. (Kind of like the notice on a fast food coffee cup that says "Warning: hot coffee is hot."?) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm just going to be Bold and do it. Can't hurt anything and might help. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments: LOL-- It can't hurt. A woman did win alost $3 million (overturned and settled) over spilling "hot" coffee in a "sensitive" spot, and another was awarded $100,000. I still don't think "how hot is hot" has been resolved and apparently thousands of people (injured) haven't figured it out. I guess some people just are not coffee drinkers because 180-190 degrees makes the "perfect" cup. Now it is being suggested that 140 degrees may be "too hot". Before long we may have to only drink it at home, cold (drink it fast), or as iced coffee frappe. Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If I try to tag an article for proposed deletion of an unreferenced BLP, the Twinkle sequence tells me that the article is not in the category Category:Living people, and asks if I am sure I want to proceed. This is apparently a recent change, because I commonly tagged articles with BLPPROD before autoconfirmation was required for new articles, and there were many cruddy articles that had to be deleted, and there wasn't such a prompt. The change is, in my opinion, a bad idea, because most of the articles that need to have BLPPROD applied are newly created articles that haven't been categorized yet. Can the check be removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It is new.[2] I'd post over at WT:TW. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
"PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD."
If there is a better place to bring this up, please tell me so. I think this rule should be limited to something like ten years, as AfD processes were far less rigorous. This has been brought to my attention from proposing the deletion for David Risstrom which was invalid because of a very brief AfD in 2008. I think a limit of something like ten years would not encourage disruptive use of PROD. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree: the Prod is an exceptional process for uncontroversial cases, and any case where there have previously been "keep" opinions (such as the 3 in the example case) deserves full discussion. An AfD discussion may then reach consensus that the page no longer meets notability criteria, etc. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
A successful AfD inherently means that it is not uncontentious - and not only did one editor immediately remove the PROD you placed on that article, but others quickly supported that call, making that article a perfect example of why that exception is unnecessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The editor that removed the PROD, and it was hardly immediate, removed it on the basis of the AfD 11 years ago. I accept that the PROD on that article could be removed for another reason, I just don't think that an AfD so long ago, ancient in Wikipedia terms really, is sound basis for suggesting the removal wouldn't be contentious. This isn't about that article in particular, just the principle in general. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Also disagree. If PROD has been removed in the past, or article discussed at AFD in the past (no matter how long ago), it is not suitable for PROD. GiantSnowman 10:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I am also in disagreement. If a PROD was removed (and especially if it's gone through AFD, even an old one) then there's support for it somewhere. Going through AFD doesn't hurt anything (unless there is a major policy issue like BLP or CopyVio, but even those can be normally fixed by editing rather than deletion).--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Utility and usage of bookspace and userspace BOOKPROD
I've come across dozens of BLPs where the only potential reference is a link to the subject's IMDb page - does that qualify as a "source" for the purpose of BLP PROD? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:STICKY, sources do not have to be reliable to prevent BLPPROD from being used. Meters (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: It's only when BLPPROD has been correctly applied that the source has to be reliable before you're allowed to remove the tag. Unfortunately, people still get confused by this. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: So IMDb is enough to prevent adding BLPPROD, but not enough to remove the tag? Thats weird --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Yes. BLPPROD is for totally unsourced BLPs. I think the reliable source requirement for sources added after the tag's placement is meant to prevent the addition of Wikipedia mirrors, but I could be wrong of course. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Another question: is just having an authority control template with entries enough to qualify as a source? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: Create a proposed deletion criterion for portals created on April 8, 2018 or later by any user. Per normal PROD rules, the page would be deleted after 7 days, but a user who objects to the deletion may remove the prod template. However, unlike regular PROD, the creator would not be allowed to remove the template (though they would of course be allowed to contest it on the talk page). — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as proposer. I proposed this to resolve issues raised by various opposers. This would provide a longer waiting period before deletion, reduce the chances that the recently created portals that comply with the portal guidelines, and not restrict it to a single user, because there were other users who created problematic portals. Possible reasons for removing a prod template include the portal meeting the portal guidelines or being under active development. