Hi all,
I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed. If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be reverted.
How does this sound?
On 12/29/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed. If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be reverted.
How does this sound?
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
--Ryan
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.
That just doesn't seem right to me.
--Ryan
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.
That just doesn't seem right to me.
It is. The whole point is that PROD is for uncontested deletion - a lightweight process to take the load of obvious-but-not-quite-speedy rubbish off AFD. If the original PRODder really thinks it should be dead, they can bother with an AFD.
PROD is intended to be lightweight - that's its main point. It doesn't need complication - an AFD is not *that* hard to make.
- d.
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
I don't think so, no. You don't have to give an explanation to remove a PROD.
That just doesn't seem right to me.
It is. The whole point is that PROD is for uncontested deletion - a lightweight process to take the load of obvious-but-not-quite-speedy rubbish off AFD. If the original PRODder really thinks it should be dead, they can bother with an AFD.
PROD is intended to be lightweight - that's its main point. It doesn't need complication - an AFD is not *that* hard to make.
- d.
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
--Ryan
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-)
- d.
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-)
- d.
Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
--Ryan
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-)
Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-)
Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p
And then chop it into little pieces and jump up and down on them. Don't forget that bit, that's the important part.
-Gurch
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
So then, should I revert myself and AFD the article?
If it hasn't been improved sufficiently and you think it still belongs dead, sure :-)
Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p
- d.
Kept the PROD, added the copyvio. I'm guessing it will just sit there.
--Ryan
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Just found out it's a copyvio... now what?! My instinct is to go the regular {{copyvio|url}} + dated WP:CP route, but that would be kind of silly if the article was going to be dumped anyway.
Ahahaha! I'm not sure ... keep it prodded and mark it copyvio and delete it and kill it with a stick screaming "AIEEEEEEEEEEE" maybe ;-p
Kept the PROD, added the copyvio. I'm guessing it will just sit there.
I think this one comes under "whatever works" ...
- d.
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.
(Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to address the issue as best you can.)
- d.
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.
(Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to address the issue as best you can.)
- d.
Okay, I kind of get the justification part. But I was under the assumption that one actually has to work on the page if they want to take the tag off. A tag says:
You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.
The former hadn't been done.
--Ryan
"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason."
When people opt for the latter, what I'm proposing is that they must offer a reason that makes sense or they can be reverted.
On 12/29/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
I just reverted a PROD tag removal, and justified it on the talk page by saying that there had been no changes to the content of the article, and no stated opposition to the PROD. This is okay, right?
Uh, not really. The whole point is that you disagree by just removing it. If the original PRODder cares *that much* they can take it to AFD.
(Although if you are the original author, you should probably try to address the issue as best you can.)
- d.
Okay, I kind of get the justification part. But I was under the assumption that one actually has to work on the page if they want to take the tag off. A tag says:
You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you
otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason.
The former hadn't been done.
--Ryan
-- [[en:User:Merovingian]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/29/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason."
When people opt for the latter, what I'm proposing is that they must offer a reason that makes sense or they can be reverted.
Yes, I'd like that as well. Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an excuse to remove it. It's not hard at all to give a sentence about why you think an article is important.
--Ryan
James Hare wrote:
Hi all,
I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and then the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the author of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think that in order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be PRODed. If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if the stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be reverted.
There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal?
Also, it doesn't *have* to go to AfD.
-Jeff
But it usually does, no?
On 12/29/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
Hi all,
I have an idea for PROD. You know when someone PRODs an article, and
then
the PROD tag is removed, you have to then take it to AFD because the
author
of the article doesn't want the article to be deleted? Well, I think
that in
order for the PROD to be justifably removed, the author *must* state an acceptable (at the very least) reason that the article shouldn't be
PRODed.
If it's acceptable-at-the-very-least, then it can be taken to AFD. If there's no reason or the reason given is not reasonable (for example, if
the
stated reason was "Because Jimbo has a beard"), then the removal can be reverted.
There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal?
Also, it doesn't *have* to go to AfD.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Hare wrote:
But it usually does, no?
I'd say my experience has been about half and half.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal?
We do require a reason for prodding.
Steve Block wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal?
We do require a reason for prodding.
I'm currently seeing 8 on WP:PRODSUM with no reason given. This is admittedly lower than what I usually see during semi-daily patrols.
Should I simply remove them?
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
There's no requirement that someone give a reason for prodding, why require a reason for removal?
We do require a reason for prodding.
I'm currently seeing 8 on WP:PRODSUM with no reason given. This is admittedly lower than what I usually see during semi-daily patrols.
Should I simply remove them?
If you want to game the system. Alternatively you could add a reason. To be honest I don't care. You do whatever you think is best.