User talk:Donaldd23

Article deletions

Can you please not alert me of a PROD or article deletion again, I barely visit this site nowadays let alone have time to waste on trying to save articles that deletionists have made up their mind aren't notable anyway. Thankyou.† Encyclopædius 16:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædius, I only started alerting you again because I was called out for not alerting you. I will try to not notify you again in the future. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The short Argentine film stubs can be deleted, I never got around to filling them out. They can be restarted at a later date when somebody is willing to do it. German TV series and rivers too, a few thousand there in total. Feel free to prod as many as you want just don't template me. :-)† Encyclopædius 18:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It would make a considerable difference if I didn't get notices from User:Donaldd23. I have asked him in the past not to spam my talk page with messages. Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)"

Precious

films in series

Thank you for quality articles about films in series per actors, beginning with Fight for Life (film) in 2006, Artists and Models, Bowery Buckaroos, Max Rose (film) and Method to the Madness of Jerry Lewis, for updating and guarding related articles, for "it is helpful for gathering quick information without searching the article for it", - Donald, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2600 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your magnificent work, unbiased votes and research for citations at film-related AfDs (or you could have literally reviewed every single AfD out there in general but I would not even notice it). Keep up the good work! Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages to Draft space

Hello, Donaldd23,

If you want to move pages around from main space to Draft space, there are a few things you need to do to help out your fellow editors. First, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2 so that the page is brought to admins' attention and doesn't get forgotten. It should be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect from main space. Twinkle is an excellent tool to use any time you want to tag pages for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.) or just to indicate problems in an article by tagging a section. It's a very helpful tool for editors.

Also, you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. And there is another tool here that can help you out! User:Evad37/MoveToDraft is a script that most editors who "Draftify" articles use because it not only moves the article but it also posts a notification for you. I recommend it. Again, a very handy tool. And, if you like, both the Draftify script and Twinkle will keep logs if you want, to keep track of pages you have worked on. Thank you for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for your advice. I appreciate that you took the time to offer your knowledge. I will consider these options in the future if I move anything else to draft. Thanks again! DonaldD23 talk to me 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello, Donaldd23,

I run into your work regularly at the daily PROD list as I check it over the course of a day and I just wanted to thank you for tracking down and tagging for proposed deletion some truly marginal films that have been made. I don't know how you find these articles but I don't think their deletion is a big loss for the project. I also help out at WP:REFUND a bit and I haven't seen an editor come back and contest their deletion which can happen with some PRODs (especially those about companies). Any way, thanks for helping clean things up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi User:Liz. Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I regularly check Category:Film articles with topics of unclear notability to see what other editors think are films which aren't really up to have their own pages. I usually do a BEFORE to see if I can save them, and there are quite a lot I come across where I find enough citations that I then add to an article and then remove the notability tag. The ones I can't find anything for I try to PROD to see if there are any editors who object...or who can find sources I couldn't. But, again, thanks! DonaldD23 talk to me 19:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down references to improve articles is better than deleting them so, bravo! I think that would be a challenge since most of the movies I see tagged are international ones and you'd be evaluating reviews in newspapers in non-English speaking countries. Working on Wikipedia makes me wish I spoke languages in addition to English. I've studied several when I was in school but never mastered any of them. Oh, well, stay well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donaldd23,

It would help reviewing administrators if, when you remove a PROD tag, you state this in your edit summary (something like "de-PROD" or "removing PROD tag"). It just helps to see which edit has done this when we are scanning over a page history. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For making Wikipedia what it is supposed to be: full of sourced articles. :) DareshMohan (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something to look out for with misused PRODs

Some misused PRODs could be changed to WP:G7s, rather than simply removed.