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I'm leaning support, having been mulling over proposing something like this myself but, I'm not certain this proposal is quite right yet. I don't think there should be a list of acceptable reasons to deprod, rather a non-exhaustive list of examples to reduce the chance of wikilawyering about it (and there will be situations we don't think of and probably some we do that we shouldn't list per WP:BEANS). Any restriction on creators deprodding needs to come with exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism and where prod is not permitted (e.g. doesn't meet the criteria, previously kept in a discussion, etc) - it may be better to say creators should not rather than must not. I also think it important that prodded portals show up in article alerts before this goes live (I no idea if this would require any changes to bot code or not, and if it does how significant it might be). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I've now asked the article alert bot maintainer those questions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The deprod "criteria" are suggestions and not part of the proposal. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't certain either way, so thanks for clarifying. I do think though that jumping straight in to an RfC without workshopping the proposal first was a poor choice though - there is a good idea but it needs refining before I am comfortable supporting it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Prod isn't going to do anything except delay MFD for a week so long as there's multiple users who think all portals, however narrow, should be kept. And there are. —Cryptic 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Do multiple users think that? I certainly don't; I just oppose the view that all should be deleted. Certes (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: How does a link to a deletion log support the assertion that there are multiple users who think all portals should be kept? I'm one of the most (perhaps even the most) vocal advocates against the proposed speedy deletion criterion, yet I do not hold that view. I've repeatedly explained that I simply think that only some of the portals should be deleted, and that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly - there is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. This would be a pseudo-CSD failing WP:NEWCSD. Better to list or reference all new templated portals in a big MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment some users think all portals, no matter how narrow or inappropriate the topic, need to be debated at MfD. SmokeyJoe wants a 3500 portal MfD yet NorthAmerica1000 is complaining about a 6 fruit portals being bundled. A lot of unreasonable positions here. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment What's to stop the group behind the auto-portals removing every PROD? CoolSkittle (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I would imagine exactly the same thing that stops (groups of) editors systematically removing prods from any given set of articles - doing so is disruptive editing - just as systematically tagging any large set of articles without considering them is (see also WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:SK points 2 and 3). Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment check out some of the comments here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California where all portals prior to the reboot survived a deletion discussion as acceptable and any similar ones are therefore acceptable. No one followed the guidelines because they don't matter anymore. Amazing stuff. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot)Oppose CSD is better, this just sounds like MfD with extra steps. SemiHypercube 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I can think of at least three editors who would make it their duty in life to automatically remove a PROD with the rationale, "Controversial; take to MfD". Which makes this a waste of everyone's time. ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Being created recently is not a rationale for deletion, let alone semi-speedy deletion. Certes (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speedy deletion of user subpage in Lao language
I'm in a WP-editathon with Wikipedians editing in different languages, one of them in Lao. A participant wants to delete her subpage (because Google is indexing this subpage and showing it prominently in this language!). I have tried different templates to ask for (speedy) deletion and none of these templates works in lao, for ex. this is not working: {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}.
So I ask here, what to do or if someone could delete this page? Thank you --Hadi (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Phil Bridger. I did what you proposed. --Hadi (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Done This can be archived. Thank you --Hadi (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Prior Deletion with undelete
Is it still forbidden to have a PROD even when an article has been deleted (by AfD), before a new article was formed (as opposed to undeletion) 7 years later?
Functionally, they are completely separate forms - being required to go through AfD seems unnecessary. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(As a side note, this is now a more general topic, since the specific PROD query i had seems to no longer apply)
Changing of G13 Criteria
There is currently a discussion about changing the G13 speedy delete criteria into a sort of Draft PROD. Editors who are interested are invited to comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Twinkle will now try to detect Template:Old prod and old AfDs, and will place the talk page template automatically
Just a head's up, some of the latest changes to Twinkle affect PROD work. In particular, Twinkle's prod tab will now:
Check if {{old prod}} exists on the talkpage or if an AfD exists, and will prevent the user from prodding that page.
Automatically place {{old prod}} on the talkpage upon nomination.
