Wikipedia talk:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Task Coordination

At this point, proposed deletion patrolling happens regularly enough that there is no need for close coordination. Users in the project may wish to add {{Prod pending}} to their user page, which produces a list of non-expired prod categories:

[edit] Discussion

All discussion should take place here.

[edit] Maximum Cultural Development

Comments listed for Maximum Cultural Development PROD stated: "Incoherent, poorly organized, and frankly bizarre. Possibly schizophrenic." The individual posting the PROD has only contributed to a handful of articles, and frankly I find her/his message offensive. Is this sufficient grounds to remove a PROD? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You can always request for more input at WP:AN -- Drini 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that article, I have to agree with the prodder. I have NO idea what that article is supposed to be about. A more experienced editor might have said "Original research, incoherent, essay" or something. In general, focus on the article, not the reason; if the reason given is bad, you might want to say something to the prodder, but only deprod if you think the article is a bad one for deletion via prod. If you think it's good, use {{prod2a}} to supply an additional reason. Mangojuicetalk 00:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 June prods

There are dozens of articles listed that are about Filipino cinema, actors, etc. Would it be possible (and allowed) to create a temporary category for them so that it is easier for everyone to see the rest of the articles? For example, I know nothing about Filipino cinema, so I don't want to try to decide the appropriateness of those articles' deletions. Ardric47 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followup scans?

Back in the day, there was a Toolserver feature to let you see articles that were deprodded and their reasons. It doesn't exist any more, so we don't have easy access to see articles prodded and deprodded. There's not a workaround, is there? Static images of the daily lists aren't kept anywhere to see what falls off, are they? —C.Fred (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It might be a good idea to edit WP:PROD to more strongly encourage those proposing deletion to put the article on their watchlist; it's really the only way to be consistently sure that SOMEONE knows about a deprod. Mangojuicetalk 12:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
True. What I was trying to do is not add ten to twenty articles a day to my watchlist, but that may prove easier than any alternate arrangement I can come up with. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two items

Hi there. Two things:

  1. WP:WPPDP seems to be extremely hard to find (at least for me). I'm going to go ahead and add {{Redirect|WP:PP|information about proposed deletion patrolling|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling]]}}, to WP:PP (and a similar note to WP:PDP) since I doubt that's a controversial addition. However, it would seem to make sense to have some mention of this project on WP:PROD, but I can't find one. I don't want to go add that without discussing here first, especially since that's an official policy page.
    1. Follow-up. I didn't add the banner to WP:PP, since there was a warning that scripts might be broken if anything was changed on that page. I've posted my intention to Wikipedia talk:List of protected pages, so hopefully someone there will assist me. Lbbzman 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC) This is done. Lbbzman 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. The sample syntax for {{subst:deprod-article}} is incomplete. That template accepts a second parameter, listing where the appropriate deletion discussion should take place. Should the example be modified?

Cheers, Lbbzman 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

First off, great project, prod is a great system when it works right. I do have a question, though. When someone blanks an article and leaves only a prod template, would it be proper to restore the article text?--Fyre2387 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking an article is generally not acceptable, but with one significant exception: copyright violations. If the prod reason involves a copyright violation, add the {{copyvio}} tag but don't remove the prod or restore the text. Otherwise, it's reasonable: any admin would have to look through a blank prod article's history to decide what to do with it, anyway. But leave the PROD tag in place unless you disagree with it! Mangojuicetalk 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task coordination

Any objections to me redoing the task coordination table to make it up to date? Additionally, to simplify it, I would like to remove the 2nd check lines, since it seems as though they weren't ever done anyway. Also, perhaps a division into 5 groups instead of 4, thus reducing the load on any one person? I don't want to be unilateral about this, so, as soon as one other person says they're for it, I'll make the changes. (And, obviously, if someone says they're against it, I won't ;) )--JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I've never bothered updating the table because it was so out-of-date I assumed nobody was actually ever on patrol QuiteUnusual 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool - I'll work on it tonight. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Integration

I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any serious objections...

...if I remove the WP:SNOW link from the front? Just trying to slowly change the culture 'round these parts, and the ssay doesn't add anything to this process in particular. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SNOW

