Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 7

I'm being told not to use PROD!

On my userpage, Thespian has just told me that he objects to my frequent use of the PROD process, because "It's passive." Am I in the wrong here? I use it when an article seems clearly non-notable or otherwise needs to go, but doesn't qualify for a speedy. Am I missing something, or is Thespian off base here? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not aware of the particular circumstances that led to the comment, I'll refrain from speculating. More generally, it's true that the PROD process is passive, but it's supposed to be that way so as not to unnecessarily consume community time and resources. As for the specific article in question (Corinna Fugate), I have removed the prod tag as it had been contested previously. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Prods are used only when the deletion isn't contested, and this one is. Once a prod is removed, it shouldn't be put back. Here's a quick guideline: If there's an argument about whether or not a should be a prod on an article, then the prod shouldn't be there. By all means continue to use it, just not in places where the deletion is contested. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Point is, that if its contested, its just plain useless. You'd save time & trouble going to AfD and letting it be argued. DGG (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Prod and Google

As another reflection on the "it's just plain useless" feeling, take as an example Muffin Personality Test. Someone riffed on an online quiz or two, and created an article. Another editor took one look and added a {{prod}} less than 30 minutes later. Another single edit editor removed that 8 hours later, but that's not the problem outlined here.

Within an hour of the article's creation, and after the prod, Google came along and indexed the article. Should an off-wiki entity determine on-wiki policy? Not determine, but off-wiki realities should at least be referred to. They might inform priorities... Oh well, wait a few more days until the joke article is in Google's cache, before we Afd. Shenme (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible PROD Candidate?

I've got an interesting deletion debate for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amlder. The article was nominated on 3 February for lack of notability. No further comment was entered into the debate, and the debate was relisted on 13 February. It's now the 20th, and I intend to close the debate as No Consensus to delete (There having been no debate on the matter). I have no opinion on deletion, but this article would be gone if a PROD had been placed instead of an Afd. So, my question: Could someone place a prod on this article, since there was no actual debate? Or is the article no longer eligible for PROD simply because it has been nominated for AfD - even if the debate never really happened? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the article. I've done this once or twice before when an article was AfD'd but never PROD'ed, and attracted no comments for the whole time. IMO it's better than relisting. My deletion comments make it clear this was a PROD deletion, so in particular, anyone who wants it undeleted should get it undeleted on request. Mangojuice^talk 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems to be the best course. Maybe we should make a procedural note somewhere at WP:AFD that a 10-day no-discussion debate should be treated as a PROD, in the absence of improvement to the article? Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should necessarily be noted. It's a rare thing. I think the right call was made, though. I'm not sure it should be treated exactly as an expired prod...for example, if it's contested. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this wouldnt hold if it were contested. In any case, as with PROD, I assume the closing admin made an independent check that the deletion is justified. But i think it would generally be better to make some active effort to attract attention. And if you are going to do it as a prod, wouldnt it be better to close as no consensus, add a prod, and let it be deleted, without inventing a new WP procedure without explicit consensus for it. IAR in a given circumstance is one thing; using it to create a new deletion policy is not a good way to do it. DGG (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But you can't Prod an article that has already been AfD'd as no consensus (or anything else), so I don't understand DGG's comment. On the other hand, the deletion has been discussed, by one person, and WP:SILENCE could apply. The closing admin simply needs to consider whether the lack of discussion indicates a lack of consensus or a lack of interest and whether the argument in the nomination is compelling. Even if a dozen editors came out against deletion, if the arguments of the nominator were policy based and the arguments against were non-existent or didn't answer the charge, the admin could, in some instances, find consensus was for deletion. It's not a vote, so I don't see what the problem is. Mangojuice's deletion seems to be completely consistent with consensus (without looking at the nomination, so I'm speaking in principle, not based on the specific facts of this case).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen admins take four paths in these circumstances. 1) relist the AFD 2) opine themselves and let the next admin deal with it 3) close the AFD as delete with explicit instructions to overturn as if it had been deleted via PROD 4) just close the AFD as delete. GRBerry 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

So how does this thing work? If the author of an article that was prodded by someone else, but deleted by me, contacts me for undeletion, should I undelete the article or place it on deletion review? JIP | Talk 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would undelete unless you think it was speedy-able. If you think that it was non-speedy-able but that it should have been deleted (as you presumably would, since you deleted it), I would restore and nominate for deletion. The spirit of PROD is such that it should be used only in uncontroversial cases, and generally if somebody asks for undeletion the case isn't uncontroversial. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Subst insistence

There are any number of bots out there that are programmed to subst appropriate templates. I don't know why the prod template should insist on the editor manually substing, rather that allowing the simpler implementation (without subst) and having a bot follow up to reduce the number of key-strokes. We've all got plenty to do to enhance this Project and the reason we have shortcuts (like, say a template!) is to automate tasks as much as possible. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's be nice, but what I want is a bot that auotmaticly desubsts {{prod2}} templates. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello fellow editors ... I have been using {{Oldprodfull}} to flag articles that have been proposed for deletion, and either seconded or contested ... this was based on {{Oldafdfull}}, but all of the parameters are optional.

I would like to add mention of it to the instructions for adding a {{Prod-2}} and for contesting a PROD ... this helps to (a) enforce that PROD may only be applied once, and (b) indicate that Some Other Editor agrees with the PROD.

I would like suggestions for wording and placement, so I have started this thread. :-)

Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) _{02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}

That's a LOT of information to include in a template, though I agree that it is worthwhile to have it all in one place. Could this template include a show/hide tag, simialr to the Article milestones template? That way, it highlights that the article was subject to (and is no longer eligible for) a PROD, and that interested parties can click to learn more. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PRODSUM failure

WP:PRODSUM seems broken--it appears that this has not been refreshed since the 19th. I don't have the knowledge to figure out what is wrong . DGG (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:DumbBOT. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A change on MW:API took effect on Wikipedia. I am signed up to the API mailing list, and I vaguely remember that change being announced, but I apparently didn't realize the change affected the prod summary. Anyway, everything should be fine now. Tizio 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rex Club

An article I prodded was recently deleted. However, the talk page remains. Is it standard procedure to leave the discussion pages, or was this an oversight? Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• An oversight. I tagged it with {{db-g8}}. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And I deleted it. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you both. Nick Graves (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All India Trade Union Centre

Dear Administrators, This article on All India Trade Union Centre was created by mistake when I was trying to move the former UTUC-LS article to All India United Trade Union Centre. Sorry for the mistake. Please delete it.--NoMagicHarry (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification please

An anon IP has been removing PRODs from several articles that had previously been subject to speedy deletion, commenting (erroneously, I believe) that the previous speedys meant the article had "previously been proposed for deletion," meaning that PROD could never be used on that article. When I attempted to clarify this policy page to say that a "previously been proposed for deletion" refered to PROD and not speedy, my clarification of the policy page was reverted by the same anon IP. Who is right? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. It's not against the rules to try it on an article that has been speedy-deleted in the past and later recreated... but if an article is recreated it's a fair bet that it might be recreated again even if deleted via PROD. So in such cases I would recommend an AfD. As for whether the anon's de-prod, though, any reason at all is good enough, and you should not revert de-prods. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Should have clarified: these are not recreated articles; they are articles that survived speedy for some, often technical, reason (often with the advice to "take it to PROD"). Understood that any de-prod reason is good enough, and I have not reverted any de-prods, but just wanted to clarify this policy page - would that be OK?. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if an article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria, this does not mean it should not be deleted via PROD. If the only objection to deletion was a process-based one like declining speedy deletion, that should not be taken to mean that someone really doesn't want the article deleted. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll make the changes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is stated quite clearly on the page that "a rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for PROD", so the anon is in the wrong here. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up any misunderstanding:

• The IPs in question [1] [2] removed only two PRODs, not "several" - and only the first had been previously speedy'd, the second had previously been PROD'd [3] [4]
• The initial attempt to clarify the policy was reverted with the comment "conflicts with WP:PROD#Procedure for administrators step 2" [5] which obviously was correct and which obviously was taken into account when the policy was clarified the second time [6]

Thanks. 58.8.15.18 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Prods by IPs