I saw one recently where you correctly de-PRODded a draft, however, since it had been PRODded by the original creator and only substantial contributor, it might have been more suitable to swap it for a {{g7}} (and possibly let the user know that you did so). Just something to keep an eye out for, cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello, Donaldd23,

I see now that I already have left a message for you earlier in 2022 about the PRODs you do but I just wanted to compliment you again on your Proposed Deletion work. It is clear that you always check out the page history thoroughly, I have never had to remove a PROD tag from an article you PROD'd because it has been PROD'd before. You might be surprised by the fact that many editors never look at the page history to see if an article has been PROD'd before. So, thanks again for checking and double-checking articles you tag for deletion to ensure that all of the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. It makes things much easier for admins who review the daily PRODs to know that I don't need to devote extra scrutiny to the ones you tag. Have a great 2023! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donaldd23,

I'll just add to this message instead of starting a new section on your talk page since it is also about your PROD work. I just wanted to say that I appreciate you PROD'ding small groups of articles at different times over the 24 hour clock. Different administrators "patrol" the PROD list at different times of the day and it is a lot easier to do the review and deletion work in small groups throughout the course of a day or night than to do many articles all at once at the same time each day. I know it is a lot easier to do things in one fell swoop but speaking for myself, it's easier to handle 4-7 PROD'd articles every few hours than 12-15+ all at the same time. In fact, although your User page says you live in the EST time zone, you must keep your own working hours because I've seen your PROD'd articles at all hours of the day and night! Maybe a little insomnia? I use to suffer from that and came to Wikipedia to work but I found it was actually stimulating, not sleep-inducing so I eventually stopped.

Any way, thank you for your consistent efforts to clean up our film and TV series areas of the project. If you ever wanted to review children's TV shows, I think we have a lot of dead wood there as well as we seem to have had a fair number of editors creating articles on obscure children's programming over the past two decades. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I do spread them out throughout the day, mainly because I do make my own work hours, but also because it takes time to research and vet the articles before nomination (even though I have one or two users who regularly claim I don't do BEFORE). And, yes, I don't sleep normal hours so I get on here whenever I can't sleep and do a little work. I am really trying to clean up the film/TV notability tags. At one time the films had 2000+ tagged, but now hover around 10-20. When I started the TV, they had about 1800, but now have less than 900. As you know, they have not all been removed through deletion...I improve what I am able to and remove the tag (or remove it if has already been addressed, but an editor forgot to remove the tag themselves.) Again, thanks again! DonaldD23 talk to me 19:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Hello, Donaldd23,

I see you have moved on from tagging obscure foreign movies for proposed deletion to tagging obscure album recordings. I've noticed that most of these PROD'd articles are challenged and are turned into redirects to the artist's article. You might consider doing this rather than tagging them for proposed deletion. We do have some editors who check out PRODs before they are deleted but it's just a thought that these articles can be made into redirects rather than deleted. You ever want to turn your PROD eye into clearing out some of the articles on obscure children's TV shows, cartoons, anime or their characters, I think you'd be doing the project a service! We have a lot of content that is more appropriate for Fandom than Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came to leave you a message and found that I already did months ago. Instead of PRODding albums, please consider redirecting them to the artist's article. I just did that with about 5 or 6 articles you PROD'd and there are more than will receive that treatment tomorrow. It would be easier if you just chose to do this yourself rather than tagging them for proposed deletion. Please consider doing this in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider archiving your talk page rather than deleting messages. I thought you hadn't received any talk page messages for months until I looked into the page history. Archiving is easy and allows you to quickly find messages from the past to see if you had had contact with an editor before. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a good editor

I appreciate and respect your withdrawing your deleting nomination at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kid in a Candy Store

Too many editors see AfDs as a test of wills. It's refreshing to see you and editor Cunard instead approach it as a thoughtful quest for a better encyclopaedia.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Donaldd23! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^TT me 14:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Donaldd23. Thank you for your work on Puppet Master: Doktor Death. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for being an honest, open-minded and always consistent contributor. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Hello, Donaldd23,

Rather than PROD'ding a dozen album articles, please consider changing them to Redirects to the artist's article. That is usually what happens with these tagged-articles but it is other editors taking care of it for you. If you could just redirect them yourself, rather than tagging them for Proposed Deletion, it would save other editors' time from having to do this themselves. This would especially help out relieving the burden from other editors when you go on a mass-tagging spree with a dozen or more articles that have to be Redirected. Thank you for considering taking a different approach to handing these non-notable album articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLARs

When you blank-and-redirect articles, please tag the redirect with {{R with history}}. It's also good practice to add a {{blarn}} to the target page. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Whip

Hi Donaldd23, when you redirect an article, please ensure that the target mentions the topic of the redirect. With this edit, you redirected The Whip (album) to Cleopatra Records, but there is no mention of that album on the target article. That is not very helpful for someone actually looking for the album. I would suggest either adding info about the topic to the article that might benefit a reader or nominate the article for deletion rather than redirect it. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Beanstalk

Thanks for highlighting the 1951 notice on the physical film strip! I didn't know it was physically affixed that way as well.

