Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Drafts
Latest comment: 8 years ago by SmokeyJoe in topic Tagging drafts
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

RFC: Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago104 comments37 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
Way too many 'yes, but,' no, unless,' 'it depends,' or 'under certain circumstances' for there to be a consensus either way. The RFC question is really too broad, and specific criteria and a process for moving articles into the draftspace should be formulated before raising the issue again. Katietalk 22:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can editors move articles that are not CSD candidates from the main-space into the draft-space? - hahnchen 02:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:AI describes incubation as "soft deletion", WP:USERFY states that the process "effectively amount[s] to deletion of an article". Wikipedia has never allowed for removal of articles from the main space without process. Drafts should follow long-standing, widely held Wikipedia wide belief that removing articles from the main space requires consensus. Drafts are optional, they should not be imposed upon by others. The only main-space articles that can be moved to the draft-space should be CSD candidates. - hahnchen 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes  WP:BRD identifies the right to edit without getting permission as a fundamental principle.  A WP:BOLD move needs no permission, just as the revert of a bold move needs no permission.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - it's perfectly acceptable to move a newly created article in terrible shape to the draft space. As long as they're not breaking BRD, there's nothing wrong with it. It can be a constructive way to improve articles that may have potential but are nowhere near ready for the main space in their current form. An editor doing this should be commended for giving an article more time before deletion, not scolded for being harsh. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Those "newly created articles in terrible shape" should be limited to CSD candidates such as expired PRODs, not articles that editors don't like. We have cleanup for that, you can even boldly clean it up if you like, or if you really don't like, you can send it to AFD and !vote for draftification. - hahnchen 09:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't follow what that example is supposed to prove. The article was recently created, is a stub, doesn't contain any commonly used sources, is almost entirely plot summary (obviously MOS:PLOT violating), contains no notable actors, and nowhere did Czar indicate that he "didn't like the film". Its a prime example of "maybe its notable, but not at all ready for the mainspace." Did you link to the wrong example or what? Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Stubs belong in the article space. - hahnchen 14:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
          • They sure do. But I'm pretty sure I listed off another 5 qualms with its current status as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
            • If those qualms don't justify deletion, they don't justify de facto deletion via draftification. If you remove the article from mainspace due to non-deletion-worthy concerns that the author is unable/unwilling to fix, you are deleting it in all but name. Tagging seems like a better solution. A2soup (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
              • You're deleting the article, right; and there's no difference expect por one insignificant detail: editors can't read the content of an article that has been deleted, but they can read it if it has been moved to draft. Remember that content that is useful and verifiable can nevertheless be removed completely from sight through a deletion; placing it at draft space would make it available for reuse at other articles as mandated by WP:PRESERVE.
              Of course the move to draft should be made only for deletion-worthy concerns, I agree 100% with keeping notable articles in main space even if they're of poor quality. But there's a difference between an article needing to be deleted, and its content having to be deleted. There's a lot of valid content that should not be deleted, even if the article where it's are placed should be. Diego (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
              In my time of CSD patrolling, I've come across brand new editors that jump straight to creating their new article. They've got good intentions, but the articles lack any semblance of notability, structure, or formatting. If I speedy delete it, I often see them never come back again. If I move it to draft space, explaining what's wrong and where to get help on creating an encyclopedic article, sometimes they're able to restructure the content into something more passable and acceptable. I think these are the types of situations were this is a good idea - where it helps morale and retention, and where the editor can take their time on improving an obviously not ready for mainspace article without it being targeted for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, that would be disasterous for the reasons that I previously explained (see archive 4 linked to above), for the reasons explained by Hahnchen above, with which I agree, and because, if we allow draftification without process or consensus, deletionists will go on a draftify spree. They will commit indiscriminate mass draftification (cf MASSNOM) to the annoyance of everyone. Then they will bully anyone who reverts them. They already bully anyone who removes a PROD. Let's not give them more opportunities to misbehave, especially in a place where no one is watching. I should also point out that clause iv lacks consensus. James500 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Would be disasterous"? It's the current consensus, and has been, and I'm not aware of these frequent "disasters" occuring. The closest thing I've seen was Hahnchen's recent dispute, and even that was mostly editors arguing over ideologies, no actual wrong-doing, edit warring or bullying occurred. And of course, any decision made in the RFC would be made with the understanding that BRD should be followed, Edit Warring is not acceptable, etc. I'm even of the mindset that the person should probably leave a short note on the article creator's talk page. Basically, if there's much of a dispute with it, then they'd be following your mindset more so. The problems/hesitations you you, could really be applied to any and all aspects of the Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • How can you be aware of disasters occurring? The only reason I'm aware is that I follow Wikiproject new article logs. This is what happens right now - A new user creates an article. It disappears without notice. No redirect is left behind. If they figure out where it went by logging in, and looking at their contributions, which might not be obvious, they may stumble upon the draftspace and whatever further hurdles that brings. They may just assume the article was speedied. At what point would anyone else be aware of that. These are new editors, they may not even know that they can revert the move, or where to appeal. - hahnchen 22:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Moving an article to draftspace does leave a redirect in place. I suppose it could be followed from the moves log, and anyone following a URL that pointed to the previous article would find the draft instead. Even if the redirect is deleted, I thought it was discussed that there should be a template to notify users that there's a draft with the same name of the deleted article? That would solve the problem you mention. Diego (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Redirects from the main space into draft space are speedily deleted. - hahnchen 11:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
            • How can I be aware? Usually "disasters" result in big discussions at relevant WikiProjects or ANI. The only ones I've witnessed are you complaining that you don't like how editors do it. Not exactly a disaster. Are you guys really arguing in favor of these "hypothetical disasters"? Are you guys just getting over-dramatic to argue a point? Can someone actually prove that there's actual major issues occurring that are causing trouble? Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:PRESERVE, as it's a good way to keep around content that doesn't belong as a stand-alone article and for which there's not an obvious place to merge (articles about topics at the edge of notability or with contested sorces, content with a current shape that doesn't comply with WP:NOT but that could be cleaned-up and expanded to pass it...) Content in Draft space that didn't come from Articles from Creation isn't removed after an arbitrary time limit, so that's a good way to keep it around for reuse, allowing interested editors to find it without clogging the main space. Diego (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not instantly. I would say for non-CSD cases there needs to be a process similar to PROD, which let's the article sit for a week or some such and get moved if no one objects. Just as most PRODs, the nominator is generally acting in good faith, but they may not be aware of sources or some other information that would prevent the move. I guess this would be an option between PROD and AfD->Draftify —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would agree in the sense that we should give a few days for an article to gain some legs, and not rush to move to draft space within hours of creation, a situation frequently argued with the application of CSD tags. After a few days, it's fair game to move. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You don't need a process similar to PROD. You just need PROD. When the prod expires, editors are free to draftify the article instead of deleting it. - hahnchen 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The {{PROD}} template is a terrible message to put on a page that one thinks is better at AFC/Drafts, as it starts "this article may be deleted". Since no one is talking deletion here, only relocating to a specific space on WP where we allow in-development content to be kept indefinitely, I would not use that. I would consider a "PDraft" (Proposed draft) template that says, to the effect "This article is a candidate to be moved to draft space. If you can expand it further with reliable sources, please do. Moving to draft space will not delete this article." . --MASEM (t) 20:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with the "not instantly" part; this is the current policy for any article move now, as moves are hard to revert. Diego (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes but they generally shouldn't. I don't think this should be a forbidden action, but it's usually not a good idea to move something to draft space (or userspace) unless someone is willing to actively work on it. It would probably just sit and rot until it's eventually deleted as a stale draft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes with notification to page creator. Agree with Unscintillating and Sergecross73 in general. I'm more ambivalent towards the idea of a "Pdraft" process as discussed by Hellknowz and Masem, but would not oppose. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that the Deletion Policy addresses this directly as an alternative to deletion.. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Contextual - Sometimes it shouldn't happen, sometimes it should. Honestly, just direct the editor to the Wiki Peer Review™, or the Wiki TeaHouse™ for evaluation and help from more experienced editors, while possibly moving back into mainspace if the article has already passed through AfC (some editors don't use AfC, some do - just be aware). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Like the link above we're gonna end up with articles dating back to 2008 being moved aswell .... and then what happens when the editor buggers off ? ... Someone will unknowingly CSD-tag it and then we'd have lost an article that ideally didn't need deleting, So quite honestly I think it'd be a complete and utter disaster, (I don't mind if an article was say created a week or 2 ago and gets moved to draft but over 2 weeks would be a disaster I think.) –Davey2010Talk 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. An article which can't be deleted in its current state should be kept in the article namespace. A user can, if necessary, make a clone of it (or part of it) elsewhere to work on, but the article itself should stay in the article space. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
How about cloning it to the Draft space? And what if the article should be deleted from the main space, as it lacks notability, but the contents are verifiable and could be used elsewhere? In such case, there's no difference with moving the article to Draft, except that the edit history would be lost. Diego (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I explicitly mentioned cloning it elsewhere; the draft space would certainly work. As to articles which should be deleted, either they get speedy, or they get PROD/AfD; in the former case, they may be moved to the draft space if some user thinks (s)he can improve it enough; in the latter case, wait until it would almost be deleted (wait 7 days for PROD, request it explicitly in an AfD). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No (Oops, accidentally !voted again below! I'm still a no and stand by both comments, but it's only right to strike one.) unless explicitly agreed to by author (in cases where a clear primary author exists), or if it is eligible for deletion as an expired PROD or valid CSD, or if consensus to draftify is established (e.g. at AfD). Unscintillating makes a good point about WP:BRD. To respond, I would argue that moves (especially out of the mainspace) are not equivalent to edits, as they are unreversable by non-autoconfirmed users and thus equivalent to blanking and semiprotecting a stable page with no vandalism or socking, a clearly unacceptable action. If the right to edit in mainspace without getting permission is fundamental, then controversial, non-consensus draftification is unacceptable. Note that per WP:MOVE and WP:RM#CM, moves expected to be controversial should have consensus. (I think the idea proposed by Hellknowz and Masem would be fine, as a week without removing the template could be understood as agreement by the author and would serve as a form of expedited consensus, as with PROD.) A2soup (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree with what I'm reading as the general consensus: (1) under- or inappropriately sourced new articles, after given reasonable time to expand, can be brought to incubate in draftspace, which is preferable to triggering an immediate AfD, (2) that we should have some sort of user talk template for page creators in this case, and (3) that it is a bad idea to bring older articles (not recently created) to draftspace, as the original creators will be even less likely to address the changes. I think these things are reasonable. I'm not sure a pre-move draft needs to be untouched for a week (our author will be even less likely to work with a reviewer if we only start addressing the article once they're gone for a week), but if we do agree that there needs to be a "countdown", a PROD-like tag sounds like a solution. To the overall point, past the cherrypicking, when I patrol new articles, many new users are unaware of Articles for Creation's existence, nevertheless its purpose (to guide them through notability, reliable sources, etc.) I see no detriment to new users being made aware of this process instead of being thrown into an esoteric and coarse, full-on AfD discussion. All in all, when I consider what's best for the encyclopedia, having a new user guided through the ropes (by someone prepared to do so) is much better than either letting the undersourced or inappropriately sourced article languish in mainspace or raking the new user over the coals of AfD. czar 14:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes but generally there should be consensus to do so either through CSD or otherwise. However, there are cases where an article may only have a single significant contributor, and achieving a consensus of editors maybe difficult. Some might suggest to userify these articles, but the draft namespace may draw more eyes to help its development.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only for new articles. There should be some time limit here so that people don't start mass-migrating old stubs to the draft namespace. I think if an article has survived for a month or so in the main namespace, you shouldn't be able to move it to draft namespace without discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Old articles (sometimes several years old) get deleted, too. I'd rather see those moved to draft space than completely removed and inaccessible. Mandating some previous discussion might be OK, but IMO requiring a full RfC or other formal process is overkill except when the move is contested. Honestly, I would treat moving articles to draft space just like any other page move. Diego (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Old articles should only be removed from the mainspace via the deletion process, same for new articles - which was exactly the case before the speedy draft clause was implemented without discussion or consensus. It really does mandate process, because one should not be able to speedily draft an article from 2004, and have it silently deleted in 6 months. - hahnchen 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What is being asked? - For a lasting move, there needs to be consensus. But just as one can WP:BOLDly decide to turn a page into a redirect, merge content, or just about anything else, one can decide the best course of action is to move to Drafts/Userspace/wherever. Someone else is then free to revert and the move would then have to be discussed before redone. This seems pretty standard, so what is this RfC asking? If it's simply "is such a move ever allowed", then my answer is "obviously, yes". If you're proposing disallowing such moves, I would say "no". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, the proposer has also complained multiple times to WikiProject Video Games about about editors and their BOLD redirects/merges, where he's usually told by editors (myself included) that its allowed as long as its a good-faith, with edit summaries, and following BRD. So basically, he seems to have the same hangups with your examples of things that are also okay. You make an interesting point though - even if there was a consensus against BOLD moves to draftspace, then editors would just take the BOLD redirect route instead, which isn't particularly better, as new editors often mistake redirects for outright deletion/unavailability of content. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: Previous guidelines that drafts replace such as the article incubator and userfication, and long standing deletion policy, state that articles can only be removed from the main space via the deletion process. The current draft guideline says that deletion process is no longer required. The question is being asked to ascertain whether that change is endorsed. - hahnchen 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:Deletion Policy does NOT say articles can only be moved from mainspace via deletion process. It does however directly state that incubation to Draftspace is an alternate to deletion, and appears to support the current guideline here. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No While obviously people can ignore rules and be bold, we should advise against it. Articles should not be moved out of mainspace without some sort of deletion process. If it is bad enough to need to be removed from mainspace, it is bad enough to go through consensus building deletion processes. If it's just not good, we have cleanup templates. By moving it out of the mainspace, we actually reduce the chances of it being seen and cleaned up. Wugapodes (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deletion processes are for articles that need admin tools.  WP:Deletion policy, in the section on Alternatives to Deletion states,

    Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace, where they may continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Wugapodes. What if we had editors boldly removing articles (maybe for POV reasons) moving articles into userspace or draft namespace and those articles getting re-created by someone else in article namespace? Now we have two competing versions? Draft namespace exist primarily for n00bs and CoI editors and those perfected drafts get moved into article namespace by WikiProject AfC. It's not meant to work the other way. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, per nom, James500 and Chris troutman. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Only for new articles, recently placed in mainspace and woefully unready. Articles for which an AfD decision to userfy of move to Draft is obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, unless it's passed an AfD where someone has agreed to pick it up. There currently exists a discrepancy in the policies; WP:USERFY#NO states that articles can only be draftified after passing an AfD, while WP:ATD-I states that draftification is an alternative to deletion but doesn't state when it should be applied. Since draftification essentially amounts to deletion (which currently requires either consensus or meeting certain criteria), and the current draft policy tries to prevent abandoned drafts as much as possible, I propose that articles only be draftified if an editor, whether it be the original creator or someone else, agrees to take over and try and improve it to be mainspace worthy. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nathan2055: The major issue with your recommended solution is that in WP:AFD's current state and guidelines, the nominator has to nominate the article specifically for deletion. Other editors are free to suggest alternatives during the course of the discussion, but the nominator is restricted to advocating for deletion. If any other action is suggested by the nominator, the discussion gets closed to "wrong forum". If your idea is to be executed adequately, AFD needs to be renamed "Articles for discussion" first to allow the nominator to provide alternative options than deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Depends on the situation. Idea: A new process similar to AfD could be introduced for these types of cases. Have it act like an AfD but call it something else (or just call it AfD and make AfD "Articles for Discussion"). But like AfD, people can be bold and do it instantly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hahnchen When I nominated it for AfD it was in a horrible state, no actual references, very little info, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Anarchyte I agree that the article was in a bad state. It would still be in a bad state had it remained in draft. - hahnchen 11:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I have tagged the line to indicate that it is under discussion. I don't think the wording should remain; it does not provide a rationale or guidance on the circumstances when an editor may unilaterally soft-delete an article, nor does it offer any protections against possible misuse. There may be scope for us to consider circumstances when articles should be removed from mainspace without prior discussion for a reason not yet given under deletion policy - such as when an article is poorly written, though we should have a widely advertised discussion about that, and get broader consensus. We would need to set up guidance for the circumstances where someone can and can't do it, and what notification (if any) they should give, and how such moves can be challenged or swiftly undone. Referring to the wording in WP:ATD-I is misleading as that is not discussing the accepted processes, which are dealt with in the following section: WP:DEL-PROCESSES. Currently we do not hard or soft delete pages from mainspace without consensus or accepted rationales (and certainly not without notifying the page creator at least!). Though we do allow merges and redirects to take place without consensus, we would regard the essential difference in that a merge or redirect leaves a page in place under the original name, which directs readers to the new place, while a move into draftspace removes the original page and any redirect, so it is completely vanished. That is an important distinction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork:: (1) WP:Soft deletion and WP:SOFTDELETE are a redirects to WP:Deletion process...the definition you are using from WP:AI has been marked "historical".  (2) You are the editor who added the word "may" in WP:ATD-I, that articles "may" be moved to draft space, diff.  (3) WP:ATD-I is a part of alternatives to deletion, while WP:DEL-PROCESSES is for deletion processes.  (4) You've not discussed the impact on a fundamental principle, the right to edit without permission.  Why isn't incubation an admin process?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's not allowed, it should be, within reason - especially for brand-new or just-moved-to-article-space articles that haven't already been through a review process.
    "Within reason" because moving to Draft: works best for new articles if either
    • the topic isn't notable now but there's a good chance it will be soon, or
    • the topic is at least barely notable but neither a stub nor the current article is better than no article at all AND cleaning up the existing article is not a "quick fix" (e.g. an article that is borderline-Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over).
    Any such move should be a one-time thing and it should be revert-able, similar to a WP:Proposed deletion nomination.
    For non-new-to-article-space pages that fit one of these two criteria, the better solution would be to either spend a few days fixing it or send it to WP:AFD with a recommended outcome of "move to Draft so interested editors can take the time to fix it without feeling rushed, with an WP:AFC or WP:DRV-like review required before moving it back." The same thing should be considered for "contested (i.e. reverted) move-to-draft" actions.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Contextual/Depends etc. etc.. We're still somewhat feeling out how to use Draft: space. Writing new inflexible rules is not a good idea at this point. --LukeSurl t c 13:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Usually no. I think I'm lining up with the majority here, in rejecting either extreme. The main contributor certainly ought to be able to move the page when it's new (what if you meant to start it in the Draftspace but accidentally created it in the mainspace?). But generally, I think that best practice for normal circumstances is
    1. not to move any non-deletion-worthy page to the draftspace,
    2. to keep redirects if you move a page there (so that previous editors and others can find it), and
    3. to notify the creator.
      If your choice is draft vs PROD, or draft vs AFD, then boldly moving it to draftspace is okay with me. But if you think that deletion will fail, then it probably doesn't belong in the draftspace, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:USERFY is an essay, while WP:Deletion policy provides relevant guidance:
Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the interest in making moves to draftspace an administrative tool, that might be a topic for a new RfC.  I suspect that such an RfC would result in an objection to WP:CREEP, as I see no reason to require admins in this decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • An issue that might not be obvious to readers, is that a point made by Chris Troutman regarding the problem of duplicate articles in draftspace and mainspace, was indirectly supported by WhatamIdoing in saying to keep the cross-space redirect.  My experience has been that this is a problem (needs attention).  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No. In general no. There are times it might make sense (moving an article where you are the only significant author and the article is problematic in mainspace for example), but in general this shouldn't be a backdoor deletion. When done in good faith (with the intent of actually improving the article not just moving something you don't like) with a new and poor article, it could also be a reasonable step. But you damn well better be working on it. Doing so to articles you don't have any intent of improving should be blockable as disruptive--draft space moves aren't meant to be a backdoor way to delete something when you couldn't delete it through the front door (CSD/Prod/AfD). Hobit (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Where in that statement is your support for our WP:5P fundamental principles and our WP:Deletion policy?  Also, let's talk about a real problem, articles without a single source.  