I dunno. I’ve had several instances where no editor has contested a prod (on a nonnotable fictional element et al) and then a random IP removes the tag. These anonymous editors will never respond to an AfD, if it has to get dragged on ‘cause of the contested prod, and often don’t leave any rationale, so what are your thoughts on what to do if IPs remove prods? David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see why it should be any different, though I do check IP removals carefully to make sure they're not vandalism. "Anyone" means just that, and I don't think that there should be a difference between someone logged in and someone not logged in. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally I think only established users (i.e., users other than newly-registered ones and anonymous IPs) should be allowed to remove PRODs, since they are the ones who have some knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PRODs were thought as an instrument to avoid wasting time with AfD when an article is clearly non-notable but is not a speedy deletion candidate, however I'm clearly noting there's a wide tendency to dispute PRODs even in evidence of absolute lack of notability, and this makes PROD just a useless instrument and an additional waste of time. --Angelo (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There have been times when established users have failed to see the notability of a subject that an IP editor has. And again, they can always just make an account and remove the prod, and then we're in the same space. I think there are a lot of time-wasting prod removals, but to keep PROD a fair system (one where deletions of any material can be made without discussion), we have to be able to let anyone remove the prod. Doing otherwise disenfranchises new users. And as a side note, lately I've been able to get rid of some blatantly non-notable stuff using G3 criteria, which now includes blatant hoaxes and misinformation. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to the arguments that UsaSatsui brought up, here are two more. 1) An IP could be an editor with an account that just forgot to log in (or didn't bother). 2) We got consensus (before my time) for this system on the basis that anyone could remove the tag for any reason or no reason at all. Changing that rule would not be keeping in the spirit of the original decision, and would be effectively creating a new policy. I don't think we have a chance at that. Angelo - if you think PRODing is wasting your time, nothing requires you to do it. David - If an IP removes the PROD, look again. Assume good faith. They may have seen, or know, something you don't. So search. If that still fails to find a reason for keeping or merging the article, then make an AFD nomination. GRBerry 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am deeply involved in football-related articles, and I've recently seen a terrific increase in disputed PROD about articles who definitely do not fit the corresponding notability guidelines. And many of these PROD requests were cancelled by IP users, only to open AFDs which then end in an anonymous consensus for deleting the article. This is just my experience. In addition, I think there should always be a reason for disputing a PROD request, and my only concern is PROD might become actually yet another bureucratic step toward AFD, under the potential case everyone disputes each single PROD request. --Angelo (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's a different issue , and I agree with it for the most part. I wouldn't mind a change saying that a "reasonless" prod removal can be restored (once, anyways). But it doesn't have much to do with IP removals except that oftentimes, IPs don't give a reason. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Same discussion in my talk page. An anonymous IP made a single edit to remove a prod tag. I reverted as vandalism and another user disagrees with that. I consider single edits from anonymous IPs with no edit summaries as vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone forgot to log in can relogin and remove again the prod and then we can have an Afd. If the anonymous IP removed prod and gives a reason (whatever) in talk page or in edit summary I am ok but: anonymous IP with 1 edit and no reason given this is not a proper removal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

An edit constitutes vandalism only if it is made in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (Wikipedia:Vandalism). While the IP's edit may have been vandalism, there is not enough evidence to conclude that it actually was. While I would support requiring a reason (by all users, not just IPs) for removal of a prod tag, it's not mandatory under the current guidelines. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I copy from the instructions of how to contest a prod: "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." (emphasize of "why" is done by the instructions). So, it's mandatory somehow. At least for single edit anonymous accounts why should we assume good faith? Do you have an example for some edit that the anonymous IP was asked to explain why and replied? If we have a registered account we at least can understand from other edits if the edit was pure vandalism or something else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's recommended, but "should" is not necessarily mandatory. However, I think we should assume good faith even for single edit anonymous accounts; the person who removed the prod tag is probably just a reader. Since, as you note, there is no context in which to judge the edit, I don't think we should assume bad faith. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "do not put it back" trumps the "should explain why" myself. The philosophy of prod is that everyone, including the creator and random strangers on the internet, agrees the article should be deleted, so there's no need to discuss it. That's compromised if we start having to make assumptions based upon who removes it or what else they've done. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What about in cases like Special:Contributions/68.81.95.231. This IP literally just runs through every last anime/manga PROD listed and deprods them all, usually saying "don't be sneaky, do a proper AfD" or the like. Its blatantly obvious he is being pointy and his prod removals are just disruptive. Should they still be kept and editors forced to instead fill AfD with his "failed" prods? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's evidence of vandalism and/or bad faith. If I were checking it in that case, I wouldn't complain about it being put back. Remember, lacking evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing a proposed deletion template without explanation is not vandalism. If an editor does this, the obvious explanation is that he disagrees with the deletion, even if he doesn't explain why. I see no evidence of vandalism in the contributions of User:68.81.95.231 either. (He has many constructive contributions and deprodded exactly four (4) articles.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

...okay, a bad example, but my point stands. If the IP has done -nothing- but deprod about 6 or 7 articles, I would call that vandalism. And if anyone (IP or not) removed a prod with a statement that implies they're doing it in a bad faith way (such as "Don't be sneaky"), I would call it bad faith. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view, given the information provided, there's no reason to think that either of these examples are vandalism. The simplest explanation in both these cases is still that the editor genuinely disagrees with the deletion. I would not call "Don't be sneaky" evidence of bad faith, although it's mildly incivil (I've seen much worse) and may indicate that the user is confused about the proposed deletion process. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained prod removals

I'm beginning to get quite tired of having to take clearly non-notable subjects to AfD because someone removes a prod without explanation. I noticed above that someone else noted that they wouldn't be adverse to reversing a prod removal if it's done without explanation - what are others' thoughts on a potential change of policy? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been previously discussed several times with no agreement. In my opinion, adding that restriction won't solve your concern. The person will simply remove the prod again only this time with an explanation. If it's clearly a non-notable subject in your opinion, then the odds are you aren't going to agree with the explanation & choose to send it AFD anyway. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if it was said above or not, but allowing prods to be re-added undermines the whole idea of PROD...that the deletion is completely uncontroversial. The template itself says to remove it if you disagree. And besides, any article deleted with PROD can be undeleted simply by asking, so why spend so much time reverting and re-reverting the thing when it's not permanent anyways? At least an AFD sticks. For the record, I find a lot of clearly non-notable articles qualify for speedy deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting a PROD removal is a violation of policy:

  • If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
  • Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.

From Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion. Notice that there is no mention of giving a reason.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy page should probably be fixed. No editor should remove a prod without addressing the concerns that lead to it. This seems like common sense. Friday (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment you express, but I don't want to bring PROD into the territory of having to judge what constitutes an acceptable rationale. PROD is for uncontroversial cases. Removal of PROD indicates controversy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I will sometimes remove a prod when I know from experience that other people are likely to contest the deletion, even though I would approve of it. the articles that need discussion ought to be discussed, regardless of my opinion on the actual article. The sensible uses of Prod are:

1. when there's an older article that clearly should be deleted but doesnt fit speedy, and you are reasonably sure nobody really cares about it any longer.
2. when there's a recent article that clearly should be deleted and you think there's a reasonable chance that the author will agree to abandon it or not look back to check.
3. when there's an article that might be kept if someone other than you were able to make improvements, and someone is likely to notice and make them but might not if you just put a regular tag on it.

The most common unfair use is when there's an article you think ought to be deleted, but you know people might disagree, and hope that they won't notice. There's litle point in forcing a response when the response is likely to be: no, its notable enough, thank you. DGG (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see a fair amount of these. I've had more than one discussion with someone who was using PROD as a way to slip a delete in without discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "would someone object?" criterion breaks down when you look at the kinds of unreasonable objections we actually get. All kinds of people either disagree with, or don't understand, the purpose of Wikipedia. These people will object to the deletion of stuff we obviously can't use. You might instead ask "Would a reasonable editor object?" - but this is basically another way of asking "Does this content belong?". Prod is essentially just a general-purpose speedy, sugarcoated with this mostly-fictional notion of being "uncontroversial" so that the anti-admin-discretion crowd will swallow it. Friday (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is not speedy, nor does it rely on administrator discretion. Rather, it relies on deletions being uncontroversial. What you are calling fictional sugarcoating is the mechanism which makes proposed deletion work. Spacepotato (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It better rely on admin discretion. If we have admins running around deleting prods with no consideration of whether the content belongs, we need to get them to stop. I can't imagine an admin would be so foolish- or not for very long, anyway. I wasn't trying to describe how the prod policy explains it- I was trying to describe how prod functions in actual practice. Friday (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be foolish to rely on administrator discretion, as administrators are as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. Spacepotato (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly relies on admin digression. The admin is supposed to review the prod and the reason for it before deleting it. I know some admins do this regularly...and some who I suspect don't.--UsaSatsui (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins may or may not use good judgment when reviewing proposed deletions, but the process doesn't rely on this. Rather, it relies on user proposed deletion patrollers like you and me. That's why there's a five-day waiting period. Spacepotato (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, an important use for PROD is in fact as a modified speedy for things which rally do need to be seen by more than 2 people: works of fiction, books in general, fictional characters, toys and games, albums, songs, computer programs as distinct from web content, possible hoaxes not amounting to utter nonsense. Many things proposed here are in fact removed because someone recognises them as notable.

