Template talk:Oldprodfull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Oldprodfull page.

Contents

[edit] Recent changes

I figured out how to get ISO 8601 dates to wikilink automagically, and decided to replace declineXYZ with conXYZ in keeping with the change in nomenclature from XYZoption to TLAoption (for Three-letter acronyms) ... for legacy reasons (like the instances on talk pages), the older parameter names are still supported, but not mentioned in the current documentation ... I'm changing the examples as I find them, to avoid confusion ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved the following sections from User talk:72.75.72.63#New template: Olfprodfull ... redirected that link to this page ... Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template: Olfprodfull

OK, I got the idea of {{Oldprodfull}} from {{Oldafdfull}} ... it just made sense to me, especially after my recent experience with the "Cuban artists" checklist, where several seconded PRODs were contested without comment.

[edit] Template:Oldafdfull & Template:Oldprodfull

{{oldafdfull                        {{oldprodfull
 |page=Rubén Torres Llorca           |nom= MBisanz
 |date=2008 February 1               |nomdate= 2008-02-03 
 |result='''keep'''                  |nomreason=
 }}                                  |2nd=
                                     |2nddate= 
                                     |2ndreason= 
                                     |con= Callelinea 
                                     |condate= 2008-02-04
                                     |conreason= See talk page.
                                     }}
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 February 1. The result of the discussion was keep.
Proposed deletion This article was proposed for deletion
by MBisanz (talk · contribs) on 2008-02-03
• It was contested
by Callelinea (talk · contribs) on 2008-02-04 with the comment:
See talk page..

"If you build it, they will come"

— 72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It should include some cat function, like Declined PRODS. Do you need me to create a template page for you at Template:Oldprodfull? MBisanz talk 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx ... lemme play with it for a while first ... I'll just copy&paste a few to get a handle on how it effects my Watchlists. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks really good, I think this would be a good idea if a Bot could add this. MBisanz talk 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the ultimate goal ... I mean, the bot that flagged the PRODs on the Cuban artists articles by ArleArt (talk · contribs) is what gave me the idea. :-)
  1. The same bot that alerts the author can add the default tag ... then an editor who seconds or contests it just fills in the empty fields ... easy as cake! :-)
  2. At first, I thought that reason should be a required field, with a default of "and did not provide a reason." ... but Some Other Editor went around and edited them to provide one (since they were identified by userid) so I decided to just leave it blank if defaulted.
  3. Some editors may take umbridge at being identified this way, so userid should always be optional, or maybe "suppressable"?
  4. Is using the {{User}} template a violation of some privacy guideline? (Why don't more templates use it?)
  5. The example above represents my current design (parameter names, anyway.)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk)22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Looks good, I think even if the second editor doesn't remember to fill in the template, the mere existence of the template will reduce duplicate PRODDS. I don't believe there is an issue user the user code, but it probably should be subst'd to reduce server load. I'd say the PRODDER shouldn't get anon., but I see no problem leaving the remover anon at their choice. MBisanz talk 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's soup! I had another manic episode and hacked it in a single marathon session ... the default is by another editor if a userid is omitted ... Happy Editing! 72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Oldprodfull

This is what the "default" would look like, i.e., |reason= is omitted ... I plan on using it as a boilerplate for articles on the "Cuban artists" checklist where prods by the same editor were contested by the same editor on the same day, like

— 72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{oldprodfull
 |nom= MBisanz
 |nomdate= 2008-02-03
 |con= Callelinea 
 |condate= 2008-02-04
 }}
Proposed deletion This article was proposed for deletion
by MBisanz (talk · contribs) on 2008-02-03
• It was contested
by Callelinea (talk · contribs) on 2008-02-04

— Decided to leave default conreason as blank 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seconded PROD

This is an example of a contested seconded PROD, showing defaulted parameters:

{{oldprodfull
|nom=      
|nomdate= 2008-02-03
|nomreason= 
|2nd= 72.75.72.63
|2nddate= 
|2ndreason= 
|con= Callelinea
|condate= 2008-02-04
|conreason= Added reference and external link … will edit later
}}
Proposed deletion This article was proposed for deletion
by another editor on 2008-02-03
• It was seconded
by 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) with the comment:
See talk page
• It was contested
by Callelinea (talk · contribs) on 2008-02-04 with the comment:
Added reference and external link … will edit later.

Yeah, I like how this looks ... now all I have to do is find the time to hack {{Oldafdfull}} and "make the magic happen." — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See Winifred Freedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for an example of use. 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template To-do list

Thoughts before bed ...