That will be useful, giving good preservation and control of nomination rationale. A side-effect may be to prevent Twinkle-based Prod of a "John Doe" article where an article on a different John Doe was previously deleted by AfD? An example might have been this Prod related to a food industry technology product which is named similarly to a biometric ID company which was deleted via AfD (though the Prod of the one was earlier than the AfD of the other). But if Twinkle does catch such a case and the user still wants to go ahead, they can just use a manual Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting point. @Amorymeltzer: I think the issue could be mitigated by looking for {{old afd}}/{{old afd multi}} template on the talk page rather than looking for an AfD subpage. Since those templates are added mostly automatically (XFDCloser and AnomieBOT), they would be there on every page that has been AfD'd previously, but are removed by editors if the subject is different from the previously deleted article. SD0001 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Great idea! It's an unlikely issue, but that'd be a much better way. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've got a little something whipped up, but I need to do some template work, etc., beforehand. See you at github... ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This John Doe circumstance actually potentially showed up recently with a band I PRODed. Another editor ended up de-prodding, then re-prodding as the previous AfD had been on it as a hoax and incorrectly claiming to be the "real Necrosis" (the one I was now PRODing). In the end, it became so complicated we took it to AfD anyway, but it was an actual example of an attempt to PROD something that had had an AfD on an article of the same name but a different subject. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The method mentioned in the above discussion has now been implemented, allowing for AfD, MfD, and FfD detection via talkpage template. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Are there stats anywhere for the number of established articles deleted each day (i.e. not via WP:AfC/WP:NPP). I've been able to find stats for the number of newly created articles that are deleted (meta:Research:Wikipedia_article_creation), but not for established articles. Any rough useful, detailed stats a bonus! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jesus, a newbie proposed this article for deletion. I don't know how to add a tag on the talk page to that effect. I'm going to fix the issues and scream for help. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I added an oldprod template to the rticle talk page. Probably unnecessary since the PROD was so ridiculous, but anyway. ReykYO! 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask? I put a PROD template on this page but as it has already been recommended for deletion, and deleted, back in 2017, the template is pointing to the 2017 deletion discussion. How can this be re-directed to a new deletion discussion page? TIA MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a completely inappropriate deletion nomination. She has the lead role in a current drama series and on top of that the lead role in the television adaptation of one of the most popular novels in the world this year. Why would you possibly think this was a candidate for PROD? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I see you have toned down your initial comments, Drover's Wife, which cast me as ridiculous and a comedian. I don't understand what you've done here, however. I genuinely don't think this article demonstrates sufficient notability and this page right here that we're posting on is not the place for us to have this discussion. The appropriate place is on a PROD discussion. I would like to see a proper PROD discussion, not see the template I put up summarily removed by one person. Will you re-instate it? MurielMary (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
PROD is not a process for discussion, it is a process for uncontroversial deletions which can be removed by any editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It's hard to imagine that deleting this article would be non-controversial, as there are clear claims to notability. This is an abuse of PROD. Pburka (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That an article doesn't demonstrate notability is irrelevant, as the WP:N notability of a subject is determined without respect to the contents or sourcing in an article written about that person or whether anyone has even written an article yet. Before you nominate an article for deletion (either PROD or AFD) for a lack of notability, it's your responsibility (see WP:BEFORE) to perform a good faith search for factors that meet the pertinent notability criteria, if this has not already been adequately accomplished by sources cited in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, your phrase "sufficient notability" misuses the term. We say a topic is or isn't notable. One may feel that the support for a finding of notability is weak (that is, it's a judgment call, it barely puts the person over the line), but "notable" is itself a binary description, yea or nay. Between that and your fallacious reference to a PROD discussion, I believe you have some reading to do about how this all works. See WP:N, WP:AFD, WP:PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The previous instance was deleted by AfD so this new instance is not eligible for the WP:PROD process and would require a new AfD if you believe the subject remains non-notable. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that helpful and clear advice, AllyD. MurielMary (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
"PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."