Where admin discretion comes into play is judging at the end of the 5 days. Some admins seems to be almost automatically deleting everything that's an expired prod--I do not think that's correct. I always check for myself just as I check a speedy tag. I want to be sure someone has taken a second careful look. (or perhaps a first careful look) DGG (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ParserFunctions to add articles to category.

I have found it somewhat tedious to go through every prod, and trying to check if it is expired. I have a solution - use ParserFunctions.

Using this code: {{#ifexpr: {{#time: U}} - {{subst:#time: U | +5 days }} >= 1 | [[Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion for more than 5 days{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]] }}, the dated prod template can now find expired templates. However, before doing anything with it, I would like to hear other's opinions on this. Soxred 93 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Prod on templates?

Is there a reason that proposed deletion cannot be used on templates? Is there discussion somewhere I can read up on? The reason I ask is that a few templates I have found aren't really "templates". They were used only on one page, and I have already subst'ed them there directly. (See Template:2008USOpenGolfPlayoff, Template:2008USOpenCourseLayout, and Template:The 2007 PGA Championship at Southern Hills) I don't think they qualify exactly for speedy deletion (maaaybe G6—Non-controversial maintenance), and I don't want to have to go through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. So why can't I simply put a PROD tag on them, and be done with it? Thanks and mahalo. --Ali'i 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reword to require a reason for deprodding?

Should this page be reworded to require a valid reason, at least in the edit summary, as to why the PROD is being removed? Removals for personal vendettas or for vandalism should allow the original prodder, or anybody else for that matter, to re-add the prod tag, instead of forcing everybody to AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Removals for personal vendettas or vandalism do allow the prod tag to be restored. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. seems to contradict that. Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article).". Vandals and stalkers can be assumed to not be objecting to deletion. I think the idea is that, unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence it is bad faith, assume it's not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• The practical reason to prevent deletion if the prod is removed, ifs that if there is controversy to such an extent, regardless of the motive, it is better to obain a more definitive result via Afd. This is especially true if there is some suspicion of improper motives; the way to deal with it is to have the matter discussed and settled.DGG (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Because of WP:AGF, we cannot require that a reason for contesting a PROD be given, anymore than we can require that a user be registered to de-PROD (i.e., do not allow anon-IP users to de-PROD) ... just encourage users to leave {{deprod}} and {{Oldprodfull}} messages/tags, and hope for the best ... OTOH,

    Anonymous edits without comment may be reverted by anyone.

    Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)}

• I couldn't find Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users when I left this entry. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the source of this quote? I can find it neither via Google nor Wikipedia search. If it was meant to apply to articles, it's I think the opposite of actual policy. . DGG (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot provide a WP:RS citation for that quote ... it's something that was imprinted on me during my first weeks as an editor ... it may not be WP:Policy, but I don't think it's that far from WP:Consensus, i.e., some editors seem to do Recent changes patrol looking specifically for uncommented edits by anons (and please don't ask me to point my finger at an example!) which they then revert without comment except for the occasional "rvv" ... I find that behavior rather hypocritical, myself. —151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I think you're just biased. Can't put my finger on why, though.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. ;-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

summing up, except for creating articles and nominating for afd, non-logged in editors have the same rights as other ediors here. If they make an edit, noone should revert it without having a good reason for doing so. DGG (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that anonymous editors should be allowed to remove prods. However, I do believe that prods should be reinstated if an editor does not provide a reason, whether that editor is an anon or a logged-in editor. The reason may be given in the edit summary, or on the talk page, provided that the editor states in the edit summary that the reason will be posted on the talk page. If the editor states that a reason will be posted on the talk page but then does not do so within 12 hours, the prod should be reinstated. Reasons such as "I think this person is notable. So there." should not be valid and should result in the prod being reinstated. – PeeJay 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy tags

Hello, fellow editors ... I have added the phrase,

As a courtesy to other editors, consider ...

to the 5th Step of the section Contesting a proposed deletion ... yes, it is optional, but I felt that Some Other Editors could use the gentle reminder of why they should do it. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk) _{20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

While your intent was good, it was redundant to the existing statement, so I removed it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

while we are on the subject, how about requiring it? It's not a question of not feeding their trolls as it might be with spedy. The solution of course is to get a reliable bot,but the bot people have turned us does because they want us to require the notice first. DGG (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur ... {{Deprod}} should be required, but I'll recuse myself re: {{Oldprodfull}}. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Change

OK, I was WP:BOLD and removed the "As a courtesy, ..." from the 2nd step of contesting a PROD ... I think that this seems closer to making {{Deprod}} "required", which appears to be the consensus ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)}

that seems like an acceptable change. Now the next step, is to make a similar change at section 2, How to nominate. "Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify the article's creator.." By removing the first 8 words. DGG (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have modified 3rd Step of How to nominate — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. It's nice, but let's face it, most people know how to use a watchlist. Requiring it will simply lead to situations where people ignore the requirement (or worse, ones where prods are re-added because the creator wasn't notified). --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confused ... Watchlisting is the 4th step ... the 3rd step would have made adding {{PRODWarning}} a required step (rather than just a courtesy), but Some Other Editor apparently disagrees. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I'm saying -they- should have the page in their watchlist. I have it too, of course. And again, making it required will simply lead to that step being ignored. It's not needed. And some people don't like to be templated (like myself). --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, they should., They should do a lot of other things, like write better articles in the first place. But given that these are mostly newbies who are just learning their way around Wikipedia, we should not assume anything about their knowing what to do to keep track of things. Most experienced users know how to use a watchlist--but I doubt if anyone does at their first edit--or necessarily spot the significance. The notice cannot be missed. The continuing progress of Wikipedia is dependent upon our ability to get new editors interested and taught properly. This is one way to do it. As for it being ignored, there is an easy way to keep it from being ignored: us a bot--but the bot people have refused t make one unless we actually require it. DGG (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old shoulda/coulda/woulda used a sandbox argument. :-) OTOH, this looks like an ideal opportunity for a bot to automagically notify authors if they haven't been pinged already. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you told the bot people they're being silly? I still disagree on principle, but having a bot do it would be sweet. Solves my objections, too (you can opt out of bot notices, doesn't matter if people ignore it, etc...). Fine, let's make it a requirement...but -only- if we get the bot. Preferably before the actual change.--UsaSatsui (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan ... anyone know how to make it happen? — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories?

What's the equivalent template for categories, as the prod template doesn't seem to work properly? Mdwh (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is none, really. Head for Categories for Discussion, or see if it meets the Speedy deletion criteria. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason a redirect can't be prodded?

Technically, one could change a redirect to a sub-stub and then prod it, so I see no reason a redirect can't be prodded. Thoughts? --NE2 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What's so hard about taking it to WP:RFD? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What's so hard about taking an article to AFD? --NE2 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite your stellar reasoning, you still haven't given a good reason -why- prods should be used on redirects. I figure since redirects have a different standard for deletion (a much higher one), it only makes sense they don't have a "no-discussion" deletion process unless it's blatantly obvious (the CSD's) --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason why they shouldn't be used. Right now, there's nothing keeping me from prodding a redirect and someone else deleting it. I've done it before with no problems. --NE2 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing except the rules. If it's been done, it shouldn't have been. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"What's so hard about taking an article to AFD?" Well, that's kinda the point of PROD in the first place, it is hard to take articles to AFD. The process (when compared to {{subst:prod|reason}}) isn't exactly user-friendly, the debates can become heated unnecessarily, and most importantly there's an enormous backlog that requires a huge, exhausting amount of work to go through for very little reward. In comparison, WP:RFD is a single page, and as it says in the instructions, "a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination". Basically, we don't need to PROD redirects. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that redirects should have a lower standard for deletion. If an article is unfairly deleted by a prod, then an article is lost; if a redirect is deleted, it's no great loss. Getting an article undeleted is also a lot harder than simply recreating the redirect. Mdwh (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually it's the opposite. Redirects are technically 'cheap' and somewhat less subject to considerations of notability etc. Even strange spelling errors are often considered harmless and many redirects need to be kept as their edit histories are meaningful, e.g if they remain after moves and merges. So basically, for redirects a clear case for deletion has to be made that they should be deleted and this can be done safely . Between clear-cut speedy deletes and those that are better discussed, I don't really there see a group of 'uncontroversial' redirects where prod would help. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Technically any page could be blanked and then a A3 speedy put on it too. It wouldn't make it valid. There's no reason the process couldn't be changed to work on redirects, but as it stands, it is only used on articles. For the record, this is sort of a continuation of a discussion from NE2's talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal by author

Presently, speedy deletion tags cannot be removed by the author, but can be contested by anyone. It is then up to the reviewing admin to decide if it meets the speedy criteria or not, even if there are objections. I think that with the PROD process we should really consider stopping the authors from removing the tags.