I do believe you are right about that, and thanks for taking a second look. The weird intricacies of US copyright law can be perplexing on a case by case basis.

I am also referring this to the copyright lawyer I work with to get her opinion, but it should result in the same conclusion.

I also got a bit more curious and looked into the songs from the film. I did find renewals for Dreamer's Cloth (RE0000076507), He Never Looked Better in His Life (RE0000076508), I Fear Nothing (RE0000076510), Darlene (RE0000076506), and a titular song called Jack and the Beanstalk (RE0000076509). All are dated 1952 for their original registrations and the renewals are all 1980. Even if the original film was copyrighted but not distributed until 1952 then the publication of such doesn't start ticking for copyright until that 1952 date. Since these songs are separate notices they might have restrictions and need to be muted for the foreseeable future. What do you think? SDudley (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point regarding the music copyrights attached to the film. I would definitely be interested in what a copyright lawyer would say about that. Interestingly, since the film has been public domain for decades, and no owner of the music copyrights have filed any objections to the film being distributed with the music included in all that time, I wonder if it would void any copyright claims as abandonment? DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Still waiting on some official response, but it seems that the songs never qualified for copyright since they were registered a year after. SDudley (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 Please see Commons for the answer. In short, the songs probably need to be muted. SDudley (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD

Hi Donaldd23, hope you're doing well. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OceanWorld 3D as you contested the PROD. All the best, Anarchyte (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Certain Regard

Deprod: Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics. Anything lately to do with LGBTQ cultural references is controversial. But you knew that. Go to AfD if you wish. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I’d like to respectfully contest the proposed deletion of the article on A Certain Regard.

This documentary film meets several notability criteria:

• It was broadcast on television and screened at international film festivals.

• It received financial support from the Instituto Nacional de Cinematografía (INCAA) and the Fondo Nacional de las Artes, two of Argentina’s most significant public cultural institutions.

• The film’s subject, Juan José Sebreli, is a widely published author and intellectual, known for his contributions to philosophy, sociology, and political thought. He is also recognized as a leader in the early Gay Liberation Movement in South America.

• Sebreli’s work has been published by major publishing houses, and his public role contributes to the cultural and historical relevance of the film.

These factors together demonstrate notability and public interest, well beyond niche or non-controversial topics.

I appreciate your concern about how LGBTQ-related entries are treated under deletion protocols. However, I’d argue that the significance of this film—due to its subject, its cultural and institutional support, and its public dissemination—warrants retention and, if needed, further improvement of the article rather than deletion.

Thank you again for your attention, and I welcome continued discussion. Wikimench100 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Removal of PROD tags

Hello, I have no issue with people removing proposed deletion tags on articles, but please add some evidence the page is notable in the form of additional sources after you remove the tag rather than just leaving the page an unsourced, non-notable shell. A page with a single review is not notable, so removing the tag is classified under disruptive editing on Wikipedia, specifically "Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability". It puts additional burden on the VG Wikiproject as well, as they will likely have to expend time searching for sources that you claim may exist, but do not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a PROD tag is NOT disruptive editing if the editor who removed the tag did so because there was something in the article that warranted an AfD discussion, which I clearly stated.

A WP:PROD tag should ONLY be added as "a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion." Having a review in an article is half-way to the film article passing WP:NFILM, and it is not "uncontroversial" that another review may be found...which would be possible if an AfD discussion was opened instead of a PROD.

A suggest you re-evaluate your reasoning for using PROD over AfD, as that can be considered disruptive editing, as PRODs last a week, which is a burden on editors to do searches in a shorter amount of time than an AfD, which can be renewed several times, giving editors more time to do the searches.

