Template talk:Userspace draft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Noindex

I'm going to add a noindex parameter and considering this is specifically for drafts, I'm going to make it the default.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just take care it should be placed only in the userspace part of the template, because as soon as the draft is transferred to article namespace, the noindex would be out of place. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do! I wasn't aware that noindex had been removed from it! Rd232 ^talk 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit. Not that I think that was done on purpose. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was this edit. But I'm not sure that it was placed right; actually, I'm not sure the conditional for this template is working period right now. I'm doing some testing. You might be able to get me on IRC.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you tell me where in that edit did you see {{Noindex}}? That was my edit, using "switch". If you look at the edit I linked to, you'll see the {{Noindex}} disappearing. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Right after the third <includeonly>.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right again. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On further research, it doesn't matter where it was placed in the code because the magic word: __NOINDEX__ has no affect in the mainspace by design. I didn't realize that until after I'd saved it in the template, so no point to moving it now. Also, the conditional for namespace was working fine, I just didn't catch the | ={{New unreviewed article|date={{{date|}}}}} worked only in the mainspace. Thus the template was not doing anything in the sandbox except feeding a cat.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented it with noindex default=yes, |noindex=no will override. Let me know if you see any errors, I was careful but I'm a novice with template code.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks just fine. Didn't kow about that mainspace restriction, but it is logical enough. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's documented at {{noindex}}, if you want to know the details. Rd232 ^talk 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an article

I agree with the proposal to use this in place of the other templates. How about swapping the wording to emphasise "not an article", given that is the key point, and shifting from blue=information to amber=caution? Example below. - Pointillist (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the blue because it makes the graphic really stand out - amber is such a common colour for Wikipedia notices. Also is blue is a nice, calm, friendly colour, which seems suitable for this. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the wording change. Don't care about color. The entire point, though, is to let the reader know they've run into something under the hood [BrEng: bonnet]. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I take that back. I think it should be purple, the color used (a little, and not quite in this way, that I know of) on some other templates that deprecate, let the user know it's humor page, or otherwise don't really "warn" but say "this is not important in any way". {{Humor}}, for example - the icon is purple. I think I saw one before the ambox change where the whole thing was purple, but that's a while back. Anyway, red, orange and yellow are used to flag article problems, so their usage here would be inappropriate. Blue is okay, I just liked purple because of its other uses. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Optional text

How about adding a parameter for optional text, to describe the nature of the draft article or invite other editors to participate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Also, this isn't a protected template, so if you know how to do it you needn't get an admin to do it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Date categorization code

[The original message in this thread was moved here from User talk:SMcCandlish.]

I noticed you added the {{Userspace draft}} template to User:SMcCandlish/Chinese eight-ball, User:SMcCandlish/Comparison of cue sports, User:SMcCandlish/List of World Blackball Champions, User:SMcCandlish/Russian pyramid, and User:Betodd/XSMotion. This template was created in September 2009. You used it for dates preceding this, thus causing an error message. I don't think it is a good idea to retroactively create those monthly maintenance categories. I do not know of another equivalent template, so perhaps we should just not tag articles created before September 2009. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Error messages? I assume you mean category redlinks. I had no intention of creating the categories in question, but cannot see how they would harm anything. In the interim, I just changed the dates to September 2009, as the earliest and wildly arbitrary "allowable" date, though it is inaccurate (sometimes a lot) for the pages in question and that bugs me a bit. This is not a permanent solution.

If the date categorization is actually needed, then the template needs a |old=yes that will put the tagged pages into Category:Userspace drafts from before September 2009 (note: name chosen to alphabetize properly) and override any |date=. I've even put |old=yes in all four of the "offending" pages mentioned above. However, there simply isn't any way to prevent users from using earlier dates and creating the missing categories. This "problem" (non-problem in my view) is true of all templates that link to dated maintenance categories based on user input. Anyway, the tag is useful on older as well as newer articles, and I don't see any reason not to use it just because the template is inflexible or because ultimately nothing can be done to stop people from fixing redlinks. :-)

Now, all that said, I don't see what the point of any of this categorization is. It will be seen by many as nosy and intrusive – "looking over my shoulder while I write" – and thus will discourage editors from using the template. It also doesn't seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose, any more than categorizing other subtypes of user page, such as todo lists and sandboxes. If the categorization is important for the wizard, then the wizard should perhaps use a variant template that does the categorization while this one doesn't.