I just joined this project, only to find that another recent member is trying to get rid of the link to SNOW. To me, this allows for members, as well as fellow Wikipedians, to have an understanding of a widely used essay. I've had to even revert his attempts, in which he barely gives a reason for it to be removed. I think its bad form to enter into a project by removing links per POV. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already brought it to above. The essay may be "widely used," but it's not useful or necessary to this project, and it's part of a more serious attempt to curb its use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I seen. I started a new header without seeing yours. So, who are you to say whats useful to a project you just entered into? Please let others, who have been at this longer, decide. You can disagree with SNOW all you want, but dont remove it form others projects without at least consulting these other members. Kinda disrespectful in my opinion. Others may find a use for SNOW, when patrolling the prod cat. Removing information in this manner if POV pushing, and uneeded. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So we'll see if anyone else has an objection. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We could reword the appropriate section to get the point across without pointing to WP:SNOW but I think WP:SNOW is a very important essay, and worth linking to when appropriate. The point of WP:SNOW is to remind us that WP is a community only to the extent that this helps us build the encyclopedia. Continuing debates with a clear outcome doesn't serve any purpose. It may not be exactly "fair" to not get a chance to comment on something, but WP:NOT a soapbox: those comments are only valuable when they actually affect the encyclopedia in some way. But returning to this project: I honestly think there are some articles that (1) don't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, and yet (2) their deletion may not be clearly based on any well-known community guideline. Such articles, if we de-prod them, will only waste time.. so I think it's worth saying that if you are de-prodding because YOU think the article should not be deleted, that's totally reasonable. But if you only think someone else MIGHT object, consider whether it might really have a chance of passing AFD. Mangojuicetalk 15:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if we make reference to the point of the beleif that a prod shouldn't be removed if the remover in question doesn't think the article could be kept, but I strongly object to linking to the essay. If you feel the essay is important, that's a discussion elsewhere, but I don't believe it has a place here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No Badlydrawnjeff, thats a discussion for here. This is afterall, a project and anything that links to this project, or off it should in fact be discussed here. SynergeticMaggot 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion about any importance of the essay has nothing to do with here at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh. We arent discussing the importance of the essay bdjeff, but its linkage. SynergeticMaggot 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mango about the usefulness of WP:SNOW. Sure, we could summarize the salient points of it, by why reinvent the wheel? If we've got an essay that captures the point, why not just link to it, and then address how it specifically applies here? I say, keep the link. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A more on-topic response: Ok, the reason I want the link to WP:SNOW to remain is essentially this: the idea we're trying to relate is that covered quite effectively in WP:SNOW. We could cover it again, but WP:SNOW is something people refer to, and it's worth linking to it because it covers the issue. More importantly, though, WP:SNOW does actually get used to close debates sometimes, and it's worth reminding prod patrollers about that, lest they become too enticed by the idea of deprodding anything that has any theoretical basis to be kept, without considering the reality of the situation. Mangojuicetalk 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is disappointing to read, quite frankly. I'm not sure we should be telling people not to do the right thing because they may be in the minority. And because people wrongly close things by citing a divisive esay shouldn't really be encouraged, should it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that moving an article from Prod to AfD when (1) you don't feel it shouldn't be deleted yourself, and (2) you are certain that it won't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD is the right thing? I think it's the wrong thing. Such debates do nothing to enhance the encyclopedia, they're simply a drain on our resources. Point taken about encouraging the use of SNOW... but if the essay continues to exist, THAT is what is encouraging people to follow it, not our linking there. Mangojuicetalk 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I think many articles that may not appear, on the surface, to have a chance of surviving deletion should get a full hearing. It gets more eyes to look at the article, it gets more editors involved, and often ends up having a better article exist that may have been completely incomprehensible before it. Meanwhile, when we link to the WP:SNOW, we give it more credence, and we, as a project, shouldn't be doing that. If people want to be rogue and use it to be divisive, let them, but do we really want to do that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the point I'm making is backed up by policy: see WP:POINT, for instance. But regardless, let's end this: consensus is 3-1 against you here, so the link should stay unless you start getting support from someone else. Mangojuicetalk 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
i'm not sure it's disruptive to request a dialogue on these. If it's controversial to someone, it's controversial. Let me ask you this much, since you're actually established here and haven't assumed bad faith about me - do you think the essay link is actually helpful and provides necessary context, or can the necessary context to whatever theme you're attempting to put out ther ebe provided without the link? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's disruptive to request a dialogue if you know it's unnecessary. But I'm talking about a high level of certainty here. I do think we could provide the context necessary without the link, but it's better not to: WP:SNOW is established on its own, it's informative, and the fact that people actually use it is relevant, as I said before. Mangojuicetalk 23:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps we misunderstood eachother. But it looks like we're unfortunately going to keep it, so whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This originally began as me reverting you. Its you who doesnt understand. But I'm glad to see you are finally letting this go. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, interesting that you found me here at that stage. I'm done here for now, but I'm not done anywhere else. Why do you keep piling on at this point? --23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion and deprodding request, update to guidelines, and link to discussion

Hi there. It is not clear on the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion page how to ask for a deleted prod to be undeleted (which is a valid way of contesting the prod, even after the deletion). I suppose the logical instructions would be to view the deletion log and contact the admin who closed the prod and deleted the article, but this should be made explicit somewhere. Can someone do this please? The alternative, as I'm doing, is to come here and request undeletion of a prodded article.

I'd also like to ask for comments on the discussion here, part of which relates directly to this request.