In some cases when reviewing CSD candidates, the admin can decide to deny the request but still wants to make some deletion request. As it stands, if the author has recently created it, and has edited recently (or tried to remove the speedy tag), then PROD becomes non-viable so an AfD has to be opened even when it is borderline CSD. Any ideas? Ian¹³/t 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's been discussed. Speedy Deletion and Prod aren't even close to the same thing. CSD has very specific criteria that is supposed to be indisputable (in practice, however...). I believe the reason the author can't remove it is because of bias. Prod has only one criteria: that nobody else disagrees. That includes the author. Honestly, I think a lot of the issue would be solved if Prods weren't slapped on new articles within 10 minutes of their creation. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

almost always, if an author has contested to the extent of removing the tag, he will just remove the prod, so there is no point in using it. DGG (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Prodding pages with foreign language versions

I've just removed a couple of prods of Turkish athletes who seemed perfectly notable to me, and also had pages in foreign langauges (one in 3 other foreign languages).

I'm wondering if there should be a criteria that a page that has a foreign language version should not be eligible for a prod (or a speedy), and should go to AfD instead? Otherwise, we may be biasing the project to English language topics. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• We have Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English to help with foreign language pages. If it's already translated and exists on another project, it can be speedied under WP:CSD#A2. I don't like the idea of "banning" prod from these articles, since once they are translated, or it becomes clear they won't be, prod is the most efficient way of getting rid of them. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ???? Why would you want to get rid of these pages at all? I don't understand. If a page exists in both our project (in English), and in another project (in another language), I would think that the odds are that it is notable enough, that a prod is likely not appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe the Wikipedias in other languages have been slack with upholding the notability guidelines. Just because a page exists in another language doesn't mean it should exist here. – PeeJay 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • In fact, the other WPs have completely different notability guidelines, or none at all. The article in English needs to conform to the policies and guidelines here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Also, some spammers are clever and will put their articles on a few different wikis. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
          • All possible - but I haven't seen any examples - perhaps some could be provided? But I have seen examples of articles being prodded that seem notable, and have versions in other languages on other projects. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be deleted - merely that I think the existing of a version on one (or more) of the other language wikipedias would suggest that likelyhood that the article is notable is much higher, and we'd be better off with a AfD that get's reviewed properly, rather than someone simply slipping a prod in on an article that might not get seen by many. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that UsaSatsui meant to write "If it's not been translated and exists on another project, it can be speedied under WP:CSD#A2." instead of "If it's already translated and exists on another project, it can be speedied under WP:CSD#A2." –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • ... ah okay. But not relevent to this discussion - I haven't seen any articles here that aren't in English. I'm simply thinking of articles that are in English, that have versions in other languages on other projects Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I misunderstood you. Well, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and that applies to foreign Wikipedias as well. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
          • True - and I'm not suggesting that articles with foreign language versions shouldn't be deleted. Merely that there is a good likelyhood that they may be notable, and as such maybe letting people prod them may end up deleting more good articles than not, so just AfD them so there is a more thorough review. Nfitz (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a seach tool that will show articles that have both prods and foreign language versions? Nfitz (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that there is but User:Tizio, the operator of User:DumbBOT, may be able to incorporate it into User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Prodding user pages

As an MfD regular, and an editor for about three years, I think it's safe to say that most editors are under the impression that prod can only be used on articles. WP:PROD is one of those pages people don't normally read, because the concept is so simple. I was very surprised to see there was an exception for pages in the user and user talk namespace, and I doubt I'm the only user who thinks this is very problematic.

The rationale for using prod in some places rather than others doesn't change simply because it's the userspace or not. If anything, the userspace is especially problematic for the prod-type system, because user subpages are one of the least viewed/patrolled/watchlisted on the project. The idea that prod is somehow ok if the user is not active at the moment is even more problematic. Recently at WP:CSD we had to clarify that a user blanking their subpage should not be seen as a request for deletion, something that had strong support, and yet we are allowing the user of prod?

From what I could find, it seems Template talk:Prod#Miscellaneous Prod is the discussion where it was added. The rationale was to lessen the burden at WP:MFD. However, in about a dozen prods in the user space that I've seen (including some that got brought over to WP:MFD) in just the last day and a half, almost none of them had any valid reason for deletion. I doubt that would change much even with a longer reviewing period. People are treating prods on userpages as some form of maintenance, rather than removing problematic pages.

Over at WP:MFD we review tons of userpages pages, and for the most part we don't delete something unless it's completely unrelated to Wikipedia and/or problematic in some way. Were is the logic in going around to subpages of some editor who isn't around at the moment, and tagging it for some kind of silent deletion? We're not saving hard drive space. Blanking or adding __NOINDEX__ can remove a page from search results.

I propose we formally remove the exception for user and user talk pages. It's highly doubtful that MFD will get overrun by noms like it once did back in 2006. Our userpage guidelines and policies have evolved a great deal since this was added, as well as our methods of handling such situations (including speedy deletions on attack pages, etc). This is no longer needed, and we can avoid a lot of problems by excluding userspace. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, I support this, since the user in question could easily remove the prod, requiring the MfD anyway, so "what's the point"?

But on the other, PROD would seem to be a nice way to deal with historical pages (especially sub-pages), in particular for editors who are no longer active.

Which would seem to place me firmly in neutral. More discussion welcome. - jc37 07:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But that begs the question, why do we need to delete those pages? What is there to "deal" with? If they're not problematic, but simply "old", why delete them? I have no doubt that some day I won't be editing Wikipedia nearly as often. Several months could go by, just for me to come back and see all my notes about transwiking have been deleted by some user who felt the need to "clean" my userspace. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The "why" is a case-by-case basis. PROD isn't speedy delete. It's a bold suggestion for deletion. And just like any other bold action, it can be undone by another editor. In this case by simply removing the tag. After which the page must go through XfD.

And I believe that if a user asks for the restoration of their userpage following a PROD, an admin may restore upon request, while noting that the page may be subsequently be MfDed.

So I'm not sure you've answered my thoughts.