On longer thought, I can see this going any number of ways:

1. No use at all for categorization much less date categorization; dump the date fields and categorization code
2. No use for date categorization but overall categorization is useful despite creepiness (just have one category, dump the rest and |date=)
3. No use for categorization unless draft created through wizard; separate template, which might or might not do date categorization, whatever the actual needs are
4. As is, but with a |nocat=yes that turns off all categorization
5. As is, but categorization off by default; |cat=yes would turn it on; wizard usage might turn it on, too. Use of |date= would turn it on, of course, also.
6. Probably others...

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you took care of all but User:SMcCandlish/Russian pyramid. I meant an error category Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. A nocat category would be a good idea, I guess. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Although your argument is correct, that the template can as well be used for months preceding its creation, nevertheless that is not regularly done with maintenance templates. You are the first in the four months this template exists to do so. I don't think we should start with it. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have any intention of doing so, but if it matters to you (why? I'm not sure what the issue is; not saying there isn't one, just that I don't see it [yet?]), then the issue really is that if the date field exists people can put whatever they want to in it, formatted weird or range-unlimited. The template is being "brittle" if it is throwing errors, that bug you or anyone else, about problem conditions that don't actually matter. (Maybe this does matter, but I'm not seeing how it does.) Anyway, I've already fixed my mini-mess with regard to this stuff, as noted (and I fixed the Russian pyramid one that I missed). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Include/noinclude cleanup

The template itself should not have to be hidden on its own page and then only illustrated with a manually edited former subst. That's just bad coding, and a major maintenance hassle. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Because if you are talking about what I think you are talking about, then I don't see the problem. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeat: The problem is that it's a maintenance hassle. Every single change to the template's displayed content has to be manually replicated in the example code in /doc. That's just silly and tiresome. The template itself should be visible on its own page. That means that some of the code in it needs to be surrounded by includeonly, so that the template doesn't categorize itself. I can do it, but it's almost nap time. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Since I'm still awake, I'll do it. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When I tried it, I saw why it doesn't work. There are other includeonlys that make this messy. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also remembered why it wasn't done before (the includeonlys can be evaded): because that would include the Category:Misplaced userspace drafts category. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd still be shocked if there weren't a way around the problem. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask User:Davidgothberg. He should know how to repress the category on the talk page. He has contributed significantly to that issue lately. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge two tags

{{Userspace draft}} and {{UserWorkInProgress}} share the same function, just have slightly differing features. A merge should be trivial. Only contention to settle that I can think of:

1. What icon?
2. What wording?
3. How to handle article name parameter?

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree with a merge. They are two different templates for two different things. With {{Userspace draft}} a user would tag a draft he made, and it would turn into {{New unreviewed article}} as soon as the draft is moved to main article namespace. But if the page were to stay in userspace, as a majority seem to do, they would still be "userspace drafts". {{UserWorkInProgress}} is only to show that the userpage is in progress, and is therefore not fit to stay for long times on a userpage. In general, I think {{UserWorkInProgress}} should just be deleted, as it is of no value to know about a userpage that it is under construction. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation at all: I cannot imagine that {{UserWorkInProgress}} is intended for anything but draft articles. The entire point of that template and this one is to warn readers who run across articles that are not in articlespace that they are not looking at real articles. Pages in userspace that are not article drafts will not satisfy this condition since they won't look like articles, and thus would need no such tag (i.e. no one is ever going to mistake someone's /Userboxen page for an article. But they would very easily mistake User:SMcCandlish/Russian pyramid for one if it were not so tagged.)

If that logic is accepted, then the templates do serve the same purpose, even if this one goes beyond the other by working with the wizard system. I've synchronized them as much as I can without making significant changes to code that is not easily mergeable (e.g. each has a different way of dealing with the article name. More on that below). Anyway, another way of saying it: {{UserWorkInProgress}} should be removed if it is found on anything that is not a draft article (or draft something else non-userish, I suppose, like a draft project or draft guideline - the {{{1}}} parameter of the other template can handle this case, while this template will presently not be able to do so.) As you put it, "it is of no value to know about a userpage that is under construction", indeed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I think you agree that the merge tags can be removed. Also I'll put {{UserWorkInProgress}} up at WP:TFD. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Either an outright merge or a TfD is fine by me, as long as we end up with one template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Tfd#Template:UserWorkInProgress. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name parameter