Do you oppose moving articles without sources to draftspace?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You are free to !vote and close AFDs as "delete and draftify" as an alternative to deletion. Here's an example - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabletop Simulator. WP:5P allows for editors to create articles in the mainspace, removing those from mainspace without process is a lack of respect that contravenes WP:5P4. Editors have never been allowed to soft delete articles, as was explicitly stated in the article incubator process that drafts replace. You're free to WP:IAR all you want, but right now, we don't even have a rule to ignore, because right now "anything goes". - hahnchen 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hahnchen: Right now, the alternative that you just presented cannot happen adequately in WP:AFD's current state. Basically, anyone except the nominator can vote in an AFD discussion with whatever opinion they have, but the nominator has to vote for deletion. If the nominator presents any other option than deletion, the discussion gets closed per "wrong forum". If you want the resolution that you are suggesting, AFD needs to be renamed "Articles for discussion"; otherwise, nominations to move an article to the draft namespace will be closed on sight. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hahnchen: No, it's not; it's one or the other. Please refer to WP:AFD's opening section: nowhere in there does it state that a nominator can nominate or suggest nominating an article for anything other than deletion. "Delete and userfy" is not deletion: "Delete and userfy" is moving an article out of the article namespace, then deleting the leftover redirect per WP:CSD#R2 ... which retains the contents of the article, although it is now in a different namespace. In WP:AFD's current state, a nomination of "Move to draft namespace" or "userfy (in any form)" being stated by the nominator in the opening nomination gets closed to "wrong forum". Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, using caution and sense. You're basically talking about the same sort of rationale which would be used in userfication, which we have always done, and yet generally done rarely. KillerChihuahua 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No and this is somewhat self-serving but only admins when evaluating CSD criteria or when an AFD is up should be able to consider that option. I think it's no different than deletion of the article itself (or userification). I don't recall a single proposal that would support users unilaterally userifying various articles based on a lack of quality so I don't see why we should change that. Perhaps it's time to rewrite CSD to add moving to draftspace as an option. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely yes — because if someone disagrees, they move it back, subject to the usual requested moves and/or page protection should someone edit war over it. There's no reason to consider moving something out of article space to be considered "deletion," because it's not. It can be reverted without being an admin. It's a move. --slakr\ talk / 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes per User:Starblind and others. As one of the original proposers of Draftspace, the Draftspace was created for purely technical reasons but after merger with Article Incubator, has now also become a place for drafts to be worked on, if their quality is not upto articlespace level. Restricting articles from being moved to draftspace, then, is certainly not the move that will be really helpful in this regard.
Of course, the caveat of BRD, which most Yes votes agree on, still applies here. We should not be making Draftification as a substitute for controversial deletions, but I believe BRD covers those cases very well. But at the same time, Draftification is mighty useful for quite a lot of articles that got through AFC (or bypassed it) and might need additional work before it can be added back to namespace.
Soni (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No per Od Mishehu - An article that would be a "Keep" at AfD should be in the mainspace, full stop. To do anything else with it would be an end run around AfD, one of the best-established and most authoritative processes we have. If you think it should be draftified, take it to AfD and ask for draftification if the verdict is something other than "Keep". If the verdict is "Keep", it belongs in mainspace. It is, of course, acceptable to clone the article to userspace or draftspace to aid in major restructuring that will be copied back to mainspace later. A2soup (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A2soup, the issue is what can be done with articles that would *not* be a "Keep" at AfD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we move to Draft the valid articles that should be kept at main space, which was your concern; yet many of us don't think that archiving invalid articles for reuse should require a full formal deletion process. That heavy process only exist because deleted pages are made out of reach to most editors, which is not a problem with Draft, for which WP:BRD should be enough. Diego (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
    • How do you know it's not a keep at AFD? If it's a CSD candidate, sure, draftify it. This RFC doesn't address CSD candidates. If you're just assuming the outcome of a process you haven't initiated, don't. - hahnchen 14:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
      • If someone makes a PROD an no one else objects to it on time, it is an automatic deletion. The benefit in moving to Draft instead is that someone else could still see the content later than a week after the first individual decision. Your objection would have a lot more weight if we didn't already have in place one process that can delete articles without discussion, but we have it; moving to Draft is an improvement on that. Diego (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with expired PRODs being moved into Draft space, like any other CSD candidate. PROD isn't an individual decision, it's a process, and anyone seeing a PROD tag can remove it, including anonymous editors, you're likely to get more hits in one week in the mainspace then you will 6 months in draftspace. Compare Bjørn Lynne with Draft:Bjørn Lynne. - hahnchen 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
          • So maybe what we need is a version of PROD to request that the article is moved to draft if there is no opposition, rather than deleted. This should solve the concerns of those that oppose a direct move from article space to draft without discussion. Diego (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional yes if it is quite clear that the article is not in a state for publishing as an article and a WP:BOLD move of the article to the draft namespace would most likely not be seen as controversial. I say "conditional" in my vote because I would actually change my opinion to "no" if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion were to be renamed "Articles for discussion", allowing alternate resolutions to be presented by the nominator other than deletion. Moving an article to the draft namespace is akin to the former function of the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, under PROD We just need to explicitly allow a move to draftspace as an alternative to deletion under PROD where the reviewing admin chooses it, or where the nominator specifically requests it. I would honestly even suggest that we deprecate PROD in favor of "PROD to draftspace". Maybe there are some people who find PROD useful still, but so frequently it turns into a week's delay on starting an AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No The Incubator failed, AFC failed and now the Draft space is going to go the same way. It is our editing policy to work on draft topics in mainspace because Wikipedia is a work-in-progress in which 99% of articles have yet to reach good quality. Mainspace is the best place to work on topics because that's where everyone can see them. If a topic is hopeless then it should be deleted rather than become a zombie or other variety of living dead. We have plenty of deletion processes already and these proliferating draft processes are too creepy. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No. At least, not unilaterally without discussion. It can be done as a result of an AfD discussion, and is increasingly being done, as an obvious variant on the long-established AfD conclusion that an article should be userified. But an individual editor--except the sole substantial editor of an article--should not be able to do this. DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer set thresholds and repeated submissions