This sentence was added by User:Nsda (who at that point was editing Wikipedia for about a year) in September 2012: [3]. The edit summary 'simplifying language' was also incorrectly used, as this is a relatively big change. And as far as I can tell looking at the archives, the change was never discussed with the community. While the sentence survived to this day (and I think was never before discussed here) I it the sentence rather problematic. First, 'must' is rather strong. Second, it added a very strong requirement to PROD procedure that was not present before and that is not expected from PRODs. In essence, anyone who challenges a prod can use this sentence to argue that anything and everything should not be prodded. For example, I can deprod an article about Foo-topic, then to to the nominator talk page and tell them 'I may challenge such prods in the future', and therefore going by this sentence they would be in a breech of a policy if they were to prod this topic again. I can think of no topic area that where prods are unlikely to be challenged, after all even vandals can challenge deletion, not to mention of paid-for SPAs and spammers, who are more than happy to do so. I think this sentence serves little purpose and just can encourage pointless wikilawyering, and it should be removed as 1) added without a consensus 2) counterproductive. It is good to caution people that sometimes AfD is preferable to PROD, but this sentence is going way too far in the other direction; again, opening interpretation that virtually any and all prods are bad, and giving wikilawyers an argument against anyone who uses them anywhere. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
From its inception, the PROD process has been explicitly "not for contested deletion" with an expectation that it "will not delete any articles that anyone considers worthwhile". It naturally follows that it should not be used in cases where opposition is expected and it seems that some editors require this to be spelt out. Arbcom are now endorsing this unanimously by stating that "It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected."
Also, it's not long since Piotrus was at ANI regarding their failure to correctly use other deletion processes. They seemed to have some difficulty understanding these processes and so the outcome was that a mentor was required. Someone who requires mentoring should not be messing with long-standing guidelines; they should be endeavouring to follow them. As the main parties in that discussion, please can User:Ritchie333, User:ONUnicorn and User:Ad Orientem comment.
Agreed. PROD has always been explicitly not for contested deletion; the confusion of users like the OP about when it is appropriate to use is why this is made absolutely explicit on the page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's going to get punished or bawled out for using PROD on an article that later gets de-prodded. The purpose of this sentence, and I agree it's phrased obscurely, is to discourage the use of PROD to avoid an AfD discussion that you suspect beforehand is going to be disputed. If I use PROD on, for instance, a hoax or the CV of a non-notable person it's because I think it would be a slam-dunk delete if I nominated it at AfD; and I'm not going to get yelled at if the hoaxer takes the PROD off their article.
As for your hypothetical, if I were to say to you "I pre-emptively object to any PROD you place" and you didn't stop prodding stuff, and I took you to ANI over the issue, everyone would tell me to stop being a jackass.
I prefer the original wording The PROD process reduces the load on the AfD process, but should not be used to bypass discussion at AfD because it is more clear and accurate-- but even the current wording isn't going to get you in trouble for placing a PROD in good faith just because there's always a non-zero chance someone will unexpectedly remove it. ReykYO! 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I was brought here by Andrew Davidson's ping; but I'd like to point out that at least as far back as December 1, 2007 the Proposed deletion page said, "Proposed deletion is a process for deleting articles . . . that are uncontroversial deletion candidates but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." The addition of "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" in 2012 does to me seem like an attempt to restate that in simpler language, although I would say that language is somewhat stronger than what was there previously. That said, I think there is an expectation of reasonableness; that no reasonable opposition to the deletion is expected. Your hypothetical above is not reasonable. (but then, sometimes people aren't.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand why you try to make this 'about me', but since you insist, let's note that you yourself have been brought to AN/I for your deprods, with even a topic ban mulled.