What is the point of the automated and rigid check for subpage, to fill in the article name field? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all, since many articles are sandboxed in /Sandbox or /Sandbox14 for that matter, or /My draft article, or whatever. This needs to be user specifiable. The code can be merged such that it is user-specifiable (this is also good for non-article drafts, such as draft portals - a namespace can be specfied), but will default to current subpage name if found on a subpage. If the extant code has something to do with not showing that file pagename location line when the page is (incorrectly) not in userspace, we really shouldn't bother with that, since we're already in an error condition when that happens, and the template should be removed or the page moved back. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This template frequently messes up by assuming the title of the draft is going to be the title of the article. By default, the perfect userspace draft template merely informs that the page is a draft. Only with a parameter explictly specified should it add the text about where the article will be located in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is why it says "may be located at". I think that some guess is better than none, but should consensus be otherwise, that part of the text could always be removed. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's helpful for flagging that the page already exists + a handy link, so I think that should be the default. But an optional parameter to specify an intended destination would make sense. Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot

Does Smackbot (or similar bot) regularly patrol pages with this template and add dates? If not, is this something that might be arranged? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. But it's usually me doing it manually, because of the even higher than usual rate and even more exotic ways the template gets mangled. Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Abandoned userspace drafts

Anyone know of a way we could track these automatically? A category like Category:Abandoned userspace drafts could be beneficial. -- œ^™ 08:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of template is hard to remember

I constantly forget the name of the tag to use for this. It should just be "{{userdraft}}" and nothing more. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A choice of redirects is available. You could, for example, use {{user draft}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I created a new redirect called {{userdraft}}. If I should have done anything else before creating it, just let me know. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Finished? do something...but what?

The template says "Finished? Move the page.". However, WP:RM states that moves from userspace are beyond the RM process (for non-autoconfirmed users) and suggests that the user submit to AFC. These users are getting the runaround, being told to move the page, then being told to submit to AFC. Can we change the wording of the template to direct newer users appropriately? Perhaps say "Finished? Submit the page", where submit links to appropriate AFC instructions? Users who know how to move pages will continue to do so. Open to suggestions, I just don't want to give newbies the runaround in this way. Cliff (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

I changed the link so that the user automatically request a review at the AFC (easier than explaining them "do this and that"). Pentan-Bot is already updated so that it moves the submission to the top, moves the pages and removes the empty headlines. mabdul 10:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Mabdul's change. The abovementioned problem exists only for non-autoconfirmed users. Which is probably a minority even among editors who are ready to move their first article to article namespace. In addition, there is no reason the editors of such articles should be referred by editors at WP:RM to WP:AFC. I think the best solution to the abovementioned problem is to go and explain that at WP:AFC. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article is good, then it will be easily accepted in the AFC review process, but this "trial of 4 days" showed us: most of the articles are unreferenced, rubbish or easily not notable. Some topic have potential and we are all happy if the submitter is first improving it by following the reviewer comments. As I said, check our stats at the bottom of WP:AFC/S and recognize that most are not notable. We are moving the workload from WP:FEED and the NPP to AFC. There is simply no differences! mabdul 10:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and every experienced editor is able to hit the move button in the tab bar and not having going through AFC. The page WP:SYMUD was also changed after a discussion in WP:VPM and nobody had anything against! mabdul 10:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How about adding two links? One saying "move the page" and a second one "submit it for a review". mabdul 10:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation has begun the process of phasing out the userspace draft from the Article wizard. In order to do this, we added a link to the template, so that new users with existing drafts know how to get it submitted. If they already know how move a page, then they most certainly don't need to click a little "move" button in the template. Experienced users don't even use the article wizard anyway. Requested moves is very bitey in dealing with userspace drafts that are not ready. New users simply give up, or they manage to find Articles for Creation. The option to create new userspace drafts through the wizard does not even exist anymore. This is our solution to deal with the past drafts. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It is for the better then, I understand. Thanks for your replies. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• The new submit link adds the AfC template to the bottom of the submission. It should be added to the top. Pentan-bot does not appear to be doing this automatically. —SW— ^squeal 17:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See, for instance, the history of this submission. The user hit the submit link on this template, which added the AfC submission template to the bottom of the article. The bot came through and moved the article, and got rid of the userspace draft template, but didn't move the AfC submission template to the top. I'll contact Petrb to see if he can add this to the bot's task. —SW— ^chat 18:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That revision is too old, the bot already does it but it doesn't check moved articles, only those which weren't moved yet. Petrb (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest rename it to AfcBot too, this task is so complex that it deserves own bot Petrb (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh ok, I must have found a bunch of articles from the gap between when the submit link was added to this template and when your bot started moving the templates to the top. I'll check some more recent submissions. —SW— ^yak 19:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The template is currently generating an error when previewed, I have sandboxed a fix for the error, diff of proposed change new diff of change. It will both stop the error from occurring when previewing while the REVISION magic word bug is fixed, and also implements a better method of measuring a year, that will not be effected by the time of the month the draft was made. Currently a draft made at the end of a month will appear in the category up to 30 days earlier than a draft at the beginning of the month, this will make them appear in exactly one year if refreshed (and if not refreshed, they wouldn't appear in either version). Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Looks sensible. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I fully protected this template following a request at WP:RPP. With over 30,000 transclusions, and it's natural linkage to new users' pages, I felt that it met the 'criteria' set out at Wikipedia:High-risk templates, especially with the recent edits that were reverted and re-reverted. However, if the consensus over regular users on this page is that semi would be sufficient, I'll reconsider.