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In at least two cases at the top of MfD are cases where well fleshed looking drafts have been repeatedly submitted and rejected. I would like to support AfC reviewers against repeated submissions of unimproved drafts, but cannot where the reviewers expectations are higher than that found at AfD.

I suggest if a draft is repeatedly submitted without addressing reviewer points, that you apply a different template that tells how to move to mainspace, and warns of AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

sometimes that is indeed the case, (and in fact I just moved one of the articles being discussed there to mainspace, because it will clearly meet the relevant notability ). But usually it's quite otherwise--the article is altogether hopeless, and MfD is the simplest way to handle it, rather than going through the additional bureaucracy of first accepting it and then deleting it. There is general agreement that at least an article must be likely to pass at afd before accepting the afc, but trying to quantitate it is difficult. Some think it's just enough to be >50%, I'd say it has to be >66%, but in practice I see that almost everything I accept has remained in WP. The place for articles to be improved is in mainspace, where everybody can see and work on them. Many afc rejects are improperly demanding, but it does serve a useful process in screening out most of the junk. Most repeated rejections are for good reasons, and the repeated resubmission are by persistent promotional editors.
I don't think we can deal with this by changing formal rules or procedures; we need to change it by educating the people who are declining based on unreasonable expectations. The first step is to get more good and experienced people to review the drafts. But if we do change anything, it should perhaps be a more liberal use of G11 on AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
That is all quite agreeable. Persistent repeated resubmission by persistent promotional editors should indeed lead to G11 tagging.
In practice I see that almost everything I accept has remained in WP. You probably have a better eye than most. I suspect that many are trying for the same thing, and the easiest way to achieve it is by being demanding. Is there a way to find articles deleted at AfD that were approved at AfC? I think most reviewers should have a few such articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm presuming you are discussing ones where the content and tone are not problems. A draft that has sufficient sources but is a mess is another matter. The general way I've seen it done is to bring it up at WT:AFC. It calls out the AFC decliner (or decliners as the case may be) and gets more eyes on it. AFC probably needs more explicit instructions on what its standards at for reviews. If the tone is the problem (say someone fighting to keep mountains of promotional nonsense in a draft for someone who should legitimately be ok), I think the solution (someone did this once) is to create a fork, properly attribute it (edit summary that "draft split from main draft at page X, diff number Y"), add comments about separate drafts and then clean up your draft version and submit that (or just move it yourself) with a request to history merge the other history into it after the fact and redirect the remaining blanked after-the-split history. Sounds convoluted but it does actually fix the problems without the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Drafts with disallowed titles

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have undone this edit by CasetteTapeMaster (talk · contribs), suggesting that drafts with disallowed titles should be named "Wikipedia:Draft:<something>" (Examples Wikipedia:Draft:௨, Wikipedia:Draft:তেলুগু ভাষা). I don't think this is a good idea, as such pages will be missed by the usual processes that work in the Draft namespace. Better advice, I think, would be to create a page in the Draft namespace with an allowed title, with a note to the reviewer of the intended mainspace title. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving Userspace drafts into Draftspace or Mainspace

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts moves from Userspace to Draft or Mainspace are permitted.

"Drafts of Wikipedia articles may be stored in the "Draft" namespace. They allow new articles to be developed before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace... Editors may also create draft pages in their userspace instead if they so prefer." Therefore Userspace drafts are also Drafts.

"Anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit drafts."[1] with instructions for creating them in Draft and Userspace.

"An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other registered user can decide that it is done and can be published. " and "Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process." Therefore any registered editor can move it, nominate to delete, submit to AfC etc.

"Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first." There is an expectation that they be brought up to the standards of quality at some point though.

Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Drafts is not a policy or a guideline. The guideline Wikipedia:User pages says that user space drafts can be moved to Draft space "if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing". I wouldn't feel comfortable in moving a user space draft where the user is still active unless (1) I asked the user and he/she agreed, or (2) the user submitted the page to AfC and it was declined. This is presuming, of course, that the page isn't eligible for deletion (copyright, promotional, hoax, web host, etc.)—Anne Delong (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not mainly concerned with active users, but long gone ones. However, if one wanted to write up an article on Widgets and found a good draft already existed in an active user's userspace, it would be fine to go edit the draft and promote it. Why would anyone object and on what grounds? Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Find sources AFD

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Idea:

As nearly all drafts have issues with sourcing, how about we modify {{Draft article}}, which I understand should be added to the top of every draft, to include {{Find sources AFD}}, which of all the templates that assist in find sources looks to be the best. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great. This will encourage proper sourcing and make life easier. I see no downside. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed for Template:Draft article and Template:Userspace draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't get it Template:Draft article already includes Template:Find sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

precedence: existing drafts vs. new mainspace articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there an established precedent for one taking precedence? One of the reasons I like the draftspace vs. a sandbox is that it makes work more "findable". There have been times that people have expressed to me that they were concerned about working in the Drafts space because someone who's more hasty could create another version of the same article in mainspace in the meantime and they wouldn't get "credit" for it. Credit, as with ownership, is a touchy thing on Wikipedia, but this seems like a reasonable concern. My assumption has generally been that if a draft exists (with usable content) and someone else creates the mainspace article, then we would treat it as though the draft were an existing article and someone else created another article on the same topic (i.e. we would merge the new article to the old one and redirect). In practice, that doesn't seem to be the way it works, and I was surprised not to be able to find guidance on this page.

An example which led me here: someone created Draft:Mary Patten on 3/6. Two days later, someone created Mary Patten about the same subject. The new one had a little more content than the old (I say that and also ask to what extent that matters). Another editor then merged some of the content from the draft into the article and nominated the draft for deletion. The MfD was closed as redirect. It seems an ideal solution would be a history merge, but I admit I don't have a great sense of when that's possible. If that were out of the question, I would have assumed that because the Draft predated the article, it would be the one kept. If there is no such precedent, what are the variables involved? Quality? Default to the article? What if e.g. we have a 5-year-old very good draft and a new really lousy article?

To be clear, I'm not contesting the MfD -- just trying to figure out if we have best practices written down somewhere (and if not, what it should say). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally if the two creations are similar to any extent, the earliest should take precedence, and then just request a hist merge if that needs to happen. And if a draft has been stewing for a while and someone decides to up and create the article, there may have been a good reason why the draft was being crafted for that long (ie film article drafts can't move to the mainspace until production starts per WP:NFF), so in a case like that, judgement should be used if the article contents should merge into the draft, or just be deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: is there a deadline for a draft?

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion
I'm involved on this issue, but I highly doubt this close will be contested by anyone. Feel free to revert if you feel this is inaccurate here. I see no consensus for any change here, but that doesn't matter anyway, because there's ongoing large-scale discussion of this issue at Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring and Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Should_old_user_space_drafts_have_an_expiration_date.3F. Those discussions are currently pending closure, and they're likely to yield a consensus on the issue. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suppose this question has probably asked before but I'm asking it anyway (philosophers will lose jobs if they are not allowed to do so.) So, are there deadlines for pages in the draft namespace? I thought there isn't one and some agree but some other disagree; cf. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves.

We might be able to agree that, say, a 90% complete draft can stay in the draft namespace; for example, the author is a perfectionist and doesn't want to move it to the main namespace unless it's really really complete. I think articles like that can and should stay in the draft namespace. What about one sentence page? A page with only outlines? If there are potentials for them to become main-namespace articles (e.g., passes notability), then I'm of the opinion that drafts like those can and should stay in the draft namespace. Because, why delete?, which is simply a counterproductive action. In my personal case, I'm in the middle of finishing my Ph.D. thesis and have no time to develop some of very-short drafts but I don't want them to be deleted (since I need to recreate them later.) Why must those drafts be deleted? For what end?