An important part of my resistance against your PRODs is the often clear lack of a proper WP:BEFORE. Quite often the article itself offers a suitable merge-option what can be used as alternative for deletion. The Bannertalk 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I think there's a big exception to all of this: Except in cases of obvious vandalism (which, in turn, qualifies for speedy deletion), one could say by the very act of creating an article, the creator would probably object to its deletion. That's especially true if they are new and aren't aware yet that there are criteria for inclusion. So when I PROD an article, I'm assuming that the creator will object and, seeing that they are allowed to remove the PROD tag, may do so; but I'm assuming no one else who understands the basis for my proposal would object. Largoplazo (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel like that basically goes without saying. The important takeaway is that the process is meant for uncontroversial cases and that people should absolutely not sook if their PROD tags are removed - I don't think there's an implication that there's any kind of complex calculation necessary about whether it's really uncontroversial. (Do you think it is? Cool, try tagging it. Does someone disagree? Then don't sook.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: The issue is not people being annoyed that there are deprods. I do a lot of prods, and I never mind people derodding it, through it can be occasionally frustrating when they provide no rationale (or when it is the clear case of a COI SPA that results in a need for yet another 'speedy spam delete' at AfD). But overall the system works. The problem is as I've noticed recently that some people can try to use the sentence in question to argue that 'prods should almost never be used except when we are dealing with 100% obvious spam/vandalism'. In essence, some people think to think prods should be used only for the same super obvious cases as speedies are supposed to be (as I've learned recently), and I think this is taking this too far. Both prods and deprods should be 'no big deal', shouldn't they? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Though if one PRODs something that is explicitly considered notable under a SNG it may be understandable if people get cranky about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: But there are some die hard inclusionist who will deprod everything in sight unless warned. Deprod abuse is a thing, and the sentence in question can encourage it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. So I should expand what I said to "I discount the possibility that either the creator themselves or someone who deprods based on inclusionist principles without regard to the merits of the nomination and Wikipedia's guidelines will deprod." Largoplazo (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
At last, a worthwhile ping.' I would never have seen this discussion were it not for that ping. The wiki Project WP:ARSE is one of the most anti-wiki projects out there, and Andrew Davidson should be topic banned from deletion discussion, and all outreach projects where he can influence people to his "way." I am particularly referring to wikimeetups here, where Davidson influences innocent newbies. The latest iteration of my sig is a direct response to Davidson and the arseholes. -Roxy, the PROD. .wooF 13:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
But articles do get deleted via WP:PROD, so such die hard inclusionists who will deprod everything in sight do not exist. This is a non-issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
... and right there is the reason I no longer bother with this. -Roxy, the PROD. .wooF 13:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a fallacious argument. When I say I'm excluding from my consideration the existence of people who do this, I'm excluding a real thing that actually happens, as I know from having witnessed it. It's immaterial whether they always do this, whether inclusionists are ever-present beings with nothing else going on in their lives whose devotion to their inclusionist views is so powerful that they visit, day in and day out, every single article with a PROD tag for the purpose of removing the PROD tag. Largoplazo (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It does happen on occasion. I was inspired to start this treat due to an AfD comment that 'this should never have been prodded'. In other words, someone argued that as long as there is anyone who votes keep or deprods, per this sentence, this means the prod should have never been used, and accused me of not understanding prod and abusing the system (because they voted keep). Also, just yesterday, another inclusionist user has went and deprodded all ~10 of my recent prods with the same generic deprod summary, not very civil to boot. They are now at AfD. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not an inclusionist but a realist. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Wives for example, I see that you have failed to see that it was broadcast by ITV (TV network), what is a valid merge-option. And you very, very, very often miss the merge-option. The Bannertalk 12:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Just because a merge option exits doesn't mean that a PROD is a bad idea. Someone may have created a content fork to talk in depth about a part of someone's career that was completely non-notable and only mentioned in databases, fanblogs and primary sources. Yes, you could merge in to the biography, but chances are that part of his career already has the passing mentions that make merging any additional content in to the biography violate WP:PROPORTION. Iffy★Chat -- 14:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
More generally, a lot of people think unsourced content shouldn't be merged anywhere. ReykYO! 14:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking at WP:BEFORE and especially C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted, being unsourced is not a proper reasoning for PROD (and CSD and AfD). The Bannertalk 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but: I will not generally add content to an article without sources. Merging one article into another is adding content to the destination article, and I don't consider myself less bound by that principle with content written by someone else, which I may not know anything about, than I am with content that I can at least vouch for personally (even while recognizing the need for sourcing) if challenged. So, if an article includes content for which I cannot find sources, for which I don't consider myself qualified to identify appropriate sources, or which I don't understand well enough to discern whether a given source is supporting the claims or not, then I'm not going to merge it. So the whole matter depends on whether anyone else considering the status of the article feels qualified to perform a merge. No one should merge it without sources. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Right. In such a case, I'd think SOFTDELETE through redirecting is the best solution. But if there is no valid redirect target, PROD it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