I thank you for your concern, but if I find any film articles that have at least ONE review and someone has put a PROD on that article, I will continue to remove it. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to music albums/songs/computer games/etc. One review is enough to start an AfD, and NOT a PROD. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that you are assuming I have NOT conducted a search for reviews of these games and found nothing. Therefore the review will be "found" during AfD by someone else because I have been negligent somehow. I can guarantee you that I HAVE looked for reviews for them, and always do so before adding a PROD to the page. You can do so as well before dePRODing, and I am not sure why you are hoping for someone else to find these magical sources that exist but neither I not you could find.

In other words, this is an implicit assumption I am acting in bad faith and is against Wikiquette. Removing them simply because someone, somewhere might find it controversial, or because a source might exist somewhere in your belief despite no evidence it might, is disruptive and grounds for escalation to admins if it continues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not understand that if someone objects to a PROD, then the PROD was not "uncontroversial". DonaldD23 talk to me 12:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PROD: "1. Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page", which I did. You are saying that if I remove a tag then I must adhere to "4. Improve the page to address the concerns raised.", but as stated in those same PROD instructions, "You are encouraged, but not required, to also" followed by the 4 bullet points. Therefore, I do NOT have to improve the article, I merely have to OBJECT.

Threatening to bring me to admins for discussion can been interpreted by some as trying to bully me into following your wishes, which is that you are the JUDGE and JURY of any article YOU decide to add a PROD to. It appears that you take it personally that someone may disagree with you. Take notice, I ONLY removed the PROD tag from articles which already had ONE review. There are plenty of other articles that I passed by and left the PROD tag because there were ZERO reviews present. Wouldn't someone who was "disruptive" remove the PROD tag from ANY and ALL articles that had the tag, regardless of if there were reviews present?

READ the rules. ANYONE can object to your PRODs, FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT EVEN STATING A REASON. I went above that requirement and STATED my reason. You disagree with my reason and want to threaten me with an admin report...which may border on WP:BULLY, as you are pretty much "asserting ownership" of the article (I decided it should be deleted, and NO ONE should object to that.)

Remember, "other users are free to add, remove or modify it at will, provided that such editing is done responsibly. While there may be disagreement, generally consensus will determine the final outcome." Which is all I wanted to do, open it up to general consensus with an AfD if you still want it deleted. My removal of the PROD tag is NOT disruptive, it is an honest effort to say, "Hey, wait a minute, there's something already in the article that MAY warrant it's inclusion in Wikipedia, and there MIGHT be more found IF time is given to find it by others."

Just because you didn't find anything else does NOT mean that others may not. I DO NOT have to look for any additional sources at this time, I merely removed the PROD to give me (and others) time to find more sources...whether that be over an infinite amount of time, or a time limited by an AfD discussion.

Why do you have such an issue with someone DISAGREEING with your determination that an article needs to be deleted? DonaldD23 talk to me 12:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are failing to WP:AGF. Regardless of whether removing the PROD is technically allowed, making the assumption that other editors have not bothered to search for sources and that someone else will do it better is a breach of Wikiquette. One would also ask why you didn't just procedurally nominate it for AfD after removing the PROD if you felt it should be judged in AfD. Instead, you left the page alone, which would seem to indicate that you straight up believe it IS notable, not that there is just room for doubt and that it deserves more time to be looked over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great day. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PROD of Indian articles

Why is it that you don't receive flak for doing so many PRODs and not many WP:BEFORE for Indian films?

In regards to Indian content, you nominated Silli Lalli (since I didn't add sources in time), the most notable Kannada television show ever (ask @Kataariveera: or @Bangwiki:). You even nominated a tier two Tulu film Bangarda Kural, both of which had sources in Google [1] [2] [3]. If you are a deletionist, then if inclusionist @Eva UX: doesn't save the article then the article can die (you used an AfD for the former article).

You even didn't spare senior editor @Kailash29792: and PRODed Puthiya Vaarpugal [4] for 9 days till he saved it. I was going to ask at the Indian cinema taskforce but that is not needed since a user should first be alerted on their talk page.

I know you might have no agenda but for smaller Indian film industries be careful, I'm sure there are not regular Tulu editors. DareshMohan (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]