-- Taku (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong question The better question to ask is Is deliberately going out to claim "creation" credit by creating draft namespace pages below the standard of even a stub a use of draft namespace that is endorsed by community consensus. You created most of these back in 2014 (and in some cases with the only content being 2 references). IF these are truly notable, they will be recreated and the user who actually makes real effort to getting it to something that can be accepted. Hasteur (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, even in other namespaces, the already established policy (WP:STUB and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Minimum_standard_for_stub_articles) dictates that you just can't leave these abandoned and not above the minimum level of even a stub. Our argument that Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves at this level is acceptable is a farce and an affront to all the editors who are using the space correctly. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
See also Draft:Quillen metric by the same editor. Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this is somewhat the wrong question. The situation here is that Taku has created several pages in the draft namespace that are devoid of any useful encyclopedic content. In some cases, they are incomprehensible (not because the material that they cover is incomprehensible, but because they are simply incomprehensible). The idea of drafts is to encourage editors to work on topics. Having almost empty, incomprehensible drafts runs contrary to that aim. I can easily imagine that it would actually discourage other editors from starting articles on these topics, because someone else is already "working" on them. There is no useful encyclopedic content to these drafts, and the "Draft" namespace is not Taku's personal sandbox. If he wants to keep collections of notes like these, he can do that in his own userspace. The draft namespace is for article drafts, not our own private drunken scribblings. Sławomir
    Biały     14:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I think I see where you're coming from but the experience suggests otherwise (e.g., Suslin homology.) The way Wiki works is that having even nearly empty page encourages further contributions (since some editors do not like the states.) IF I caused such discouragement on you in particular, then I'm certainly open to deletion or etc. Dismoralizing you would be the last thing I want. -- Taku (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The deadline for a draft article expires when another editor proceeds to work on it and not a moment sooner.
There is no reason to "expire" drafts otherwise, especially not when they are on recognised notable topics. Nor is the complete absence of content a drawback, if they merely contain notes or useful references. They are not "in the way".
Nor. on the other hand, should stale drafts be seen as a hindrance to other editors moving forwards. A "creator" (dreadful idea) does not get to claim WP:OWNership of a place in the namespace unless they did actually get round to writing the article. But discouraging this doesn't require deletion. One could even claim, quite reasonably, that a draft with the only text "Here's a couple of useful refs for anyone who has the time to write that I obviously haven't" is still an encouragement to collegial editing and so has value.
If something is "private drunken scribblings", then it should be removed (as text, not necessarily by deleting a whole page) because that content is wrong. I hope the implication isn't that noting down refs is no better than "drunken scribblings". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No hard deadline, but object to the question: The word "reasonable" must be in play, and with respect to the totality of the circumstances. If there is no reasonable chance of the draft becoming an article, whether because of its content or the lack of attention it has received over a prolonged period, then deletion may indeed be considered. People who create drafts should be given a reasonable period of time to work on them, but this must be checked by WP:NOTWEBHOST. If you want to compile a list of references for your own purposes of writing an article, then you can do so offline or in a pastebin. We must recall that draftspace is not indexed, and when people look for unwritten articles they do not check draftspace by default. Someone looking for the article about, say, "Moduli stack of elliptic curves" will find it redlinked. If they want to try creating an article, nine times out of ten they'll just start in mainspace without looking anywhere else. Listing a few references, which probably show up in a Google Scholar search for that topic, doesn't realistically help anybody. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    • We clearly have different views on the draft namespace. Isn't the draft namespace created to allow for a sort of sandbox-type materials? as we don't want them in the main namespace but want to provide a space for the development of the below-standard article materials? Like a bare list, non-English text, incorrectly formatted text. It makes sense for example to collaborately translate non-English text to English in the draft namespace. I guess the draft namespace may fail in the respect. -- Taku (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Sandbox material goes in WP:SANDBOX or in your userspace sandbox. Article drafts may, certainly, go in draftspace. But the purpose of an article draft is to create an article. If what is created in draftspace has no reasonable hope of becoming an article, then it doesn't make sense to retain it, for it fails in the very purpose of being a draft. Whether there is a reasonable hope is a function of a lot of factors, including the quality of its content, what the subject is, and how much time has passed since someone last used it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I'm missing something but why does the reasonable hope for the draft to move to the main namespace need to diminish over the time, as if some sort of fruit? Unlike an apple, a 2-year old draft is as good or bad as today's draft. A hopeless draft is hopeless if it is fresh or not. If there is ever such an instance of diminishment, I haven't seen it. My experience as noted above says otherwise. -- Taku (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no deadline for a draft if there is reasonable prospect that it can be improved to make an article.
potential is what matters, not age. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:TakuyaMurata I don't think the usefulness declines but the chance the user will improve it does the older it gets. There are exceptions of course for time sensitive topics. A stale draft about an album set for release in 2010, or a future election in 2012 (being checked in 2016) has become useless. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. Articles with strong promotional motivation, bands, albums, for-profit-companies should be treated more sternly than others. WP:CRYSTAL drafting is perfectly OK, but once the then-future date passes, sources should then be strong and if they are not then it is probably best deleted (or archived?). Potential is what matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that Legacypac has made an important point. There are some news-y articles and drafts that become less interesting as time goes by. I believe, since Wikipedia is not a news site, such time sensitive topics should not be covered in the first place, regardless of namespaces. (I know people still create such pages all the time, though). I don't think the deadlines are a way to handle them; it's a poor approach at best. -- Taku (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC for proposed draftspace deletions

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion about a policy to allow for proposed deletion of old draftspace drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Archived unclosed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Expanding U5 to draftspace?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This is not an RfC; just a general gauging of opinion. Usually, the standards for inclusion in the draftspace are higher than in the userspace. Based on that, it seems to make sense to expand U5 to the draftspace. Opinions on that? ~ RobTalk 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I recommend clean delineations, instead: "D1: Old (6months) implausible looking draft by an inactive user with very few retained mainspace edits." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd rather have it explicitly tied to WP:NOTWEBHOST rather than "implausible looking". It's too difficult to define that. To be clear on what I'm trying to accomplish here, I'm trying to take out the bureaucratic MfD process from drafts like: "Mike is the best!" (which is very close to something I actually nominated today). While I routinely put in 15 minutes here and there trying to clean up the draftspace a bit, I feel bad making Xaosflux go through and snow close all of them as obvious deletions which would never survive a full discussion. It's easier if it's just an "official" CSD criteria. @SmokeyJoe: Would you support copying the exact text of U5 over as D1 with the small addition of the time limit? I think using a near-exact copy would make it more likely to achieve consensus in a community-wide RfC. I also would support any further tailoring to make this a narrow criteria. I'm not trying to pull a fast one here and bypass MfD when a discussion would be worthwhile, but there's definitely a good deal of cases where the violations are obvious. ~ RobTalk 07:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Some of these feel like A1 and A3 type pages as well after just recently WP:SNOW deleting Drafts like "xxx is the best teacher in the world because he is so fun!" (that was the entire content) ; and a another draft consisting of a dump of someones name, phone numbers, and address - there should be a speedy nomination criteria that could be used. Of course any speedy nomination could be decline, by anyone, and converted to a xfd. — xaosflux Talk 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I find this tricky. Keep it general, and people don't follow. Make it specific, and small mistakes kill the whole idea. Trying...