Please discuss here. Thanks. GedUK  12:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally am very much against template protection, but in this case I'll agree. And thanks for your democratic attitude in posting this request for input. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not even a mainspace template, does it really need protection? I don't see much history of vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 16:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Only because there is no vandalism right now, doesn't mean that any nerd-vandal will change it. I was the original requester of the pp and think this is a really good move since with only one edit a user can place e.g. a pornographic image on over 30k pages o.O mabdul 17:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of clarity, it's not just about vandalism, but 'bad' edits that cause display errors, issues on cascaded pages etc. With this many transclusions, repeated edits and undos place additional unnecessary loads on servers etc. GedUK  12:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Testcases page doesn't work

The testcases subpage doesn't correctly display anything because it is in the Template namespace. To get round this I have copied the contents to a subpage in my own userspace but should we do something about this?
By the way is there any etiquette for editing the sandbox? Can I just edit it to try out my thoughts and should I put it back to how it was if I don't then propose any changes? Boissière (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (2011-12-04)

Please replace the part

<code>{{#if:{{{noob|}}}|<!--Skip instructions.-->|For guidance on developing this draft, see [[Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback]].</code>

with

<code>{{#if:{{{noob|}}}|<!--Skip instructions.-->|For guidance on developing this draft, see [[Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft]].</code>

Since WP:FEED was closed because of being inactive. mabdul 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks. mabdul 23:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

change this:

"userspace draft.This draft was last"

to this:

"userspace draft. This draft was last"

There should be a space between the period and the next sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal.lunchbox (talk • contribs) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 07:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Purge link

Please replace

<small>This draft was last edited {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}.</small>

with

<small>This draft was last edited <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}]</span>.</small>

This would allow users to purge the page's cache by clicking on the 3 months ago link. It would look like this:

This draft was last edited 3 months ago.

Thank you.—HueSatLum 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've just tested it: and it seems to work (the above changed from "0 seconds ago" to "9 hours ago"). So, if others agree, I think that this can be done. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The only objection I can think of would be WP:EGG, although an argument could also be made that that doesn't necessarily apply to this particular use. Anomie⚔ 16:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The CSD templates use this code, which basically serves the same purpose. Also I think it applies to this use because after 8,760 hours, or one year, the draft goes into the category stale userspace drafts category. If a draft hadn't been edited in almost a year, the purge function would be useful for the page's creator to find out if his or her draft would go into this category. —HueSatLum 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You also could put

<small>This draft was last edited  {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} <span class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge])</span>.</small>

This would add the purge link after the 3 months ago link, like this:

This draft was last edited 3 months ago (purge).

