Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Djm-leighpark in topic Contesting procedure discussion

Precedent discussion edit

Todo edit

ask a community review
  • Ongoing
organizing the system

Set the term edit

The current version is basically copied from w:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, while it is already localized. It set a five days term before the proposed deletion is performed, and I think we are better to review it, and if appropriate, amend it.

  • "Five days" on Wikipedia may be correspond to their AFD term (five days). Here we observe seven days for votes for deletion.
  • On Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions, JeffQ proposed a sort of prod as "postponed speedy", hence the proposed term was shorter than this draft; three days. He said however "at least" at that discussion, so he may be happier to enlarge the prod term (I am not sure).

In my opinion, it depends how we think prod - easy-VfD or postponed speedy. Regarding for future possible expansion, I think the term up to seven days may have their rationale, but I don't oppose we begin with a much shorter term, e.g. three days. --Aphaia 09:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see consistency with VfD. Nothing wrong with seven days.--Cato 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I'd started with "at least a week"; LrdChaos suggested 3 days. I'd prefer a week not so much for consistency with VfD as for one reason that VfD is at least a week — because new editors (the usual creators of substandard articles) may not be closely monitoring their work, and 7 days gives them a little more opportunity to notice the prod nomination. I could accept a shorter term, but certainly no less than 3 days. Whatever the period, I would want a clause that says the prod'd article couldn't be deleted until X days after a friendly and helpful {{prodwarning}} notice was posted to the creator's talk page, to ensure we include this important step. (Part of the admin deletion process should include a check on the prodwarning and possibly changing the prod date if the warning wasn't posted properly, just like we've changed VfD nomination dates in the rare cases where someone added a {{vfd}} tag but forgot to list the page on WQ:VFD.) I don't want to unduly scare off good-faith editors in our efforts to quickly clean up undesirable pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seven day would seem good to me to. As to the prod warning I have no problem with it (though it is not used on Wikibooks) however I am unsure about its use on an IP page given the dynamic nature of some IPs? --Herby talk thyme 10:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, we should consider potential anon confusion. I'm usually careful when posting to an IP talk page to start with "An editor using this IP address…". I guess we could create two prodwarning templates: one for registered users and one for anons. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Modified to "seven days" with the power of your arguments. :) --Aphaia 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The policy and instructions for admins says 7 days, [1] but the tag on the article still says 5 days. [2] Can you change it? FloNight♥♥♥ 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. And I'd remind you that anyone can edit it, too :) --Aphaia 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anonnotice edit

Yeah, we should consider potential anon confusion. I'm usually careful when posting to an IP talk page to start with "An editor using this IP address…". I guess we could create two prodwarning templates: one for registered users and one for anons. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

We can make it in one template, if a parameter is given and only if, the message turned into the suggested one... --Aphaia 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to fix it. Now {{PRODWarning|test|anon}} gives us:


An editor using this IP address posted test, so I put a message to hope noticing the editor the following. If you are not the editor, sorry to bother and please ignore it.

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article test, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

{{PRODWarning|test}} gives us still:


I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article test, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Please improve it, thanks. --Aphaia 09:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Purpose of prod edit

Before we can decide guidelines, we must decide exactly what is the purpose of our "prod" system. Some variations I've found:

What perceived problems are we trying to solve here? If we can decide this, we can settle the details more easily and quickly.