  1. ISO 8601 date format for MediaWiki support
  2. Only nomdate is required nomdate defaults to "in the past".
  3. 2nddate and condate are also optional.
  4. User names without dates are not ignored.
  5. It's easy to find the nomdate and nom (as well as the 2nddate and 2nd), but the condate and con may not be so obvious, or one may simply wish to allow anonymity throughout the flagging.

This shows the minimal use of the template ... a no-brainer, IMHO.

{{oldprodfull}}
Proposed deletion This article was proposed for deletion
by another editor in the past

— 72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrapping up

Well, this took less time than I thought it would ... see Talk:Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido and Talk:Tiombe Lockhart for examples of this template used with the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Oldprodfull}} … boilerplate message to solicit feedback

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created {{Oldprodfull}} ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO and other flag templates?

Happy Editing! — 141.156.217.11 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== [[:Template:Oldprodfull]] ==
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see 
[[Talk:Slartibartfast|this talk page]] and tell me 
[[Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies|what you think]] of my newly 
created <code>{{tl|Oldprodfull}}</code> ... would you use it, or update 
it if you encountered it? 

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed 
[[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-bio|WP:FLAG-BIO]] 
and other [[:Template:Flag-templates|flag templates]]?

{{subst:Anon-sig}}
I just "discovered" Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed, so I'm hanging this template on some of the talk pages at random in the hopes that editors who have them on their Watchlist will take notice, and then I won't get accused of WP:CANVAS again. :-) — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

[edit] Paularblaster

I think it's great - particularly to prevent re-prodding unprodded articles, but for other reasons too. I didn't realise what it was when I came across it at Talk:Winifred Freedman -- it somehow looked as though someone had posted a notice that they'd contested the prod, but had neglected to remove the prod tag. Now that I know what it is I would certainly use it. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Your contesting the PROD is what caught my attention ... I had been using a "dummy" boilerplate before I created the template, and have been gradually replacing them with the real thing. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corvus cornix

I like it, but I think there was a tfd for prod2, I haven't looked to see if it succeeded, so if it did, you don't need the second prod line. Corvus cornixtalk 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I participated in that TfD, and it was one of the inspirations for this template. :-) — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDonato

Please do not WP:CANVASS as you have by mass-messaging users on their talk pages regarding the usage of one particular template. This would be especially inappropriate if they had no interest in the issue. A better option would be to post a note on a page which you think affected users would have watched. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF ... These are editors who have either (a) contributed to articles where I am testing the template, or (b) have worked with me on other projects ... I have even set up a special area to record their feedback ... how is one supposed to gauge WP:CONSENSUS on an issue without soliciting comments? — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that these users are ones who will be interested in the issue. In future you could consider:
  • A page that they will have watched (the template talk page)
  • Village pump (proposals)
  • Other centralized discussion venues
I would say that them working with you on other projects does not necessarily guarantee their interest, though. Oh, and the template seems a good idea :) GDonato (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx fer the suggestion ... I'll post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). :-) — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thehelpfulone

I like it, but I was wondering how you found me, on Wikipedia, what article did I contribute to or what project did I work with you on? --The Helpful One 18:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oops! I must have encountered your comments on the talk page for Some Other Editor with whom I have worked, and thought that you might be a Good Source of feedback ... sorry for the intrusion if you are not interested. :-) — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MBisanz

Looks good, would you mind if I took it over to WP:BOTREQ to how much of this can be automated? Sorta like a CSDWarnBot. MBisanz talk 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nishkid64

The Oldprodfull template seem like a good idea. I like how it provides the reasons why it was tagged for prod deletion in the first place. As for flag-bio, there are already templates to contact a user about the speedy deletion of their article (they can be customized to whatever speedy deletion criteria it fails). The talk page template may be of use, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thnx fer the support! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EdJohnston

Hi 72.75.72.63. I did look at {{oldprodfull}}.

  • It's very large. (At least, the one you pointed me to, on Talk:Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido).
  • Consider waiting for some positive responses (at least from the people who know about the Cuban Artists debate) before deploying it outside the realm of the Cuban artists.

I was happy with the way you approached this debate, in that you tested the waters before resorting to the formal deletion mechanisms. You also used PRODs in a judicious manner, and you kept everyone informed about what you were up to. I'm disappointed that you took some negative responses to the PRODs as a reason to leave the field. (Or at least that's how I perceived it). With the Cuban artist articles, I felt you were undertaking some kind of a social experiment that might be instructive for use elsewhere in Wikipedia.

The problem I perceive is that the Cuban artist articles don't have editors who are 'positive champions' who really look forward to a good set of surviving articles. The closest thing to positive editors we've managed to recruit were the experts from Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts who came over to offer some opinions. But I perceive that they were doing us a favor rather than coming to offer enthusiasm for Cuban art specifically.