—HueSatLum 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be better to add this feature to {{time ago}} as it would be useful to several templates, perhaps via a |purge=yes option on the template call. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed this at Template talk:Time ago. —HueSatLum 22:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disabled the request here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The purge function has been added. Please replace

<small>This draft was last edited {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}.</small>

with

<small>This draft was last edited  {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|purge=yes}}.</small>

This will add the purge function described above. —HueSatLum 23:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done with a few other updates as well — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2012

Just a copyedit, could we have the last edit moved to it's own line, and the submit link made to cover "Submit the page!" completly? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the second one. Not sure if the first is a good idea; anyone else have input on this? — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, better to leave it where it is and let your browser do the wrapping. It might look better for you on a new line, but in another browser with a different monitor it could look better where it is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

This template has used {{time ago/sandbox}} since this 2 June 2012 edit. It was one of the "few other updates as well" made in response to an edit request which did not request to use the sandbox. I don't see any reason for using an unprotected sandbox in a protected template. Please update this template to be in sync with its sandbox, as I've changed it. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Luckily, there is no difference between sandbox and live for {{time ago}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Archaic drafts

I have had enough of seeing user-space drafts that have been abandoned. Is it possible to place all those drafts older than a year in its own category as abandoned?--Launchballer 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

parameter "page" value not displaying

I added the Userspace Draft template with the "page" parameter to a draft but the parameter is acting as if it's missing. Can you tell if I'm doing something wrong? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's because you named the page User:Nick Levinson/Eva Moskowitz draft and there is no live article Eva Moskowitz draft. The subpage part of the pagename is critical: if you had named the page User:Nick Levinson/Eva Moskowitz it would have worked, because Eva Moskowitz exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But that would mean the "page" parameter has no utility for any case, because its behavior is the same as the default documented in the doc. My understanding of the template doc is that the "page" parameter is precisely for cases where the subpage name and the intended location of the future live article are different. It couldn't have been intended mainly for cases where the draft is not a subpage. So does this mean that the parameter is defectively misprogrammed? If so, we should ask for its repair or delete it from the doc, probably by commenting it out, so that it will continue to work in cases where it is now in successful use. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that most userspace drafts will be for articles which don't yet exist in mainspace, so making the page parameter only work when an article does already exist seems counter-intuitive to the majority of cases.--Atlantima (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Since that's already the case, i.e., the parameter apparently does not work except identically with the default behavior, we seem to have consensus for a repair or a commenting out of the parameter in the documentation. In the latter case, I might suggest a hatnote on the draft to tell readers the intended destination title for the draft for if and when it goes live. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

edit request for "page" parameter

Please edit the template so the "page" parameter works where a user wants to "specify a custom page name for where the page may be located after the draft is complete" when the default is not desired, as the documentation allows. This seems to be a reprogramming problem. Unfortunately, I don't know how to repair the template. The presence of the parameter when it does not function is confusing and there seems to be consensus that its present behavior is not productive for nondefault cases. If a repair is not feasible, I can probably comment the parameter out of the documentation and add the alternative of writing a hatnote. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC) (Corrected to "parameter": 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The template on the subpage now displays properly. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've undone this. I'm not an expert on templates so I can't tell you why, but this created an error I've noticed the past 24 hours or so. When users who created a draft like this clicked the finished button, the default page loaded was in mainspace. However, this button only loads a section below their draft for AfC, so in doing so this created a number of articles in mainspace with nothing but the AfC template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I reinstated the first part of the change, which is not related to the observed problem. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And the subpage I was concerned about is still displaying properly. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 April 2013

I'm requesting the section of this template that reads:

  }}{{#if:{{{page|}}}
   |<br />The current/final version of this article may be located at [[{{#if:{{{page|}}}
    |{{{page}}}
    |{{SUBPAGENAME}}
   }}]] now or in the future.
  }}<br />{{#if:{{{noob|}}}
   |<!--Skip instructions.-->
   |For guidance on developing this draft, see [[Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft]].
  }} <small>This draft was last edited {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|purge=yes}}.</small>{{#ifexpr:{{HoursElapsed|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}>8760

be modified to:

  }}{{#if:{{{page|}}}
   |<br />The current/final version of this article may be located at [[{{{page}}}]] now or in the future.
  }}{{#if:{{{noob|}}}
   |<!--Skip instructions.-->
   |<br />For guidance on developing this draft, see [[Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft]].
  }}<br /><small>This draft was last edited {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|purge=yes}}.</small>{{#ifexpr:{{HoursElapsed|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}>8760

These modification will fix a couple appropriate linefeeds and place those lines on their own line improving format and readability. It also removes an extra parser function that isn't needed as it is redundant. No reason to have {{#if:{{{page|}}}|...{{#if:{{{page|}}}|...}}}...}} Thank you.

Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea, because it does not provide an alternative if the "page" variable is not specified. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Mostly this template is used without the |page=. mabdul 22:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This proposal doesn't change the way the template works in regards to whether or not a |page= is specified. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Technical 13 is right - the second {{#if:{{{page|}}} statement was redundant. I have tweaked the proposed code a little bit, though. People often dislike templates like these taking up too much room on the screen, and the proposed line break before "This draft was last edited" would have increased the height of the message box in many cases. Instead, I've put the "This draft was last edited" text inside {{nowrap}}, so now it will only appear on its own line if it would otherwise have been split across two lines. This should keep the message box height the same as it was previously. Also, Technical 13, it will really help for next time if you can add your proposed code to the sandbox and set up some test cases. I've tested your code for you this time, but you shouldn't expect admins to do this for you every time you make a proposed edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Strad. I usually do a sandbox and test-cases if I think there is anything that might be controversial. I didn't think that would be the case on this one where it was a simple remove redundant and adjust minor formating to keep that line from wrapping (which your change is fine, was my end goal). I guess I'll do them for every proposal in the future. *sigh*. Have a nice day and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On pages with many transclusions I usually use the sandbox/testcases for anything more complicated than spelling or punctuation fixes, and definitely for anything that alters any parser function or template invocation logic. It's just too easy to make mistakes otherwise. (And trust me, it doesn't feel good to screw up edits to highly transcluded templates. :P) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

when last edited was erroneous

The template displayed, "This draft was last edited 17 hours ago (purge)." This appeared on May 5, 2013, on a userspace subpage (since edited and detemplated) that said, near the bottom and outside of where I can edit, "This page was last modified on 28 April 2013 at 15:09." That's approximately a 7-day difference, not a 17-hour difference. When I clicked the "purge" link, the template displayed "This draft was last edited 6 days ago (purge).", which is a day short, but maybe that's because of the time of day when I purged. So the pre-purge data is what I'm questioning. As I deleted the subpage's content including the template, you may need to check the effect's prevalence by finding another example of a page that hasn't been edited in a few days. I'm raising the issue here just in case there's a need to edit the documentation or the template source code. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

After posting the above, I checked the old revision, which, of course, still has the template, and found it displaying this: "This draft was last edited 6 days ago (purge)." Depending on the time zone calculation, it should say it was last edited something like an hour ago. But maybe the template works differently on old revisions. I clicked "purge" and it produced the latest revision, which doesn't have the template; I went back to the old revision and the template still said, "This draft was last edited 6 days ago (purge)." This is not critical for me but would be msleading to other users. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the old revision and the template says 7 days ago for me. Technical 13 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference between 6 and 7 days is probably due to the time of day of looking and of the previous edit referenced by the template (I may have seen the same thing after my last post above), but at any rate the template should have said an hour or so, not days. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the way it works is that it reads the {{REVSIONTIMESTAMP}} for the {{REVISIONID}}. Since that revision is an old one, it is reading the time stamp on the revision (as it should). Technical 13 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate issues:

The current page is the more important context for the Userspace Draft template and it's not calculating correctly.

For old revisions, in this case the previous diff was just less than a day earlier, so displaying that it was 6 or 7 days earlier is an error. It may be calculating forward, which is the wrong direction and not of much use.

Either the documentation or the phrasing or other programming is wrong and one needs to be changed. I couldn't find {{REVSIONTIMESTAMP}} in a search across Wikipedia and if the {{REVISIONID}} is working as it should then it doesn't belong or the problem is somewhere else and your having narrowed down its location is helpful.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

Please replace

{{#if:{{{page|}}}
   |<br />The current/final version of this article may be located at [[{{{page}}}]] now or in the future.
}}

with

{{#if:{{{page|}}}
   |<br />The current/final version of this article may be located at [[:{{{page}}}]] now or in the future.
}}

This would make the |page= parameter automatically wikilink, in case anyone develops categories in their userspace.