That presumes that because you can't find sources, then sources must not exist, and the article is not notable. I have found lots of sources for articles that people say are unsourceable. In the case where you personally don't know of any sources, it may be more appropriate to add notability tags or a merge proposal, rather than jump to PROD or AfD. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it means that the article in its current state can't be allowed to continue to exist because it fails one of the basic criteria for existence, which means the situation either gets fixed now or we delete it. Which is why we have deletion procedures, why Wikipedia provides for them and for deletion upon their completion. The whole point of not qualifying for inclusion is not "so we'll leave it here forever anyway, even though it doesn't qualify to be here, in case someone comes up with something". Largoplazo (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
What you say sounds like: "Because I do not want to make an effort to improve the article, it should be deleted". That is at odds with "building an encyclopedia". The Bannertalk 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it means that if it looks like the article can't be made to qualify for inclusion, then it should be deleted. As opposed to "Even though you don't believe sources can be found to support what the article says or you don't believe the topic is notable, we should still keep the article here in case someone comes along months or years or centuries from now with the sources that make everything right." Largoplazo (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
And where did you see anything I wrote above that even faintly implied anything about a lack of willingness to make an effort? Largoplazo (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please bookmark WP:ATD and run through it before prodding. If there is a potential alternative to deletion you may presume that it is not an uncontroversial deletion and you should not use PROD.
In the case of Dorp (town), redirecting is a good alternative to deletion. You can do the redirect yourself without drama. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirecting to what? If you mean to "village", redirection is a bad alternative for "dorp" per WP:RFFL. It's simply a Dutch word for a village, corresponding to German "Dorf". It isn't specifically the denomination of a type of locality in the Netherlands any more than "town" denominates only a type of municipality specific to one or more English-speaking countries. Whatever place an English speaker would call a village in the U.S. or Poland or Mozambique, "dorp" is the word a Dutch speaker would use. Largoplazo (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
In a reasoning for a PROD, I came across a sentence like this: Suggest SOFTDELETE by redirecting to parent company. To me, it suggest that there is an alternative for deletion, so why the PROD? This seems incompatible. The Bannertalk 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If I were to SOFTDELETE, it would effectively be a hidden deletion, with no second opinion asked for, and the chance of someone seeing and reacting to this is slim. Prod with a suggestion that deletion or redirection (SOFTDELETE) are an option is much better, as it provides a guaranteed venue for a second opinion, which may also decline all of those and suggest an AFD. Hidden deletions like redirects which de facto do not involve discussion are much worse then open ones like prod which are much more community-focused. AfD is of course even better for community input, but we have to weight whether it is necessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It plain bites with WP:ATD. Instead a deletion-request, a merge-request was also possible. The Bannertalk 11:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
But with a "soft-delete" idea in your mind, you can also propose a merge. The Bannertalk 16:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Second PROD?
Forgive me for my ignorance, hence why I'm asking for help here. I understand a PROD tag can be removed by anyone, if they object, and the original PROD cannot be replaced or copied back. I've read that one can still nominate a page for deletion a second time but I'm very confused about the steps to achieve that. Can someone dumb it down for me? Armegon (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If a PROD tag is removed and you still want it to be deleted, the appropriate venue is WP:AFD, not PROD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Objecting to PROD2 but not PROD itself
Suppose someone PRODs an aritcle listing one reason and someone else adds a PROD2 with additional reasons. If I dispute those additional reasons but support the PROD itself for the original reason it lists, should I delete the PROD2, replace it with a "per nom" alternate PROD2, or just leave it alone (keep to myself unless we go to AFD)? DMacks (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Even if you disagree with the rationale in the PROD2, the person who posted is offering additional rationale to others considering whether or not the article should be deleted through the PROD process. It isn't your place to decide that others shouldn't see that rationale. They will evaluate it just as you have. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Another option, if you feel strongly about the matter, would be to place another PROD2 tag on the article with your thoughts. The "2" really means "2 or more". I agree that removing the previous PROD2 tag would not be a good idea for the reason given by Largoplazo. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I endorse Phil Bridger's suggestion. Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No offence intended, but the above must be one of the most process-wonk-y questions I've seen in a long time. :) Robofish (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Are articles restored after speedy deletion eligible for PROD?