But let me ask this: Would you provide some links to these recent events which caused you to consider this change to the page? - jc37 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there have been any "incidents", but this discussion and the two below it on the page seem to be the catalyst. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Ned makes some good points here. I've also seen a lot of MfDs on user space material that weren't grounded in policy. On the flip side, I don't recall having seen many complaints that user pages are being unnecessarily deleted via PROD either, so I guess I'm rather ambivalent about whether or not user pages should be included. Shell ^babelfish 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the tricky part, because they're not watched by many other users other than their inactive authors. I could even imagine some less experienced editors coming back and just not knowing where the heck they put that one draft they were working on, or that one list of reference links they kept. It doesn't surprise me at all to see a lack of complaints. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"...because they're not watched by many other users other than their inactive authors." - I think that's a fair reason to support your proposal. (Though I'm still in "neutral" for other reasons.) - jc37 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good reason to get rid of prod altogether, when it comes down to it...prod is very rarely used on articles that get a lot of attention. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed change. We should use prods on userpages for the same reason we use prods on articles - the page should be deleted and it is believed the deletion is uncontroversial. The userpages I usually see prodded are ones that are pretty clear deletes (spam, myspacery), have had no other edits, and have been inactive for several months...and those criteria are explicitly listed in the requirements for a userpage prod. If they aren't, I remove them. I think the solution is in educating people who bring inappropriate pages to Prod and MFD on what is and is not a good reason to delete them...the fact that people do not read the policy is not a good reason to change it. As for not being watched...we do have a whole wikiproject that watches these things (I do), and the deleting admin shouldn't just be rubber-stamping the prod anyways, so it gets at least 2 views there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• While I'm not so sure about user talk pages, I've found prod to be useful for deleting certain types of user pages. Consider, for instance, this case: a user creates a userpage promoting a business or garage band and then makes no further edits of any kind (say, for two years). CSD G11 often doesn't apply (the criterion applies only to "blatant" advertising) and a MfD would only unnecessarily take up the community's time. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Truth be told, I'm all in favor of removing "User talk" from the prods...but that's because I think barring privacy issues, a user talk page should never be deleted. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your opening statement is a bit confusing, Ned: you propose to "remove the exception" for user pages, but they are already excepted from being prodded, except for "users with few contributions". I had to review your edits to the policy to understand that you wanted to remove the "users with few contributions" language (i.e., the exception to the exception).
  Anyhow. I'm with you in that I don't see any clear need to delete any user and user talk pages, even if the user has made no mainspace contributions, as long as the pages aren't demonstrably harmful. I recently witnessed a user making a totally random prod of a highly productive (but now retired) user, Android Mouse ([7]); I'd hate to think the part of the project's history that's on those pages might get deleted by a not-entirely-alert admin. I don't want to see a vandal's set of warnings get swept away either.
  Are there really so many people abusing user space that we need some expedient means to delete their pages? And even if there is a big problem, can't such pages be submitted to MfD in bulk?--Father Goose (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the example you highlight is a case of a bad use of {{prod}} irrespective of in which namespace it had happened. A page should never be prodded without a reason, even if it is only a very basic one.
    I don't think that bulk MfDs are generally a viable solution, for two reasons: (1) such MfDs will almost certainly be opposed by some solely for the reason that the user pages of different users have been nominated; (2) in order to prepare such an MfD, one must actively search for user pages to include in the nomination. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If there aren't enough delete-worthy userspace pages to process in bulk, then I don't see the burden in sending the occasional one to MfD individually. Given the low visibility of pages in userspace, having them evaluated by a group (at MfD) becomes doubly important so that things don't disappear due to a consensus of two (prodder+admin). Prod's a convenience in article space, but there is a less obvious need for deleting pages in userspace.
      What's the purpose of deleting such pages, anyway? To "keep things tidy", or something? Is that even important? Since deleted pages are retained in the database, it's not like there's a benefit if the content is not specifically harmful. Nosing around on others' user pages to find stuff that "looks useless" but isn't in anybody's way... why even bother?--Father Goose (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I know this kind of answering a question with a question, but why bother deleting anything at all? We have policies on what is allowed and what is deleted, and those policies exist in userspace too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Delete the stuff that's demonstrably harmful, leave the rest intact. If, for instance, people are treating Wikipedia as WP:MYSPACE and distracting attention away from the project (and I don't mean good contributors who are bonding with other contributors or blowing off a little wikisteam), delete that, but otherwise, allow people's desks to be messy or covered with troll dolls or whatever, even if they were only here for a few days several years ago. We of course can't exercise such laissez-faire in the mainspace, but in userspace, we should only be nosing around in each other's cubicles if we have a damn good reason to.--Father Goose (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Eh, good point, but to stretch the analogy a bit...sure, you can have your troll dolls, but if you've also got your "Best of goatse" calendar up on the walls too, I want a quick and easy way to let the boss know it should be removed. Just because we don't go around peeking in there and telling people how to decorate doesn't mean there shouldn't be a way to get rid of inappropriate stuff. Prod in userspace is a good way to do that for clearly inappropriate things...we prod the calendar, but maybe bring up the picture of you in the Hawaiian shirt to MFD (did I stretch too far, or is my point taken?) --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
            • If it's really an abandoned user page, blanking should be even more expedient than prod (or if only part of it is objectionable content, just remove that part). If it's not abandoned, prod won't work. So I think blank-or-MfD are the best options for any userspace content that isn't an established CSD. Those options addresses the stuff that really needs addressing and doesn't cause drama over the stuff that doesn't necessarily need addressing. Prod's temperamental in userspace; better to forgo it altogether.--Father Goose (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The issue is not that there are not enough "delete-worthy userspace pages" but rather that there are not enough editors willing to trawl through userspace in order to prepare bulk MfDs for the user pages of multiple users. (In addition, the value of such an activity, relative to article improvement, is itself suspect. It's a positive activity, but probably not the best use of time.) Preparing a bulk MfD requires significantly more preparation than simply prodding a single userpage that one happens to encounter; the former requires an active effort to locate user pages that may require deletion whereas the latter happens during the course of normal editing. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if we would simply use pure wiki deletion, then it would not matter if others prodded a page in the user's absence, since it could be readily recovered. PWD is the sword that can cut through the Gordian knot of most of these disputes about whether and how to delete. Please, let's just adopt this elegant solution and be done with it. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Except in cases of BLP problems, copyright violations, and disruption, any page deleted through prod will be restored (i.e. recovered) at request. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people use the "prefix index" to keep track of what is in their userspace (if you can't view your own deleted contributions, then this is not the best method - a separately maintained list is best, as long as that is not itself deleted). Once a page is deleted, it no longer appears in the "prefix index" list. If you can't remember the name of the page, you have a problem. I too favour pure wiki deletion, and often blank pages in my user space instead of requesting deletion, but leave a short note at the top to make sure it is not completely blank (otherwise someone using a script to check blank pages will inevitably try and "do somerthing" about it at some point). Also, and more to the point, the deleted revisions table in the database should not be used as an archive for possible retrieval at a later date. As Brion Vibber has said (here in January 2007), deleted contributions can be completely wiped from the live database at any time without warning. If something might be needed later, better to blank it with a template instead of deleting it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A user page can be recovered even if a user does not remember the page name. As long as the user remembers something about the page's content, any admin could identify it by looking at the user's deleted contributions. Also, while deleted revisions can be lost completely, that's unlikely to happen except in the case of a major glitch (or perhaps a shortage of finances). In any case, prod is supposed to be used for inappropriate user pages that should not be restored or recovered, whereas much of this discussion assumes that the deleted page is somehow useful or valuable. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(This is steadily moving off-topic, but since it's here...) While I supported PWD at one time, AFAICT, it is really only useful in userspace, since pages are "assigned" to a single user. In my opinion it doesn't work as well in any other space, and indeed I believe it would become disruptive if implemented. - jc37 23:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after having giving this a fair amount of thought (and re-reading the above several times), I think that:

Mfd isn't overrun like AfD, so that argument for usage doesn't apply. (Which was the main impetus for the implementation of PROD in the first place.)

And I would presume that most usage examples would be for those who are new to Wikipedia or unaware of a certain policy, which tends to lend itself to WP:BITE.

And we have speedy criteria to cover several of the concerns above as well.

Based on all the above, I support removal of the userpage-related text. - jc37 23:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed change - the instructions already make it clear that PROD is only to be used on userspace pages where "the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia," so jc37 would be incorrect in saying "I would presume that most usage examples would be for those who are new to Wikipedia," since those who are new to Wikipedia wouldn't fit the "no recent edits" criterion. I think UsaSatsui said it best: "We should use prods on userpages for the same reason we use prods on articles - the page should be deleted and it is believed the deletion is uncontroversial." --Stormie (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those instructions are far too open to interpretation. I also doubt that most people even bother with those "requirements". One of the prods I recently removed from a user page was on a user who just started their account the day before. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• A featured article can be tagged for speedy deletion, but that doesn't mean that the problem lies with the speedy deletion criteria. Just because a page is tagged with prod doesn't mean it will be deleted since there are people who patrol prodded pages. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• It might be argued, on the basis of the responses here as well as the user pages currently before MfD, that deleting any userspace pages that don't qualify as speedies is far from uncontroversial.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The "lack of visibility" argument isn't really valid: prodded userpages show up here and here - lists that are regularly monitored. And in the category, they stick out like sore thumbs...I'd say they get more attention than other prodded pages. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's a completely valid argument. Most of us here deal with deletion as we come across it, rather than looking for it in a specific category. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that's the case...particularly when it comes to reviewing prods (adding them, maybe). --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not confident that there is broad monitoring there: I wouldn't be surprised if the average prod only got reviewed once, when a single admin dealt with the backlog and either processed the prod or opposed it. It's also hard to check if they actually follow the procedure, given that a deleted article disappears from the category page once processed, without any centralized record of the deletion. Prod is where articles go to "quietly disappear"; visibility is a central concern.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Admins doing the wrong thing is cause to educate the admins, not change the process. Again, it doesn't square with my observations...I do occasionally "test" admins to see if they delete a prodded article that shouldn't have been deleted, and it rarely happens. Plus, any prodded article can be restored simply by asking. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a prod for a userpage after it got restored in DRV. Not only that, but the user who added it was admin User:Mangojuice. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored in DRV because it was an inappropriate speedy deletion, with many of those commenting on the inappropriateness of the speedy deletion stating that it should have been PRODded instead. Nice to know that this one liner, which has wasted lord knows how much time at DRV, can now go on to waste a bunch more time at MfD. I doubt there has ever been a more valid PROD in the history of the Proposed Deletion system. --Stormie (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that an admin reviews the prod at the end and should in theory contest the prod him/herself if it does not meet the guidelines and that if the user comes back they can have it un-deleted I don't see the problem. - Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The problem is that the guideline -- WP:PROD -- currently says it's okay to delete low-trafficked userpages, and a number of us don't think it should say that, which makes it not okay to just follow the guideline. The criteria "no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia" is pretty open-ended, and I wouldn't be surprised if most admins took a quick look, said "yeah, useless", and hit 'delete'.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating the discussion at this point, I'd have to say there doesn't appear to be enough of a consensus for prodding userspace pages to be able to call any kind of prodding in userspace "uncontroversial". Legitimate speedies are okay, blanking is okay, sending them to MfD is okay, but the impetus for prodding articles doesn't seem to carry over to pages in userspace. They're a different set of pages with a different purpose. What is permissible on them is different, and while it's vital to keep the encyclopedia tidy, tidying up userspace is not necessary except in demonstrably harmful cases, and it's not even necessarily constructive to muck with other people's workspaces that we could just as easily ignore.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see two people with that opinion - you and Ned Scott. That's not really a forming consensus. Plus it's only been two days. Give it time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you only see two people with that opinion? Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion of this issue, post-implementation is in this page's talk archives at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 6#User and User talk exception. The main discussion was at Template talk:Prod#Miscellaneous Prod, and notice of the discussion was given here multiple times (see above in archive 6). At this many months remove, I don't recollect whether or not notice was given elsewhere. GRBerry 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - Would the various concerns raised here be addressed (at least in part) if the current wording was revised to:

Inappropriate (see Wikipedia:User page) User and User talk pages may also be deleted in the same way, but only if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.