Thanks. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 16:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: When would somebody develop categories in user space? It simply doesn't work. Unlike, say, {{User:Example}} where a user page can be used as if it were a template like {{Example}}, you can't put [[Category:User:Example]] on a page and hope that User:Example will behave like Category:Example. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

language

Exactly what does the "and/or" means in the template and why is it used? Why not use "or"? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

edit request

Replace: "may be incomplete and/or unreliable." With: "may be incomplete or unreliable." Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Against. "And/or" is not the same as "or". On the other hand, I am a mathematician. Perhaps for people with a more humanitarian inclination this is perfectly fine. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: I agree "and/or" is appropriate... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Please undo these edits that prevents experienced editors from using the submit button when in edit mode. There was no consensus for this change and I object. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Multiple users showed agreement that this change was a good thing at WT:WPAFC. Also, any time you use the submit button from edit mode, you lose your changes. There's nothing experienced users can do to avoid that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First, you are involved and are disallowed from closing this. Second, you made a bold change and my inability to revert the change itself is the only thing preventing me from doing it, and this is known as abusing the userright to further your cause and is grounds for  Template editor dismissal. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it wasn't a WP:BOLD change. It was a change as a result of discussion. Whoever does end up closing this, please see discussion that led to the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Those blank submissions are our fault. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have reviewed the discussion. I find there is consensus that there was a problem, but not necessarily consensus that this is the best way of achieving it. Discussion after the event seems broadly to support the change, so I will not revert, but please continue to discuss there to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Jackmcbarn, closing this edit request to revert your own changes was extremely unwise. Please avoid this in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem, and this template needs to be reverted until the discussion has concluded as the change introduced here is disruptive. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft workspace

The template discusses what to do when it is found misplaced on an article in mainspace, but it doesn't explain what should be done on drafts in the "Draft:" namespace. Is there an equivalent template to place on a partly-developed draft, with a submit button for use when the draft is ready for review? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I realise now that what I was thinking of was {{AFC submission|T}}. Shouldn't the documentation for {{Userspace draft}} include a mention of that, for use when a draft is in Draft: space rather than userspace? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it should. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Add link to move page

As part of a proposed edit notice for base userpages, I'd like to update this template to include a link to move the page instead of submitting the article for review, as with User:MusikAnimal/Userspace draft move. The idea being we don't want to completely overwhelm the AfC team with new submissions, and users should be aware and given the option that they can move the page straight to the mainspace and not have to opt in to the review process. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts on it is that most editors who have enough experience to have a draft that wouldn't need to be reviewed before being sent to mainspace will already know they can just move it to mainspace. Also, I think that if this is done it actually will not be of much benefit other than it will shift the review process from being directly requested via AfC to being reviewed incognito as part of NPP. I think that will do more damage then good and removes a level of transparency, which is a bad thing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "transparency"? The purpose of the editnotice is not to enforce a review process, but to deter misuse of the base userpage. Any registered user can create pages in the mainspace and do not need to create a draft at all, so by providing a move link I think we are being more transparent. The move link is also meant to prevent copy and paste moves, as often the drafts despite being the userspace are worked on collaboratively.

  I'm quite alright keeping this template as is, the move link was only out of concern that there will be surge of new submissions that the AfC team may not be able to keep up with. The aforementioned editnotice will be visible site-wide, and given the rate of userpages-as-drafts created on a daily basis, there may be a noticeable increase of submissions once the editnotice is rolled out. However perhaps it's best we wait and see if this becomes a problem before considering adding a move link. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Except for administrators and those in the  Autopatrolled group, all new pages created are "reviewed". The are either reviewed by AfC (Transparent, you know that your article is going to be reviewed and only approved and moved to mainspace if there are no "critical" errors and if there are issues the creator has an opportunity to be told what is wrong and fix it.) or by NPP (Less transparent, only those that know how things work here know that their new page/draft will be reviewed and in a much more BITEy way in which it may simply be tagged for CSD without any explanation of why.). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. Let's leave the link out. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 September 2015