So I'm left not knowing for sure what to do about the Cuban artist articles, nor your {{oldprodfull}} template, nor the debate on how to triage the articles, which I haven't (unfortunately) had time to do much on since I performed the original Google searches on the A-D artists. I think the people who've worked on this task view the effort as 'homework' rather than fun.

Do you think you have enough energy left to do a little editing on Cuban art (the article)? I think there is a link there to cubancontemporaryart.com. I imagine you're in a good position to list all the pros and cons of including that link! All this Google searching must surely improve your awareness of the main themes of this field. Can you tell that I'm winding up to give my sermon on deletionism? (just kidding.. :-). EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thnx fer your continued support, EdJohnston ...
"Cuban artists" checklist was a "temporary" OCD project for me, which has lost its appeal due to lack of interest by other editors ... Template:Oldprodfull grew out of the project, but it has applications far beyond this little corner of Wikipedia, and the "Cuban artists" checklist was just a convenient opportunity to give it some Real World testing ... I've switched to Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed (articles with a {{Prod-2}}) for my beta-test articles. :-)
  • The example I provided may appear large, but the default is just the template with no parameters, which is a no-brainer to use.
  • The template is for more than just the "Cuban artists" checklist, and the feedback is recorded at Template talk:Oldprodfull#Replies.
My manic-depression is entering the "down" phase (I have a birthday coming up) so I'll be pretty "inactive" for the next few weeks ... I think that my Flag templates and {{Oldprodfull}} can stand alone for a while .. I'll sit back and watch to see if other editors embrace their use.
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terraxos

Hi there, 72! I just discovered this template, and I love the idea of it - now I think about it, I have no idea why this didn't exist before. It's such an obviously useful template, we should get it added by bot to every article that has been proposed for deletion in the past, as soon as possible.

I'm not so keen on the actual appearance of it, though - having seen its use on several pages already, it just seems to be too big and obtrusive. After all, let's face it: WP:PROD is not a big deal. The fact that an article has been prodded in the past means little: it basically means that one editor thought it should be deleted, and another disagreed. Yes, it's useful to know what articles have already been prodded, so as not to prod them again - but there's no need to cry about it from the rooftops, which is what this template seems to do.

The best comparison for it is with {{Oldafd}}, which it was clearly inspired by. An article going through AFD is a far bigger deal than one being prodded - yet that template is much less obtrusive than this one. I think Oldafd is a good guideline, then, for what this template should look like: it should probably be only one line, two at most, saying something like: "This article was proposed for deletion by User:X on DATE. User:Y reviewed and contested the request on DATE." Including the actual reasons for adding and removing the template just strikes me as unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thnx ... the display of the template can get rather large, but when used with just user-ids and no dates or comments, it's not so bad ... besides, you can always use it with no parameters and just get the simple one-liner ... and if it does get deleted, then the size doesn't matter. :-)
Most of the feedback is that having the reasons can be helpful, especially when a PROD has been contested, because one does not have to sort through the history to find them ... OTOH, I guess there is some potential for abuse, and like Some Other Editor opined already, it can give the impression that the article's subject is more contentious than it may actually be. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmboy

I am not sure if I would use it or not. Not against the tag, just not sure of the usefulness. So many articles get PRODs, and typically when they are stubs or new, and very often, for the wrong reasons. Not sure if adding the fact that the article was PRODed is that helpful. This would be the same for a previously tagged SPEEDY template, and for similar reasons. PROD only means ONE person thought it should be deleted (same as speedy). This contrasts with AFDs where the community itself participates. Any single user can remove a PROD or SPEEDY tag as well. I understand it is to prevent users from rePRODing an article that was already PRODed, but there may be different reasons for each PROD, and there is no policy that disallows adding the PROD tag on an article more than once for different reasons (that I am aware of). I dunno, I certainly may be missing the point and open to new ideas, I just haven't run across the issue at this time I guess.

You may be correct; this is kind of a "solution in search of a problem" ... I guess my thoughts were (a) this is handy for a deletionist who is documenting an article that will probably have to go to AfD, and (b) this is the kind of thing that a bot should be doing ... it's the seconded PROD that (for me) makes it most useful and informative ... to tell the truth, I'm not as enamored of it as I was when I created it, but I'm not willing to MOVE ON quite yet. :-) — 141.156.217.11 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found the TfD for Template:Prod-2, which was the original inspiration for this template ... combine all of the Keep arguments, and see if you don't agree with the consensus. — 141.156.217.11 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message.

Your message.