The new content is italicised. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support disallowing PROD in Userspace, and would also support the adjusting of the template's code to that purpose. I am the one who got Ned so riled up, and I was sleepy and I apologize. I prodded User_talk:Midara_Matenrou (MySpace page, fits the criteria), as well as User:Paxomen/Vangelis (Buffyverse) and User:Andypandy.UK/Free software (because they were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/rapidshare.de and did not appear useful). The other page was User talk:Sean9500, which the User himself PRODed (is there a policy that does not allow the deletion of a talk page if the user requests it?). So, the first met the criteria, the second two clearly did not, and the fourth should have been a speedy. PRODding User space is dangerous because of the lack of visibility. The argument that "It's just too complicated for me to delete the page of another user" is whiny and silly. It should require a small amount of effort to delete another user's page, and it should have as much visibility as possible. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How is a PROD of a user page any less visible than a PROD of an article? (By the way, writing a good PROD rationale requires no more or less effort than writing a good MfD rationale.) Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • An MfD rationale is required, a PROD rationale is not. Also, Mainspace by it's very nature is more visible than Userspace. For this same reason, it is important that inappropriate pages are deleted from the mainspace because people will see them there, which is not nearly as true for Userspace. If it is blatant SPAM or abuse, it meets CSD, otherwise it should go to MfD. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, the reason a PROD is easier than an MfD is that a PROD requires one template with no rationale, whereas an MfD is multi-step process, requiring a page be created and rationale given. Also, people are move likely to object to an MfD, which would complicate the deletion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, a PROD rationale is required (see WP:PROD#How to nominate), just as it is with MfD. The only difference is the extra work of creating and listing a page (two extra edits that lack any value in terms of additional explanation or benefit to the encyclopedia) and the time of other editors. What I don't understand, ultimately, is why we ought to complicate the deletion of inappropriate pages... As long as PROD is used properly (i.e. for pages which it truly would be uncontroversial to delete), requiring an MfD is unnecessary bureaucracy. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (undent) I am unclear as to what you mean... You say that MfD is just "two extra edits", but also that is is unnecessarily complicated. Who decides what is an acceptable use? If it is blatant SPAM or abuse it's CSD, but otherwise? Surely this is a case-by-case basis, for which MfD is better suited. It is not in Mainspace, it is not highly trafficked, so what is the harm in making sure that more than two people agree? It is the same time period. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • PROD also operates on a case-by-case basis, just as MfD or AfD; in fact, PROD operates on more of a case-by-case basis due to the fact that bulk PRODs are not possible. And while MfD is the same time period, it is "unnecessary bureaucracy" for pages that are uncontroversial deletions. As for determining what constitutes an inappropriate use, we have Wikipedia:User page for that (see [[WP:UP#NOT). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• As with Shell Kinney, I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. While MFD isn't overrun with user pages, so there isn't a pressing need, lack of complaints could be due to many reasons besides editors not realizing it. They could not care, they could agree with the reason, or PROD might just not be used on very many userpages. But on the other hand, if someone has their subpages deleted through PROD and wants them back, all they have to do is ask. If they were deleted through MFD, they're pretty much screwed. So if I had to sum up my opinion in one !vote, it would be a solid meh. Mr.Z-man 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is why I'm liking blanking as a way to address these cases more and more: it gets rid of the page with zero bureaucracy, and if the user wants it back, all he or she has to do is revert. We may be overlooking blanking as good option because in article space it's the exact wrong thing to do, but in userspace, it gets the job done without raising a fuss.--Father Goose (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • PROD is not supposed to be used on pages that the user may want back; it's supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions only. In those cases, there's really no advantage to blanking. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • How do we know what pages the user wants back? Further, I don't think we can claim "no controversy" by virtue of a deletion receiving very little review for all of five days while it's in CAT:PROD. I'm asserting that there is general controversy about the use of prod in userspace, as evidenced by this very discussion. The advantage to blanking is that it clears away a page that someone has a problem with without creating the controversy that prodding does or the bureaucracy that MfD does.
        Mind you, I support the use of prod in mainspace: no controversy there. But in userspace, there's no established need to delete pages outside those that fail CSD. If it's an obviously harmful page, it should be speedied; if it's a debatably harmful page, it should be sent to MfD, and if it's just "nonencyclopedic crud lying around", you have the option to blank it. The use of prod in userspace is a solution in search of a problem -- unlike its use in mainspace.--Father Goose (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • A number of your comments seem to apply to PROD in general, rather than merely PROD for userspace. For instance, we know that a user wants a particular page back when s/he requests that it be undeleted, as is the case with articles. Likewise, articles receive the same 5-day review in CAT:PROD that user pages do. What are your thoughts on my proposed restriction on the use of PROD in userspace (see the bolded "Question" a few paragraphs up)? Under the proposal (see the table below), unarguably inappropriate pages of inactive users could still be deleted without the bureaucracy of MfD, while appropriate pages or inappropriate pages of active users would have to go through MfD to be deleted. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

	Active user or many edits	Inactive user and few edits
Appropriate (per WP:UP)	No reason to delete	Deletion only through MfD
Inappropriate (per WP:UP)	Deletion only through MfD	PROD or MfD