From my point of view, "prod" simply covers the grey area between obviously useless page (speedy-delete) and questionable but potentially useful page (VfD). I'm thinking we need not limit it anymore than this for now. Perhaps we can take some time using it in this manner before we see problems that might make us want to change our focus. But I'm open to any other views. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In part I think this is a case of using it and sorting the snags out as we come across them. I think some more clarity on what this should be used for would be good. I would have probably used the tag for a foreign language quote page that appeared yesterday. I placed a request on the user's talk page asking for translation/clarification feeling that was assuming good faith - it was deleted by another admin (I have no dispute with that action, I might have done the same) but I would be interested in others views?
Personally I have no problem with the same person deleting as tagging - it can still be seen by any admin if it warrants review and if it has been there five days someone else should have seen it. There is s similar tag on Wikibooks which I tend to use quite often, however equallyI am frequently the deleting admin as I happen to keep an eye on that category. --Herby talk thyme 09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tracking prod nominations and other concerns edit

One thing I didn't like about Wikipedia's {{prod}} when it first started was that the only way to see a useful list of prod candidates (that is, a list which showed a page and when it was nominated) was via an external link to the toolserver. I see now that's changed, and there's a bot making a summary page in userspace there, which is better, but still not ideal.

However, we don't have either of things mentioned in this draft, only the category. While I don't expect that we're generally going to have too many prod nominations, the category idea isn't really scalable, as it doesn't give any indication about when a page was added, meaning a sysop would have to open each page, check its history to see whether it has passed the time period, and then take action as necessary. It also means there's no way to automatically find out when a new page has been tagged; this is akin to WQ:SD rather than WQ:VFD, as the latter can be added to your watchlist. Unlike WQ:SD, however, this process seems like it could someday be automated and so there would be little review of so-nominated articles. (I notice that the current draft does include language instructing sysops to make their own judgment about whether to delete or not, and we don't, at the present time, have any bots that do deleting.)

I'm also concerned that we don't have a sufficient level of consistent participation that I feel is required for this to work right. "Proposed deletion" is, in large part, a self-policing process in that it depends on other editors to 1) notice that a page is tagged, 2) decide whether the tag is appropriate. Presently, I suspect the only people who would do that would be mostly sysops, with the occasional instance of a page's creator/editor noticing their page was tagged.

I suspect that such editors would always contest the tag; we see in VFD that in nearly all instances when a page's creator or invested editor comes to VFD, they contest the deletion, and though they may eventually understand the reasons why it should be deleted, it's only through the VFD nomination, where they frequently make their plea and are then have their specific points responded to. The initial nomination reason typically isn't sufficient for them, and that's equivalent to what the prod reason would be. Considering the ease of contesting (just removing the tag), it seems likely that most prod nominations which are noticed by the page's creator/editor are going to end up on VFD anyway, so we haven't really saved any effort in that case. I'm also concerned about cases where the creator/editors don't notice the tag, because I don't realistically believe that we have a community which can or will perform "due diligence" on prod-nominated pages.

VFD brings deletion candidates right into the community's face, where members actively express their belief that a page should or should not be deleted. With prod, however, there is no action required.

Take, for example, a prod-nominated page which has reached the end of its period with no one contesting the tag. Does this mean that the page was reviewed and people decided it should be deleted, or does it mean that no one saw the page with the tag? We can never really be sure, since prod doesn't provide for indicating support for a deletion, only opposition (or a lack thereof, whether it be in support or because the page went unseen).

Changing topics, I'm not sure that prod is even necessary for en.WQ at this point in time. I don't feel that our VFD process is being overwhelmed, and it's my understanding that the large number of AFD nominations at WP was the motivation for instituting prod there. While our VFD process is sometimes overkill, as there are a number of articles for which deletion is basically assured, and the VFD process is basically a formality, I don't think that there's any need for us to create a third class of deletion candidates (SD, VFD, and now PROD). —LrdChaos (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback.
As for the list, I removed the bot generated list part from two reasons. First, I am not sure if we have anyone generous and skillful who runs such a bot. Second, we can automatically generate a list from categories with Extension:DynamicPageList, which is mysterically not introduced into Wikipedia. Like,
While I don't understand its feature completely, having this category, we can have easily lists of prodding article list
As for necessity, I admit we have not so many articles as English Wikipedia, but I think the current VfD is a bit heavy for me sometimes. I suppose introduction of prod is better to enlarge the criteria of speedy deletion. Also I would like to point out anyone can contest prod, simply with removing the tag, and on VfD not every entry has been contested. For example, currently, WQ:VFD has several candidates without any dissent, like Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Chris Haslam. We have many poorly formatted or cited articles, and need of maintenance is increasing. I expect while Proposed deletion is not a snake-oil, but a sensible solution for such needs. --Aphaia 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For "all requests", at least for now, see Category:All articles proposed for deletion‎. About numerous template messages, I didn't bring all of them. Those newly created templates are found at User:Aphaia/Prod. --Aphaia 11:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quality issues edit