Is this true? Soft deletion follows expired PROD criteria (i.e., articles previously undeleted are ineligible) and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion doesn't mention such an exemption for articles restored after speedy del. In this article's case, the prior AfD under a former name makes the subject ineligible for PROD/soft deletion anyway but wanted to confirm the principle since this would affect how the soft deletion helper bot operates. cc @Barkeep49 and Kanashimi from the linked AfD czar 04:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything at WP:SOFTDELETE about a previous restoration preventing it. ReykYO! 08:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Reyk, soft deletion follows PROD procedure and per Barkeep's quote below, the letter of PROD says that articles that have been previously undeleted are ineligible. The question is whether there are exceptions to that undeletion rule, such as restoring an article after a speedy deletion. czar 16:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
So two different policy pages give vague or conflicting advice? You can't see me through the computer screen, but I am making a shocked Pikachu face right now. ReykYO! 07:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I have always understood speedy deletion to be a separate process that has no influence on whether PROD can be used, but it may be that reasons are given when recreating an article that make it clear that deletion would be controversial. This is something that can't, unless we get much better artificial intelligence, be decided by a bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
So I'm the one who wrote it at the AfD czar listed. There is nothing explicit at SOFTDELETE that says you can't apply that outcome to an article previously speedy deleted. So far so good. However this article was speedy deleted and then undeleted. That's important. What SOFTDELETE does say is the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators (formatting in the original). If we then look at the procedure for administrators it says 4. The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion. So such an undeletion would appear to prevent a soft deletion or at least prevent a soft deletion until after 2 relists. So my statement was nominally incorrect though my action was correct (but only thanks to the objection). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
PRODed articles listed by topic
A new bot-generated report is now available at WP:PRODSORT (User:SDZeroBot/PROD sorting) which lists articles proposed for deletion, grouped by topic. The prod reason and date are also included, as in the report generated by DUMBbot. Cheers, SD0001 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
That looks really good, SD0001, with fairly neat categorisations. The top of the main WP:PROD page links to the existing WP:PRODSUM summary: worth also adding this WP:PRODSORT there, and maybe also to the Navbox? AllyD (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Good idea to link it from the hatnote, done. The navbox seems to be only for the templates. SD0001 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Wording Change?
I think "uncontroversial" creates a negative connotation. Maybe "indisputable" provides a neutral tone and a bit more clarity. Nightvour (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand any difference between those words in this context. Can you provide any real examples of where this change of wording would have led to a different result? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What is negative about "uncontroversial"? It describes the concept quite well. Sundayclose (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
When this policy is changed...
For years WP:PROD explicitly and clearly said articles that had previously been considered at an AFD were not eligible for PROD.
Since then that clear explicit warning has been removed. I spent about twenty minutes searching through the archives of this talk page and I do not see any discussion authorizing this change.
The wikipedia's success happened by accident, and I think one of our weaknesses is that we let any random contributor edit our policy pages. We are open to good faith contributors changing our policies when they think they are making an innocuous correction. We are open to bad faith contributors changing our policies and claiming they thought their edit was merely an innocuous correction when it was a planned attempt to subvert the consensus of our community.
What the heck is going on? Geo Swan (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you looking at a different page? Because it appears quite clear in this bullet: "and it is not, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD." The text was last edited in 2017. czar 04:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Done per clear consensus. Rebbing 11:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft written User:Train2104/PROD draft since it appears consensus favors one page. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 00:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Self-trout Done. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