Finally, the article I would like to be undeleted is Transfersome. If anyone wants to contest this, please take it directly to WP:AfD. I may take it there myself, as I would like to see further discussion on this. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The process to contest any deletion made under prod is noted at deletion review, but yes, this should be in Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion too. I've undeleted the article, and left messgaes for the prodder and deleter so that they are aware. As you state, any further attempts at deletion should be made through either afd or csd. Steve block Talk 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this! Just one small point. The new text on the WP:PROD page says "Please list requests for undeletion of articles deleted by the proposed deletion process below" (emphasis added) - I think that the "below" bit was copied over from DRV. Maybe change this to say list them at DRV, or create somewhere here for PROD undeletion requests? Carcharoth 10:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure, I thought I had amended it to "a request may be made at WP:DRV#Proposed deletions"? That's how it appears at my end. Steve block Talk 11:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the first paragraph. I'm talking about the second paragraph. Carcharoth 11:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, got it, sorry. Steve block Talk 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid question, but...

...how does one get a list of all articles marked with a PROD? Maury 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few ways. If you want them sorted by date, you can look at CAT:PROD which will have the categories for each day's nominations. If you just want to see all of them, there's a category for that, too, Category:All articles proposed for deletion. You can also look at WP:PRODSUM, which is a bot-maintained list of articles marked with PROD. Mangojuicetalk 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The advantage WP:PRODSUM offers it the reason for prodding - the disadvantage is that it is only updated every 6 hours. I use daily categories myself. GRBerry 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprod based on Talk page statements

Hi, I've been removing prods where the Talk page has a dispute of the prod. For example, where an editor has written "Hey, we should Keep this article". This feels like the right thing to do as I am presuming the editor who made the comment on the Talk page didn't realise they should remove the prod if they contested it. Does this sound reasonable to all of you? What do you do? QuiteUnusual 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've come across some situations where the person making that kind of comment understands that they could remove the prod, and wants to keep the article but isn't committed to it. In some cases, they could end up agreeing with deletion. So, use your judgement. But I'd say, it's better to let prod run its course if possible, and we never get a second chance at it. I'd probably just reiterate on the talk page that if they disagree with deletion, they should remove the prod tag, and then deletion will require a full debate with community input. Mangojuicetalk 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds reasonable - I'll try and judge from the comments and edit history, etc., of the editor. Of course, this is very much the minority of cases - I probably prod2 95%+ Thanks QuiteUnusual 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recreation

Deletion via prod is automatically without prejudice against recreation.

This sentence doesn't make sense, nor does it seem to go along with the sentence that follows. Perhaps there needs to be a "not" in that sentence?--Andrew c 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Pages deleted by prod are generally considered "deleted without prejudice against recreation". --RoninBKETC 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What about something that doesn't have so many negative words (not sure if there is a double negative there or not). Something like "Pages deleted by prod can typically be recreated, unlike AfD."--Andrew c 03:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Writing in an affirmative voice is better. But lets fix the entire point, not just the lead sentence. The current bullet point is "Deletion via prod is automatically without prejudice against recreation. Material deleted via prod and recreated is not speediable as repost material, and a deletion review is not necessary if someone wants to get the article undeleted." We could rewrite as follows: "It is acceptable to recreate an article that was previously deleted via prod. Such recreations are not eligible for speedy deletion as reposted material. If the exact old article is desired back, please make your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Proposed deletions instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Decisions to be reviewed." GRBerry 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as the spirit of the point isn't changed, I don't see why we can't just do it. --RoninBKETC 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the article text with GRB's. It is significantly more coherent that what is there now. Thanks everyone!--Andrew c 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've gone one step further and replaced "Such recreations are not eligible…" with "Such recreated articles are not eligible…". The previous wording was slightly confusing, calling to mind recreation as in physical activity to pass the time. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Opinion Please

Someone else please take a look at White deer. I'm not sure what to do with the prod. I left a long note on the talk page there with what I found. Ability to read German would be a bonus, given one of the external links on the article, but is not essential. (Well, and a second that isn't working.) GRBerry 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either - it could be worth a go if someone knows anything about White Deer. Pull the Prod, and apply a stub template of some sort? But what sort would go well there?? --RedHillian 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It already has {{even-toed-ungulate-stub}} and has since August (it had {{mammal-stub}} for a few months before that. With both of us uncertain, I'm going to pull the prod and AFD. GRBerry 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems good to me. --RedHillian 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec Press

This article is currently under prod. The creator and prodder have been in a conflict and advised to stay away from each other. I've commented at a suspected sock-puppet case for one of the two, so am no longer uninvolved. Can someone who is take a look? Merging might be the right solution. GRBerry 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now redirets to Pima Community College, as part of that article. Are we too late? --RedHillian 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
After one of the disputants was indefinitely blocked, the other merged. While it was resolved before we got to it, a reasonable answer was the outcome. GRBerry 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_proposed_deletion_patrolling_1404.html"