I support introducing "Proposed deletion" on Wikiqote. I think that this policy is an important way to address quality issues. It is widely accepted on Wikipedia-en that under this process the articles removed can be re-created if more robust content is added. I think this is a key point. On most wiki's as the volume of articles increases, the wiki increasingly has difficulty dealing with poor quality content. I think it is wise to anticipate that this will be a greater problem as the popularity of Wikiquote increases. By putting this policy in place now, I'm hopeful that quality issues can be addressed without overwhelming the existing processes. FloNight 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trial edit

How do you think we make a trial on this system for a while .. at least in a month? I think three months would be better though, since I am not sure if we have many enough prodded articles in one month to review the rules in actualization. --Aphaia 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I was thinking the same. I think we should do 3 months so that users have a chance to get the hang of it. One months is too short for users to get know about it and use it. We can make small modifications as we go, also, as need be. FloNight 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Warning tags edit

I've been thinking about this type of tag quite a bit lately. Been watching the way that they are used on different projects. Not just for prod but also notification about images. And this has been an issue in several Wikipedia-en ArbCom cases recently. It also comes up on Commons as often users uploads are tagged with deletion warnings.

I'm interested in the reason behind their use and the reaction of the editor getting the warning. Based on my review of the situation, I think at this time that most warning of this type should be optional. Encouraged but not mandatory. This is because I think their benefit is not clear at all. Especially if it does not deal with copyright issues which can greatly benefit from input from the original contributor.

IMO, the varied responses to the warning do not make it clear that they benefit more than they harm. Some users get upset if their user page get several notices in a short time period. This makes the courtesy aspect of the warning not helpful as is intended. The repetitive warnings cause some users to feel targeted for harassment. Warnings increases ownership issues with content, I think. Often the original contributor is not around in the window of the time period before the deletion making it a moot point anyway.

To me the best way to deal with prods is to make sure that several users are aware of the prod. The editor tagging and the deleting admin should not be the same person. We might require a third person also review if there are concerns. But personally I think that is not needed really. Also I think required warning to the original contributor is overly bureaucratic since some of these are really speedy delete noms but someone decided to prod instead.

Since prod is very non-adversarial with the understanding that any article deleted through prod can be created again, I do not think we make too many mistakes that can not be easily corrected. My 2 cents, FloNight 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:Prod problems edit

I've just prod-tagged Traffic geyser‎. There seem to be two problems with the {{prod}} template. My use of the following:

{{subst:prod|no quote content; appears to be advertisement}}

produced the following text in the banner message:

{{#if: 24 |The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days. This template was added 2007-09-24 05:35; five days from then is 2007-09-29 05:35.

The "if" template code is distracting, but more importantly, the prod period is given as five days, not seven as the draft policy indicates. Could someone look into this? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I also notice that the recommended notice to the tagged article's creator:
{{subst:prodwarning|Traffic geyser}} ~~~~
creates an monospaced signature with excessive space below the post. It could use some tweaking, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I noticed the same problem with another prod, and I reported it at Template talk:Prod. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I tried to fix "five days" errors. It seemed due to Template:Dated prod. Does it still work wrong? --Aphaia 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just prod'd another page, and it doesn't mention five days anywhere, so that part is fixed. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment edit

