Template talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link to whatlinkshere

Before I delete articles, I usually check whatlinkshere. Now, with PRODded articles, that list is usually full of talk pages. So I limit the links to article space. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a link such as http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=____article_name____&namespace=0, right before the "delete" link? — Sebastian 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed my "what links here" button to default to article space only precisely for this reason. let me know if you want me to look up the code to make it happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Change wording of body para

{{editprotected}} The sentence saying that {{hangon}} should not be used on prodded pages seems to be counterproductive. I often see pages in Category:Contested_candidates_for_speedy_deletion which are there because a prod has been contested with a {{hangon}}. I am hereby suggesting that the sentence be removed, or shrunk. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you see those a lot then I'd think that sentence should actually be emphasized. PRODs are contested by removing the PROD tag. Adding a hangon tag will also work, but it's more work for everyone involved. Amalthea 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP is trying to say that informing people of the existence of tag encourages its use. I have no idea if that is true or not, but if true removing the {{s could have the same effect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, that makes sense. I assume the note was added because people were already adding hangon to PRODded pages, so it's hard to say whether the sentence is worsening it because editors see "hangon" and add it, or if it actually improved things. If we want to figure out how many are caused by this recommendation we could exchange it by the redirect {{Hold on}}. And probably emphasize the "'do not'". Amalthea 19:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis seems like a much better idea than removing the sentence. If the notice is not helping things it needs to be made more effective, not removed. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolded the words "do not" as Amalthea suggested. Nullifying the request template for now as there isn't yet consensus for the original request. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Notify the creator?

When this template is used, is it normal not to notify the creator, unlike AfD? In particular, Pennsylvania Diners And Other Roadside Restaurants is very likely to be deleted today, but the creator was not notified.

I notified the creator, and I improved the article, but I would concede the snowball argument if pressed. I post a comment here because I am concerned with the process involved far more than the content of the article. Because I am a fan of diners, I have kept the article offline as a possible place to get ideas for articles about Pennsylvania diners, and of course the DVD as a source. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a question you'd have better asked at WT:Proposed deletion, but sure, notifying the creator is always the courteous thing to do. Amalthea 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Valid

I added the word "valid" right before "reason". Removal of prod templates for bogus reasons or no reason can be a form of disruption, especially if done en mass. The addition of this single word will help prevent that sort of thing. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. I think that the intent of prods extends in part to a "no one cares" attitude to preclude the need for an AfD proper, and removing a prod for "bogus reasons or no reason" in reality indicates a simpler desire that the page exist, which is not entirely a trivial reason to keep the article.

If it's done en masse, sure, that's a form of disruption, but I think that users who do it en masse know exactly what they're doing and won't be deterred by the precise wording of the boilerplate.

I was reading WikiEN-l earlier today, so I'm certainly aware of there being some controversy with people debating whether to delete a whole pile of unreferenced biographies (per the BLP policy), potentially by prod, but I don't think that that's a good reason to change the boilerplate here. May I please revert your change, pending further discussion? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That change would amount to a substantial change in policy. PROD is for deletions that are, for whatever reason, uncontested. As soon as people disagree about whether there are valid reasons for deletion, a deletion is no longer uncontested and must go to AfD.  Sandstein  06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, I've undone the change. Administrators should know that fully protected pages may only be edited to make clearly uncontroversial changes or changes for which consensus has already been achieved.  Sandstein  06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - the change was a clear change to the purpose of PROD and unwarranted by (lack of) consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning about nominations for deletions

Articles that have been nominated for deletion don't qualify for prod, but I've seen quite a few articles mistakenly deleted like this. So I think we should warn when a AFD exists for the article, although it may miss (multiple nom, move, etc), so admins should still check the history/talk page for AFDs, or it may be for another article. But it should catch a lot, and also inform proders and patrollers who didn't notice the AFD. I propose to replace with the following code:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|<span class="error" style="font-size:140%">This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.</span>}}|<span class="error" style="font-size:200%">Please use PROD only on articles.</span>}}

Cenarium (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. Cenarium (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)