• Proposed deleteion was created only to apply to articles, and that is exactly how it should stay. Prodego ^talk 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But why exclude deletion of inappropriate (per WP:UP) user pages belonging to users who've made only a few edits and haven't edited in a long time ago? What is the advantage of requiring the extra bureaucracy of MfD? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here are the problems with the table you suggested above: first, I don't see the reason why we need to delete "appropriate" content on the pages of inactive users with few edits. What would motivate us to delete any "appropriate" pages? What difference does it make if the user isn't a regular?
  Second, what are "few edits"? What is "inactive"? And why do these people's pages deserve little oversight when facing deletion, while "our pages" get a nice hearing?
  Finally, even if you were to choose specific numbers to represent "few edits" and "inactive" -- what would they mean? The worth of an editor is not quantitative.
  I'll say it again: prod on userpages is a solution in search of a problem. We should delete the bad stuff and ignore the rest. Given that we don't have clear standards for what "bad stuff" is (notwithstanding CSDs), all deletions of user pages should be discussed first. I see nothing wrong with insisting that a handful of people get involved, just to make sure that we're not deleting people's pages according to snap decisions.--Father Goose (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll respond to your points individually:
    1. We don't need to delete "appropriate" user pages of inactive users with few edits, and I'm not suggesting that we do so; I'm merely laying out the options.
    2. What constitutes "few edits" and "inactive" is a matter of judgment and some common sense, which I think most editors possess. We don't need to specify precise numbers. Most of us will probably agree that someone who hasn't edited in two years is inactive, just as most of us will agree that someone who edited last month is not inactive.
    3. We do have clear standards for what "bad stuff" is, and those standards are specified at WP:UP#NOT.
  • Ambiguous cases should naturally be sent to MfD, but it's simply a waste of the community's time and effort to MfD a user page that was created 2 years ago, is the account's sole edit (or perhaps the account vandalised a few pages in the mainspace), and contains only a link to a YouTube video or MySpace page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Blank that page. Problem solved instantaneously. Blanking is an option we can't make use of in mainspace, but it's a perfect, zero-bureaucracy (even less than prod) option available in userspace. Why would you consider prod a better tool for any of these cases?--Father Goose (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, what's the use of having hundreds or thousands of blank pages lying around, taking up the time of people who encounter them and try to figure out why the page was blanked (vandalism perhaps)? Exactly what problem is caused by prod in userspace that blanking is supposed to solve? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Would-be blankers should be advised to include a rationale in the edit summary so as to avoid being seen as a vandal. The advantage of blanking over deletion is trivial reversiblity; prodding requires an admin's involvement to delete and to undelete, making it bureaucratic on both ends (less than an MfD, but still). Deleting user pages is WP:BITEy -- all the more so if, by specification, we only prod the pages of people with few contributions (i.e., newbies).--Father Goose (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that no part of WP:UP supports the exception listed on this policy. To say that "if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia" qualifies these pages as "inappropriate" is ridiculous. WP:UP supports MfD for user subpages, CSD for blatent violations, and for everything else blanking or redirecting. Further, the types of User pages described here are by far the exception, and allowing PROD to be used in any part of Userspace can lead to accidental oversights and deletions. Again, MfD is just "two extra edits", blanking is easy and removes any "dangerous" potential MySpacery, so why is this exception necessary? The template should be adjusted to simply not work in Userspace and be done with it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of the table was to suggest that "inactive and few edits" does not equate to "inappropriate", and to limit PROD deletions in userspace only to user pages that are both inappropriate and belonging to inactive users with few edits. And while MfD is just two extra edits, the primary issue is the extra bureaucracy and the wasting of the community's time on completely obvious cases. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is limited to those User pages which are specifically "inappropriate" by WP:UP, then why limit it to inactive users? Because they are unlikely to contest? What benefit does the using of PROD have over blanking? That would waste even less of our precious time. Further, how is time wasted in these cases? Because people are forced to notice something that someone else wants to delete? I feel that "wasting of the community's time" equates to "drawing attention". If it is completely obvious, just blank the page. WP:UP, again, supports blanking. It does not support PROD. This proposal is for usage on a very specific crossing of "inappropriate by WP:UP" and "if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia", which is a minute portion of Userspace, so allowing it in Userspace at all is wasting everyone's time, as the vast majority of these pages do not qualify. It's like allowing your child access to morphine because someday they might have to recover from surgery. Potential problem uses greatly outweigh the benefits. CSD, MfD and blanking are all possibilities, this idea is unnecessary. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The benefit of PROD over blanking is that we don't leave thousands of blank pages lying around, forcing anyone who encounters them to wonder why the page is blank. Also, while the intersection of inappropriate and inactive/few edits may cover only 1-2% of userspace, that still comes to several tens of thousands of pages. Exactly what problem is caused by prod in userspace? Every week, several userspace pages are nominated at MfD and deleted unanimously -- in such cases, going through a formal process really is unnecessary and a waste of time (it's the same as "drawing attention", but it's attention that could have been given to something else). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't start with the assumption that everything that is prodded (or, for that matter, sent to MfD) is uncontroversial. The prod that got this conversation started, for instance, was kept after it was transferred to MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim Lawn). Would it have been saved by the admin who closed the prod? probably not.

The unanimous "delete" candidates are the least consuming of community time, so there little harm in that. Where user pages are concerned, there are some obvious losers, some that are borderline, and some that most people have no problem with. All prod requires is that one person dislikes a page and that the admin finds nothing wrong with the prod -- and boom, the page is gone. I prefer the broader participation built into MfD. If a certain kind of page consistently comes up as a "delete", it should be added to CSD. If it's not consistent, it should neither be speedied nor prodded.--Father Goose (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support removing prod from userspace; if content is inappropriate, it should be speedied via CSD; otherwise, it should be left alone. I fail to see any advantage in "cleaning up" userspace of inoffensive pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No one is suggesting using PROD on appropriate content in userspace. However, not all inappropriate content is eligible for speedy deletion, since the speedy deletion criteria are worded so as to be interpreted quite narrowly. Also, what about offensive pages? How should they be "cleaned up"? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Blanking the userpages would mean a change in the userpage policy, and is kind of out of the scope of the discussing here (same with PWD). We shouldn't be discussion whether or not userpages should be deleted, but whether or not we should use this process to do so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the claim that there are no clear standards (excepting CSDs) as to what should or should not be deleted, I would like (again) to point to WP:UP#NOT. Although it can be debated whether PROD is the best way to deal with inappropriate content, it is inaccurate to claim that there are no standards for determining what constitutes "inappropriate content". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The least ambiguous of those should be turned into CSDs (if they are not already). The others require a judgment call as to whether or not they are in violation, and plenty of those cases produce a divided result on MfD. Better that a "jury" evaluates it instead of just a nominator and an executor.--Father Goose (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the reason why PROD was originally limited to articles was to keep close checks on it to ensure it was being used properly while it was benig tested. We now know that PROD works nicely, so that reason for limiting its scope no longer exists. We still have WP:PRODSUM, and people watch the various PROD categories, so any claim that there is not sufficient visibility of PRODs in obscure places is nonsense. In any case, were someone to propose that an essay be deleted, it would likely be removed PDQ. Talk pages, OTOH, should remain a matter for the user concerned under our existing rules. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support removing PROD from userspace, I have been fairly active in MfD as well as in working through Speedies and PRODs in the past. I've found that many editors (including many admins) believe that when you come across a PROD that you don't immediately agree with you should move on or comment on your disagreement, rather than simply removing the PROD. Further, I've found numerous PRODs at times that I denied (i.e. removed the tag) due to a previous PROD, which often isn't indicated on the discussion page. Since the beginning of my involvement in XfDs, etc. I've puzzled over why we still apply PRODs to userspace but to no other area outside the mainspace. I have seen PRODs used inappropriately by "spam warriors" and granted summarily by admins "cutting their teeth on the easy stuff"; the result is usually deemed harmless by many but that assumes that the user never came back and saw the deletion then left in anger. Speedy takes care of the obvious cases, MfD the harder ones. There is no need to bulk nominate (except as to all pages of a particular user) and bulk nominations aren't particularly well liked at MfD by the way. The users at MfD are very experienced in dealing with userspace and usertalk space and can handle everything that has previously been sent to PROD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Aren't those problems with the PROD process in general, and not just prods in userspace? And again, I take issue with this idea that PROD doesn't have any oversight besides the nom and the admin. A big part of the problem, unfortunately, is that nobody has any real idea how many prods have been overlooked...a good reason to start using {{prod2}} more often (but I keep forgetting myself). --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. That isn't an argument to remove PROD from userspace, but to allow PROD in other namespaces. Visibility clearly isn't a problem, as PRODed pages bear multiple categories, we have a list of PRODs, and people who patrol PROD. Contested PROD generally an automatic "overturn" at WP:DRV, so the process doesn't cause any damage. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, though I should have been clearer that the problems I have seen, particularly the "spam warriors" have been primarily in userspace. I'm afraid I don't give {{prod2}} any weight whatsoever.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Poll

Just to get an idea where people stand, I wanted to do a quick poll. Keep in mind that in all options, Prod is still only used in certain situations, not every possible delete situation. Other options can be added, of course. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow PROD on User and User Talk pages (the current policy)

1. .

Allow PROD on User pages, but not User Talk pages

1. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC) . This is where I stand.
2. I don't really see a need to delete user talk pages, except where they not created as user talk pages (in those cases, a pagemove or CSD deletion will generally solve the problem). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
3. There are administrative reasons for specific process on talk page. PROD as a process works, and thanks to WP:PRODSUM and WP:WPPDP, visibility is patently not an issue here. Remember that PROD deletion is not automatic; ultimately a human has to nuke the page. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not allow PROD on User or User Talk pages

1. Not enough public visibility in userspace to ensure a proper review of the prod; no clear standard on what should and shouldn't get deleted (excepting speedies); unlike article space, no urgent need to "keep it clean"; unlike article space, blanking is available as a more expedient option.--Father Goose (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Ditto. The junction of "inappropriate by WP:UP" and "if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia" is so far in the minority that it would be more of a "waste of time" to allow it in Userspace at all. Better to adjust the template to not work in Userspace. If people find their time wasted by coming across an inactive User's page, or a page that has been blanked, then that editor might question why they are spending so much of their precious time in Userspace in the first place. People who frequent MfD are interested in MfD. This is just the "path of least resistance", not a public "time saving" service. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
3. First choice. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
4. It's little-used and probably receives less oversight than article deletion. I expect that the cost outweighs the benefit. Spacepotato (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree with Father Goose. I'm not an MfD expert, but that seems a better way to go due to the potential lack of oversight. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
6. I don't see every page in my own user space every five days, much less those of inactive users. Not a good use of prod. KrakatoaKatie 07:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
7. CSD and MFD cover the field; the use of PROD in userspace is problematic and doesn't contribute significantly to building the encyclopedia, see further comments above. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Per the above arguments, particularly JohnnyMrNinja and Doug. It's not always easy to tell what a user intends (or intended) to do with material in user space, and at least MfD preserves a discussion of why something was deleted. bd2412 T 07:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

I think it's about time to move on to try and find a solution.