I'm not at all sure that it is clear as to when pages should be subject to SD, PROD, or VFD. I cite two cases as examples: Traffic geyser was tagged with PROD, while FCC was tagged with VFD. I might have even used an SD on one of these. I definitely think both pages should be gone, but I'm not certain that it is clear which avenue should be used on them or other pages. In other words, I think we need a little more clarity around the ground rules or guidelines for these three methods to remove pages. ~ UDScott 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. And as for PROD/SD, (I was not sure if it was to SD, but you may be right), anyone can re-tag the prod requested article with SD, I understand, so you can safely speedy, if you are sure it falls rather in CSD. --Aphaia 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it's really up to the person doing the initial nomination. For me, prod is new (and I still have some concerns about whether we even need it, as well as the implementation) so I haven't been particularly motivated to use prod over VfD (though I have prod'd a couple of pages in the last two days). I think that the point of prod is to take divert most of the traffic from VfD in the case of non-controversial deletions that don't qualify as speedy, with VfD as the fallback for when either the prod or the deletion are or may be disputed. This doesn't mean that something can't be nominated for VfD straight away, even it when it would otherwise be a good candidate for prod. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

General review edit

OK so let us go. While I was rather inactive during our three month trial, I personally think the proposed deletion having worked well. The reasons I think are:

  1. Sometimes I found posts I hesitated to speedy but RFD seemed too much heavy to deal with them: Prod seemed to me appropriate and handy as a way to invite other editor to review my opinion.
  2. After three months we had no unprocessed prod requests - does it suggest all requested prod were handled properly? Either prodded or contested (and handled in a different way) - so it functioned I suppose.

Again I was rather inactive and haven't known the entire course of our trial. I think we could fix some problems during the trial, particularly in its early stage. But you may have another impression ... so please input it :) And let us decide where to go next. --Aphaia 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No input until now. And several respectful editors are speaking about it as a part of existing deletion system ... so can we conclude that we just want to have it formally without any major changes? --Aphaia 08:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I like prod, but the one change I'd like to see is the ability to make it restorable. As I understand it, anyone who disagrees with prod can remove it, and then the only recourse is VFD. I'd like to see a flavor of prod which could be restored, with the same deadline, if it's gratuitously removed (that is, without remedying the problem). --Ubiquity 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
You make a good point. I agree that there should be a way of settling disagreement about using prod on a page, without necessarily moving to the vfd process - especially if the problem is not solved and a user simply feels that a page should remain, without justifying that opinion. The way it reads now, the only next step is to nominate it for vfd, but perhaps there could be an interim step that would allow restoration of a prod tag - with explanation. ~ UDScott 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not happy about bringing this up, because I don't like to point out problems unless I've got time to help solve them, and my own activity has been curtailed so much that I'm spending most of my WQ time on checkusers and minor edits at the moment. But re-reading the above material and the section immediately below, I see two major problems that worry me greatly and make me want to oppose ratifying this policy and practice for now:
  1. I still see no clear explanation of how editors are supposed to choose between speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and VfD. The draft policy, which is almost all about process, says only that it is for "articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the Wikiquote quote compendium but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion". I suggest that this means something entirely different to the creators of articles and the taggers of deletion candidates. Discussion above suggests even the latter group have rather different ideas and have not coalesced around any clearer definition of scope since we started the trial.
  2. There is little accounting on this page for how prod has been used. Much of the discussion above comes from folks like myself who have been only slightly involved in execution. The rest have cited only a very few cases. Given no clear scope and few concrete examples, I don't think we as a community can determine how appropriate the execution has been. That's not a criticism of the users. It can't be — there's virtually zero information with which to praise or criticize, and no yardstick to measure it with.
Given objections to the suggested safety processes (e.g., notification to article creators/editors) and potential expansions of scope (e.g., prodding WP-deleted articles), I am concerned that prod might be used not so much to get rid of clearly substandard, abandoned articles, but rather chiefly as a way to avoid the VfD process. While VfD is indeed a bit cumbersome, it's intended to force community attention to consider the act of destroying the work of other editors. It should require some effort and contemplation. I'd prefer to know that we're using prod primarily to get rid of manifestly useless articles that barely skirt SD because of technicalities or out of respect for the article's age, before I support making it a policy. (And I don't really see allowing {{prod}} restoration in any case. In my mind, the only rationale for ignoring the wishes of a prod-tag remover and denying them the appropriate forum to make arguments (VfD) is that the article is a clear SD case.)
If we want to approve an express-lane destruction of material, we should have more community effort to analyze the use and issues before we make a decision, just as we did with WQ:SD changes last year. We shouldn't let something like this get approved out of general complacency. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to miss the discussion on the above and my hasty request on WQ:VP, I failed to notice it on my watchlist and thank you all for input your thought. I have no time to join this discussion away from my usual workspace - hopefully I'll be back this weekend. --Aphaia 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for new template edit