CSD Description of criterion Corresponding action for DraftSpace
A1 No context Editorially replace with an explanatory template. Your draft had no context.
A2 Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. Editorially soft redirect to the article on the other project
A3 No content Ignore. No action at all required.
A5 Transwikied articles Editorially soft redirect to the article on the other project
A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) Speedy delete if promotional, a weaker promotion test than G11 if the author is a drive-by contributor, similar to U5
A9 No indication of importance (musical recordings) Speedy delete if promotional, a weaker promotion test than G11 if the author is a drive-by contributor, similar to U5
A10 Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Editorially (soft) redirect to the mainspace title. No need for "recent".
A11 Obviously invented. Similar to G3 (hoax) but less strict. Editorially blank with an explanatory template. eg. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.
For all of them, actions shouldn't be made hastily. Give the user some time, definitely many minutes, probably a week.
Probably, all users submitting drafts of any kind, good or bad, should be welcomed. The welcome template provides links that are very helpful to newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Accidental content forks in Draftspace

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the A10 case for draftspace, accidental content forks, the options would be:

(1) Speedy delete them; or
(2) Take them individually to MfD; or
(3) Redirect the redundant to draft to the viable mainspace title.
(3a) Replace with a soft redirecting template that explains that the topic appears to be already covered in mainspace, with advice on what to do if that is not actually true, such is if a spinout is being attempted, or title disambiguation is needed
(4) Ignore them, leave them as they are, or (4a) blank

I support (3) or (3a), followed by (1) (weak oppose, administratively heavy overkill for unimportant draftspace) and strongly opposing (2). (4) is what most people do. (4a) probably confuses, making (3) or (3a) better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

U5 has had a lot of poor nominations that cover a lot of real draft attempts, so I would prefer not to have this for drafts as well. But some of the other things are appropriate to delete quickly, eg a dump of phone numbers. If there is an inappropriate outing or disclosure of information I am happy to speedy delete that without a clear criterion, but perhaps oversighting applies anyway. On the topic of content forks it is best to understand why they exist. If an accident then a redirect/merge may be appropriate. But they may be a way to work on an article outside of article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the consensus on STALE drafts to AfC without the author's permission?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What's the consensus on adding STALE drafts to AfC without the author's permission? I ask this because while looking through the list of stale drafts, I sometimes come across a few viable drafts that if were added to AfC, more editors would take note of and possibly improve. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the result was, not conclusive, but I dare say that if done in good faith it is a good thing to do. You must honestly believe that others will likely be able to improve on the draft.
There was the question of how old is "stale"? See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Should_old_user_space_drafts_have_an_expiration_date.3F. There is no limit per se.
I think "stale" is a bad word, different things go stale at different rates. I think the author being inactive 6 months might be the minimum. I think you should be sure to leave a note on the author's talk page explaining what you are doing. A human-worded note. Even if inactive at editing, many still lurk, and some even have activated email notification of talk page edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with SmokeyJoe if we're talking about actual drafts, not userspace drafts. I don't think userspace drafts should be moved to AfC without permission. On the other hand, if either type of draft is ready for mainspace (or you can make it ready for mainspace), go ahead and move it straight there. ~ RobTalk 18:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I presume we are discuss userspace. The age of stale has been expressly discussed and is incorporated into WP:STALE: namely both the editor and the page has to be inactive for at least a year. Draftspace ones that are not in AFC have no stale equivalent as there is no WP:OWNership of them; let AFC see if they want to handle those or we just go with MFD as the only other option to leaving it alone. The last time this actually occurred, where I moved drafts from inactive users into AFC, the AFC project blew a gasket at me for trying that. This proposal should be discussed with the project first, even though a script has been available to do this for years, in case there's a change in attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Both the editor and the page has to be inactive for at least a year" is a good measure of inactive, for a draft. Please can we move away from that work stale?
  • Head gaskets tend to blow most often when putting too much power through a cold engine. The message, directed particularly at you, is to discuss before embarking on major changes, more than that the major change was a bad idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Tagging drafts

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Ideas for categorizing by tags in subsections below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Promising draft

Add this tag to a draft that appears promising. The tag would would autocategorise, and this will help editors find worthy drafts to work. Please check to see if the topic is already covered in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No-hope draft, Non-starter draft

Drafts that are hopeless, whether they have no content, or no serious content, or the topic is something made up, or trivial, etc, especially where the author was a drive-by short term editor or IP, blank the whole page, including any AfC tags, replacing with {{Non-starter draft}}.

This tag will auto-categorise there hopeless drafts, removing them from other maintenance categories. When there are enough of them, propose the hole list for deletion at MfD. This will allow for a cursory review of the tagged drafts, allowing the community to check that the draft reviewing taggers are tagging reasonably. This tagging system may be consideration a variation on Draft-Prod, but the difference being that deletion is not automatic, not at first anyway. These group nominations may even help identify patterns that may demand more sophisticated responses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft soft redirect

Many drafts are accidental content forks. These are made as newbie mistakes, the newcomer thought they had an idea for an article topic, but failed to discover that the topic is already covered, whether as a stand alone whole article, or within an article. The soft redirect will be informative to the author, and to anyone else in future about to make the same newbie mistake.

