Forum:PROD

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > PROD

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6442 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Update: I haven't had a lot of time for tagging, but my trial with using PROD, and with comments leads me to think it is a good enough idea to continue pursuing. At this point I am suggesting its use to other admins and think that letting experienced users, I am saying Captain and above, is a good idea. Remember that if you use it, and someone removes it, don't ban or revert them. They simply made an allowed objection to deletion. Also remember to leave a note on the talk page of any author with a username when you delete their stuff. The instructions in Template:PROD show how to do this. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

As an experiment, I am implimenting a variant of Wikipedia:Template:PROD, which is itself sort of a variant of our (earlier) NRV template. My implimentation is at User:Isra1337/prod. There is no need for anyone else to use the template, I am just testing it out for the moment. The only issue is if someone objects to me deleting some old cruft that no one has bothered to look at about two weeks from now. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So what does this template do that VFD doesn't, except for remove the voting process? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:37, 13 Dec 2006

It is borrowed from Wikipedia. It marks something for deletion unless there are any objections whatsoever. So, your description is basically it. It is like NRV, except milder because the person is allowed to remove it themselves. The other difference being that I am using it on older pages. Usually cruft left from the old days, or stuff that accidentally missed NRV the first time around. Basically I am trying out the tag on articles I would normally put {{fix}} on, but which I see as having no hope.---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a very good idea. There are many really bad abandoned articles, and VFD doesn't help them that much. Hopefully people won't just find these and delete them so that the articles can live on without change. When the "general public" of Uncyc is given the green light on this (and not just Isra), I will be the first in line to tag with it. --Sir Zombiebaron 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea and is exactly the final template needed to really clean up this site and keep the crud level down to acceptable levels, that is, none. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"final template"? I'm sure you ment to say "This template is the final solution to the crud problem". --Sir Zombiebaron 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant it like we finally have an option to get rid of old shitty, clearly shitty articles. Like, why go through a VFD vote when it's clear NRV-or-worse quality stuff and VFD has a 15 article limit? It's a lot of work to get rid of articles that, in a lot of cases, should just be outright deleted. This could potentially be a good template, if properly used. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(Erk) To summarize the argument against PROD: the singular most dangerous alleged property of PROD on Wikipedia is that few people, in some cases not even the creator, will notice a prodded article before it's deleted. In this view, all it takes to lose a brilliant but slightly unconventional article, or a short article with lots of potential is

1. One user (potentially a vandal) PRODding an article.
2. One admin who doesn't see the joke, is working on a backlog and fails to closely examine the rationale for the PROD, etc.

A difficulty with any mechanism for doing uncontroversial deletion is that sometimes a huff looks uncontroversial when it's really not. --Alksub 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ture but we also generaly undelete and move to user space without all the BS that surrounds wikipedias Deletion Review.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we make it so the user adding the prod must give a reason for adding it some of that will be avoided? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:11, 20 Dec 2006

My thoughts going in were to only allow admins to PROD tag something, and if the author is a registered user to leave a note on the author's talk page. I subst: in a standard message. As for Alksub's objections, I think all those are more relavent to NRV/ICU, because I know that people definitely do tag pages with those as vandalism. As far as reason giving, the usage I have been putting the tag to does not mix well with that. Often it is pages that don't have anything specific as a major flaw, they just don't work, don't have any real potential and have been ignored for a long time. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, something just hit me earlier. We should have some sort of info page on what to do if your article is deleted, mentioning how you can typically request an admin to restore a page to one's userspace and most times they'll gladly do it. And mentioning the reason why so many stubs get killed on sight, etc. Since the number one thing I see over at our WP page is complaints about the volume of deletions. Actually, we probably have a page like that gathering dust, and if so it should be linked more prominently, like on Special:Log/delete, the notice thingy when starting a new page; right next to the bit saying to check deletion logs, HTBFANJS, BGBU, etc. --User:Nintendorulez 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)