I believe that there should be an added template added for speedy deletion with the purpose of speedily deleting wikiquote articles associated with deleted articles on Wikipedia. For example if an author not meeting notability requirements is deleted on Wikipedia, any quotes uploaded here could be speedily deleted without deliberation. Yay or nay? Baalhammon 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Though notability requirements here and at Wikipedia are similar, and their decisions are useful for determining our own, I do not believe ours should be absolutely tied to theirs, any more than theirs should be tied to ours. ~ Kalki 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seconded. Their discussion is useful but I have no reason to be paranoid to follow their view. Notability challenging articles are rather harmless ...... unless it contains defamatory and I understand we have zero tolerance toward the latter and it'll be deleted without hesitation by any of us. So I think we can relax on notability issue and not necessary to be keen to hunt down those "not notable" ones. --Aphaia 08:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bypassing VfD for prod edit

I reiterate my concern that {{prod}} is fast becoming a substitute for {{vfd}}. Cato, Poetlister, Herbythyme, Fys, and myself have been doing virtually all the closures for several months, and we're often doing them rather late, sometimes a day or two after the close time. Many of the other admins who used to close and archive VfDs now seem to be focusing on prods instead. But prod allows articles to be deleted with much less visibility and no discussion. (Inclusion in Category:All articles proposed for deletion is not nearly as well-known or visible as listing at WQ:VFD.)

What I deduce from this is that we're shifting away from making articles visible to encourage improvements to just getting rid of substandard articles. I think that it is incredibly important that before we decide to ratify this policy, we make clear in the policy when we should or shouldn't use prod, instead of just describing the process. Otherwise, due to the constant press for expediency by overworked regular editors (which hasn't changed in the 3-1/2 years I've been here), I'm worried that this move away from a public review of questionable articles will only get worse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Useful edit summaries edit

Herby made an excellent argument at WQ:AN#Citing speedy deletion cases for leaving the "content was:" portion of speedy-deletion edit summaries in place. But I notice that prod-deleted articles have this content-based summary taken up by the prod message, rendering it completely useless. I also see that some folks have replaced that junk with a terse rationale. (I've seen Poetlister copy the "concern" field of the prod, which makes a lot a sense.) Might I suggest that the prod executors (executioners?) consider doing this regularly when they delete these pages? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I'm on board. --Ubiquity 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seconded. --Aphaia 12:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

KNXV/KTVK Tragedy edit

I guess this is the right location for the I dont see anywhere on wikiquotes where it says an ACCUAL Live Media Event cannot be requoted and used on wikiquotes! I honustly think its totally unfair to act so damn early! Atleast let me give you more! I swaer I will have several different Media Groups on this site by Monday!--Lolicon 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am the person who added the {{prod}} tag. I responded to this here. --Ubiquity 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Non-admin closures edit