A {{Draft soft redirect}} would be modelled on Template:Soft redirect, or could be a modification of that template using a new parameter. The soft redirect should point to the article or article section containing the template, and would also provide some text stating that the draft in the history of the redirect appears to be redundant to content already in mainspace, that that editors should improve existing content where it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

General discussion

  • I quite like this idea of categorizing promising and NOTWEBHOST drafts, but we have to be careful how we implement it. I'd prefer {{NOTWEBHOST draft}} to {{Non-starter draft}} to be very clear on what it's for. The guidelines for applying such a template should be similar to WP:U5; the violation should be blatant and considered uncontroversial given past MfD outcomes. Basically, if you think it would be SNOW closed as an obvious deletion candidate per NOTWEBHOST, that template would be appropriate. I'd recommend that the nominator of the mass-noms make clear in the nomination that any editor may pull any draft off of the list if they consider it too controversial for the mass-nom (this avoids procedural keeps of the whole lot). To make it easier to review the NOTWEBHOST mass-nom, I'd also recommend not blanking pages; the template can just be stuck at the top. Given existing bots that pull reports of stale drafts, I prefer full redirects over soft redirects, so I oppose that last idea. Instead, we could create {{R from draft}} to categorize redirects from drafts. That template could include an explanation of where future contributions should be made. ~ RobTalk 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have {{NOTWEBHOST draft}} separately, or to advise that NOTWEBHOST violating drafts should go straight to MfD. I have never objected to MfD nominations citing a valid NOTWEBHOST issue. The problem is with the many drafts that are not specific NOTWEBHOST, but just plain hopeless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that's where the rub is; I believe NOTWEBHOST applies to hopeless drafts. In the April RfC, the majority of the community agreed with me (question A3, if I remember the number right). ~ RobTalk 08:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's flesh that out. A hopeless draft, what line in policy, at WP:NOT, does it violate? Question A3 was particularly frustrating, to consensus building, because it confused a guideline, WP:GNG, from WP:N, a special case of WP:NOR, WP:PSTS specifically, with WP:NOTWEBHOST. The question was posed in terms of the GNG, and you began the trend and answering in terms of NOTWEBHOST. A non sequiter; a logical fallacy.
Consider, for example, a long dead historic supercentenarian. We have her name, address, date of birth, date of death and no more. Such a subject is well agreed to fail the WP:GNG, WP:N. There are no secondary sources (not just not in the article, but not in current existence) to satisfy WP:PSTS. Any attempt to write prose to flesh out a paragraph on the subject violates WP:NOR. The subject is not plausibly notable. However, there is nothing under WP:NOT proscribing coverage of supercentenarians. Consequently, the material is suitable for a merge.
WP:NOT is clearer, easier, and more stern. Anything violating WP:NOT is not allowed on Wikipedia, is not allowed in any namespace. Small exceptions (eg memorials of Wikipedians) are written directly into the policy.
Anything definitely violating WP:NOT should be deleted promptly. MfD is used to confirm the facts, and it is usually clear cut.
Hopeless drafts, no plausible chance of meeting the GNG, are typically newcomer tests, mistakes or misconceptions, but are not deliberate misuses. An important point is that there is no clear cut differentiations between the hopeless, the plausible, and the mergable. Indeed, many times someone has nominated for deletion alleging non-plausible draft, and then someone discovers the topic is already covered in mainspace, proving, de facto, that the nominator was incompetent at judging notability. Wikipedia-notability is complicated. Don't make it worse by confusing WP:N with WP:NOTWEBHOST. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pray tell, what was the point of all the work done in creating Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts if we're doing this all over again? Category:Abandoned Drafts articles by potential does exist. That idea was abandoned quickly and the same thing is being proposed it seems, except with the proposal being that there's a uniform "stamp" of potential that exists. I'm fine with a project taking it one but we should not just be unilaterally identifying pages in a particular draftspace as if these are GA or FA or some metric that's based on thorough review. And of course, we have the ever-pressing question of what to do with "low potential" or "non-starter drafts" if we don't propose actually deleting them as some point? All them to amass as a holding space for what will likely be tens of thousands of pages just to avoid the act of deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Which of those do you consider genuine and important questions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll let that go and work within your suggestions instead. Why don't you start by creating drafts for those templates in your userspace? There's no reason they have to be red links and we can move them later. I'd still suggest putting this under the guise of the Abandoned Drafts wikiproject. I don't think we should treat it as if there's a overall "Drafts" review project, especially for evaluating pages. Mainspace is still tagged by wikiprojects so the Abandoned Drafts project could incorporate your templates as part of its potential tagging if you'd like that. The front side has the template while the back is the low potential tag if you need a front-side tag. If we redid that project to add both the date reviewed and the potential parameter into say a Category:Low-potential WikiProject Abandoned Drafts from June 2016, and then considered review of these for the future, then I'd probably just shut up entirely with MFD and prods and whatnot and deal with all of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, could your proposed template:non-starter draft essentially be {{Abandoned Drafts|date=July 2016|potential=low}} or whatever? This would be on the talk page but the exact wording for the template can be adjusted by potential so low-potential ones say something different than mid or high ones. Would kill two birds with one stone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Ricky81682, that sounds sensible. I hesitate at "potential=low". My intention is that everything tagged "non-starter draft", after a while, after at least a group cursory review, will be deleted, sooner or later. (maybe via MfD everytime there is more than 100, some tools may be required). "potential=low" reads as is there is some potential, and noting that there are no time limits, if the potential is slowly developing into substance, this will derail the deletion of the no hopers.
I think, correct me if I am wrong, that drafts that are easily agreed to have "no potential" represent the vast bulk of the cruft that should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
We can rename it however you want. We can break it even further, the low/mid/high was a start to this idea but we can add a NS for non-starter category (if the editor returns, that's not as "harsh" as no potential). Like I said, if we combine it with the dates, it's not difficult to have a bot pull a report of say the non-starter drafts from a year that haven't been edited in that year and prepare a clean MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to start with NS / Non-Starter / no-hope for a category that gets routinely deleted. The tagger should assert "no potential", or at least "no potential in the current material". It should cater for stuff that is nearly content free, no sources, looks made up, looks like a test, is about the author's activities in college, etc. Maybe it should require that the author is was never a productive mainspace editor.
Could we change "low/mid/high" to "no/some/promising"-potential? I think there is advantage to the human newcomer. "No potential" is pretty clear, "low potential" leaves wriggle room. 'Promising" implies almost but not there. Assessed as "High potential" to me means that it should be moved to mainspace now.
NB. This is not intended for anything that violates any explicit part of WP:NOT, WP:NOTPROMOTION especially. These things should be MfD-ed or G11-ed immediately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: If we agree to move this to the project, I say we move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts and continue it there. I think the proposal is fine, but as I said before, it seems like it's starting over for something that's we already have a partial start on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably, although I am not sure what we have agreed, and what was already started there. I consider this has been about constraining what has been going on in the name of that WikiProject. I think we have started agreeing on concepts of how to work, and I am very happy to adjust to your details. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. I wasn't aware that there was a WP devoted to abandoned drafts (or a category for promising drafts), so maybe this could be worked into the existing project. An idea would be that we use templates to mark drafts with potential, which would put them into the appropriate category. Heck, we could maybe even work it into the assessment process by putting in something that would ask the submitter about the article's potential. If something is marked as high potential that could serve as an incentive for editors to continue working on the draft. Granted, the low potential tag could dissuade people from continuing, but that's not always a bad thing when you have someone writing about their garage band or self-published work.
There are other factors that need work, but this would be useful when it comes to articles that are spared from deletion by admins (or other editors) that see promise - only for said draft to get ignored and eventually G13'd because it didn't get the TLC it needed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5&oldid=1088307804"