At this point, here is what I see:

1. A general belief that PROD should not be used on User pages (I hesitate to call it consensus just yet).
2. A strong consensus that PROD should not be used on User Talk pages. I think this change can go ahead and be made, I never see Prod used in this fashion anyways.

Here's my big concern right now: 2/3 of 10 people doesn't seem like enough weight to change long-standing policy...10 people is not a big discussion. I worry this will be changed, userpage prods will be removed claiming "it's not allowed", and there will be large misunderstandings over it...plus a backlash of people who don't want it changed after the fact. I would like to see more input, and if anyone has any ideas on how to get it, that'd be awesome.

I've also noticed that those of us who support keeping prod on userpages haven't really raised any strong opposition to not allowing them...mostly, it's just defending why it's acceptable to use prod on userpages. Would any on that side have any real strong objections to not prodding userpages? (I don't). If there's no real strong opposition to the change, I don't see much reason to not make it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to soliciting further participation, although this discussion has already been linked to from the Village Pump. It could be added to RfC, if you think that'd make a difference.

However, what's the likelihood that a tide of new participants will reverse the initial response? If we're just going by numbers, 11 13 new "supports" would have to show up without any new "opposes" to change it to supermajority support of userspace prodding. Given that the arguments "for" and "against" are equally reasoned, I wouldn't call anything less than supermajority support a "consensus", and I remind you that policy pages have to reflect consensus: if the community is substantially split on an issue, it doesn't belong in policy.

The whole point of this discussion is to determine if "userpage prods should be allowed", and so far, the answer is "no". If, after we make the change, a large number of new participants show up, angry that they've lost a tool, then we'll have to re-evaluate the discussion. But at this point, I say implement the change, and see if any backlash actually materializes.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is it linked from the village pump? That should be enough then. See if anyone else trickles in...I still think 11 people is a small number. And on a completely unrelated point, I would say you need the strong consensus to change the policy...not a lack of supermajority to remove it. (Or we can just not bother to set that sort of threshhold, hmm?  :) ) --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that PROD can be withdrawn for User Talk: immediately, since this appears to be uncontroversial, while leaving the discussion on the User: namespace open. IMO, PROD is generally not suitable for discussion pages alone. Though if we're going to review the coverage of PROD in this way, we should also consider the possibility of opening it up to other namespaces. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While there should be a consensus for changes to articles, the standard for policies is different: there should be a consensus for what appears in policies, so there must be a consensus for inclusion, not for removal. (That is not to say that one can remove a section of policy if one disputes the wording as long its overall thrust has support. The overall thrust of "prodding userpages" in this case does not have support.) I agree that polls are not votes and Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in the absence of a rationale strong enough to transcend "the numbers", we use the numbers to estimate consensus. I gather that's why you opened the poll in the first place. Do you foresee a consensus forming in favor of userpage prodding given the way the discussion has proceeded so far? You would need a lot of people expressing support for userpage prodding to counterbalance those who have already spoken out against it, and that's assuming nobody else joined them.

Not to try to coerce you or anything, but years ago there was a Budweiser commercial where one lizard said to another, "Let it go, Louie."

Here, have a beer.--Father Goose (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not gonna really push it here, since I don't think it will show up in this case, but I disagree on that idea entirely. By your reasoning, 45% support is all that's needed to change policy if that change is "removing it from policy". It was added with clear consensus, it should not be removed without it (I invite you to my talk page if you wish to continue discussing Wiki political theory.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (I'll continue here for now because it does have bearing on this discussion.) Yes, that is exactly my assertion. If 45% of respondents disagree with something being policy, it does not belong in policy. This is because of what we were discussing earlier, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: Wikipedia policy is not set by a majority. It must reflect consensus. This is, as you are pointing out, substantially different from "changes to policy must reflect consensus". A majority cannot insist on policy being (or remaining) a certain way, and a minority even less so. Where policy is concerned, something must have consensus support to be in policy.
  It may be that there was a consensus for prodding userpages at the time of its addition, but consensus can change, and in this instance, I would say it has changed.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative idea

I was thinking about this and I have an idea for a cross between MfD and Prod. Basically, tag the page, and then list on MfD, but not as a full subpage, unless challenged. We could make a separate section at the top of WP:MfD for these. It would require one extra step than a normal prod, but would still be less work than a full MfD, and it would have the same exposure as a normal MfD. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 06:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would be superior to the normal MfD listing method. Whoever evaluates it should state their assessment, at which point you're back to regular MfD format.--Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to know where this nonsense about a notional (i.e. not real) lack of exposure is coming from. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination of things: a less well defined standard of what is permissible in userspace (as opposed to article space, which is covered by WP:V, NPOV, N, yada yada); a less urgent need to clear "crap pages" from userspace (we can't tolerate that in the encyclopedia, but they cause few problems overall in userspace); and little way to know just how much review pages in CAT:PROD receive beyond nominator and admin who may do nothing more than check the technical validity of the nomination, then rubber-stamp it. It's my sense that prod is a way to make bad articles go away with a minimum of bureaucracy or community involvement; that's a good thing. The same mechanism is neither required nor necessarily desired for userspace.--Father Goose (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As full as that answer might be, that's not the question I asked. I was specifically looking for the reasoning behind the claim that PROD is poorly-exposed or not generally visible, because it seems to be the basis for many of the objections. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the clause in the center of my reply: "little way to know just how much review pages in CAT:PROD receive beyond nominator and admin who may do nothing more than check the technical validity of the nomination, then rubber-stamp it." If you were also asking about the "visibility" of userspace vs. mainspace, it stands to reason that articles of at least some importance in the encyclopedia have a greater likelihood to be watched by users than some random page in someone's userspace, and that watchers of CAT:PROD are more likely to step forward and remove a good article from prod than they are to remove a not-obviously-useful userpage (which should be kept even if it's only useful to the user who created it, and not otherwise in violation of our policies).--Father Goose (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this argument leads to "we shouldn't use PROD on user pages", since exactly the same conditions apply to mainspace. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just do it

Ned, keep that idea in the back of your head in case there is a flood of userpage nominations at MfD, IfD uses such a process. For now, I think we should drive forward. This was posted at the Pump on the 11th and archived on the 17th [8]. We can advertise an RFC, we can post a centralized discussion, or we can practice what we preach and Be Bold! (besides, let's face it, the discussion of the mechanics of deletion policies don't normally bring many participants, major changes to deletion discussion pages and even processes are usually made by two or three people).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. Well, I changed the wording a bit. There's a few other things that need to be changed now...I did the Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling page, but I think I missed one. There's also the {{dated prod}} template itself, plus {{deprod-article}} to change, but I don't want to mess with them in case I screw it up. Especially the prod tag itself. Oh, and maybe you guys can do some prod patrolling, keep an eye on userpages, help inform people of this little change, hmm? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, many of the deletion guides, etc. made no reference to Prod in userspace, only mentioning it's use in article space. I went through all the policies and guidelines, etc. I could think of and only had to change this page, WP:DEL, and WP:MFD, plus an ambiguous reference at WP:AFD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • And the template? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just made an attempt at changing the {{dated prod}} and {{deprod-article}}, please check to see if I missed anything. I tested at User:Doug/Sandbox and the first seems to be working correctly. I did not live test in mainspace, we need to do that I suppose to make sure it still recognizes article space as OK, since it's subst, the old ones won't update. I'm not aware of any good way to test that besides tagging a random article with {{subst:prod|reason}}. Thoughts? Look around for more templates too please, as will I.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a mainspace test here...I bet I get a template on my talk page for it, though.  :( Seems to work fine, but I'm not sure about the Big Red Message. Seems...weird. Could use a rephrasing but I'm not sure how to do it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know. How about, "PROD cannot be used here. Use PROD only on articles." or something like that? Or just use the old wording, "Please do not use PROD except on articles", though I never did like the "please". Of course, I would go with, "Surprise! Can't do that here anymore!"...but then again, maybe I'm bitter. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Either would be fine, make it better any way you can.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Er...maybe you admins don't notice such things, but that template is full-protected. Can't change it.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Heh! I try to always notice but I don't always notice whether other users are admins. What exactly do you want it to say and I'll make the change?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• (undent)Hmm, having people assume I'm an admin is probably a good sign for when I do that RFA thing. :) Anyways, unless you want to use the "bitter" one, I think "Please do not use PROD except on articles" is best. Looks similar to the old wording. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  I still think that adding this is a bit premature until this has had much wider exposure. I'm not aware of any such major change having happened based on such a small discussion before now. I also object to such a change happening without considering other options, given that the only thing that is certain in this discussion is that its use on talk pages is inappropriate. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)