I do find it rather surprising that we insist that only an admin can close a VfD keep but we allow anyone to close a PROD keep. Is that really our intention?--Cato 19:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hm! It wasn't at least my intention (and perhaps sort of inconsistency, since this was drafted largely based on English Wikipedia version). But if a prod candidate survives eight days, can anyone close a Prod keep without problem? --Aphaia 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The case that I had in mind was Liza Tarbuck, where a non-admin removed the notice after just 2 days. I would have removed the PROD notice anyway, as the article seemed alright now.--Cato 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I admit that I've not been tracking the progress of PROD, but in my mind it was never meant to be an admin-controlled notice. It's supposed to be modelled on Wikipedia's prod, which is a recommendation for deletion if no one objects in a relatively short time. It's my impression that it's to be used here for sub-standard articles that aren't obvious speedy deletions, but which have little chance of surviving a VfD, and can be quickly deleted unless some active editor wants to make a VfD case out of it (though the obligation to nominate it rests with the pro-deletion folks). The salient point is that anyone can and should be able to protest this summary deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Liza Tarbuck, where a non-admin removed the notice after just 2 days. " Hm so it is in the policy-draft. It is a legitimate prod contest. So no problem. If the original prod requester isn't consent, he or she may list it to WQ:VFD. That is the intention of WQ:PROD. So in this context anyone can remove the tag, WQ:PROD says. --Aphaia 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

When will this become official policy? edit

We've been using PROD for quite some time now - the trial ended last year - and yet it still says that this is a draft policy that is being tested. I for one would like to see it become an official policy - I think it's working quite nicely. ~ UDScott 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I favor this as well. - InvisibleSun 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Agreed.--Cato 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
But does anyone want to call a formal vote? We're long past the days where 3 participants could be considered a consensus. It's really not that hard to do. State the question, call for a support/oppose vote, state the deadline (at least one week, but two might be better for a major policy change, especially around holidays and vacations), and announce it at WQ:VP. It'd be good to review Wikiquote:Voting for ideas about how we're trying to do these things (even though it itself is not yet a formal policy). The more we start doing this properly, the more we'll get our policies completed.
Don't be surprised, however, if issues are raised during the vote. Like WQ:VFD, formal votes can push people into thinking hard about stuff they've put off because there's so much else to do. But I think we can see how it often doesn't done until we take this step. Either way, though, we make progress, either in formalizing or debugging and fixing. Many of the policies and practices we have in place today are there because one individual took responsibility for shepherding the effort. I'd like to do it myself on a lot of issues, but right now I'm doing well just to make useful contributions to others' efforts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Policy adopted but process still testing? edit

Two months after policy adoption, {{prod}} is still inserting "Note Wikiquote:Proposed deletion is now being tested. Your feedback to this system will be welcome at Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion. Thanks." on the page. Are there non-policy issues still being tested and discussed? Ningauble 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. My bad. When I closed the ratification discussion above, I should have removed the "being tested" message from Template:Dated prod, which I've now done. Thanks for pointing this out! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
(smile) Ningauble 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Contesting procedure discussion edit

I had initially thought it would be an obviously good idea if {{Oldprod}} was alteredd so that it could be used for any page that had been through the Prod process, deleted or not, as an aid to avoid it being PRODed for a second time. This is would be consistent with how the template developed into its current form at w:Template:Old Prod. However on reflection {{Oldprod}}is used in a very specific way on this Wiki as marking pages the had been Prod'ed and then requested to be undeleted, such an undeletion request of the soft delete having to be honoured, though the undeleting admin certainly has some discretion to for instance send direct to VFD. There is a small advantage to having a talk page template for a dePRODed article that has not been sent to VfD but overall this is marginal, and the consequences of PRODing twice are ultimately not significant (That is not do say deliberately PRODing an article for a second time is not disruptive. So am minded that my only suggested changed to the Template:Rl would be to remove the word "Recently". -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Recommending to improve article before dePRODing edit

I am inclined to suggest the decontesting procedure show be amended to suggest improving the article before dePRODing -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Return to the project page "Proposed deletion".