Can someone add the code from the sandbox into the main template? It essentially just adds Draft as a valid namespace for this template, so they don't end up in Category:Misplaced userspace drafts. Test cases at Template:X6 and Draft:Test. Thanks! ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:15, 6 Tishrei 5776 / 22:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Avicennasis: One problem with this: the template says that drafts are "an individual user's work in progress page", but pages in the Draft namespace are for all editors, as far as I'm aware. In #Draft workspace above it is hinted that {{AFC submission}} should be used in the draft namespace instead of this template, but I'm not sure if this was ever really discussed anywhere. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: It could be modified to show the AFC template instead, I'm sure. However, our content guidelines at WP:UP#OWN states ...pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier. Bots and other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you... I don't think a draft in userspace is any more protected from other editors than a draft in draftspace. I am biased in this, of course - I gladly welcome any and all editors to make changes and improvements in my userspace. If anything, "an individual user's work in progress page" should be changed to something like "a work in progress page". This, of course, may need some wider discussion here. (At any rate, we should change "an individual user's work in progress page" regardless. A "work in progress page" doesn't sit right with me. Maybe "an individual's draft page that is a work in progress" ?) ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:27, 7 Tishrei 5776 / 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but I think that there is also a difference in perception between the purposes of the two namespaces, so I'm a little wary of making the change without leaving any time for discussion. I've deactivated the edit request for now, and left notes at WT:DRAFT and WT:AFC. Please reopen the request if there is a consensus for the edit, or if there is no response after a few days. You're also probably right that we should change the wording in any case, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That works, and is completely reasonable to me. I appreciate the responses and the notices posted. We'll give it some time to elicit responses, and go from there. Thanks! ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:50, 7 Tishrei 5776 / 09:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am confused, if this is a good idea or not. I do not have a clear-cut opinion, but a "userspace draft" is in user namespace, not in general draft namespace, in my understanding. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think this is a good idea, because the template is meant for userspace drafts, not drafts in the "official" draft namespace. APerson (talk!) 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This template is valid only for userspace, not draftspace. In addition the suggestion above that it could "routinely" be replaced with the AFC template in draftspace is contrary to the terms of AFC. Submission of a draft to AFC's purview cannot be "automatic", it must be the deliberate choice of the editor concerned. This is because a 6-month deletion clock starts ticking when any draft in the "AFC system" is left unedited and also such drafts are subject to several speedy deletion crieria that would not be applicable if it does not contain an AFC template. AFC reviewers also often edit drafts, which may be contrary to the original draft author's intentions, thus entering AFC must be the voluntary intention of the author, not a "blind" routine action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done, I think. We don't need to be storing abandoned pages, no matter where they are. Plus, as per above, no single editor "owns" any of these pages. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:25, 12 Tishrei 5776 / 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, who says we don't want to store abandoned pages? Secondly, how it that related to the edit you propose? Debresser (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:STALEDRAFT? We use content if we can, we get rid of what we can't. Though, since it's clear that consensus is not in favor of this change, I've struck my edit request. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:24, 12 Tishrei 5776 / 18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Those guidelines also don't say we should actively remove them. Just saying. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Remove __NOINDEX__ as user pages are all now NOINDEXed by default. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can show me where you got that information from, I can make the edit. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the instructions "when used in User, User talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces, this template automatically includes __NOINDEX__". Not that I understand why Wikipedia talk namespace. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Drafts_still_showing_up_in_Google_searches and phab:T104797, it doesn't seem like the patch to __NOINDEX__ user pages has been merged yet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Find sources AFD

I propose that we combine Template:Find sources AFD, the best quick and easy aid to finding sources online, into Template:Userspace draft. Proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Template:Find_sources_AFD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Still refers to the "Save page" button

This template still refers to the "Save page" button. Countless editors, particularly new users, are being confused when they read these instructions and can't find the "Save page" button, as we can see in questions to the help desk and the Teahouse. Presumably there was a planned programme of updating necessary instructions before it was decided to implement WMF's change to the software to change the title of this button? When is it intended to complete that programme of updates? How many pages apart from this template are still on the list of changes awaiting implementation? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please change the plain text "Save page" in this template to "<bdi>{{int:Publishpage}}</bdi>" instead. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Associate with AfC

There is a lot of verbiage in the template coding connected to AfC, and the template auto-categorises into categories associated with AfC. Is this an AfC template? With regard to clearing of abandoned inactive drafts, it is a bit cloudy the distinction as to whether these should be cleared G13-style. See the related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Does_G13_apply_to_"userspace_draft"_tagged_pages?. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Did you even bother looking at what the connection to AfC is, or are you just expressing a "AfC == HITLER" argument? If you had looked you would have seen that all the AFC connection does is provide a clickable button that transcludes the AFC submission template in when the user saves the page. IF the user clicks the button and asks for AfC review by transcluding the AFC submission template in, the page has ceaced to be just a individual user's edit and is now the community's work. Hasteur (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC == HITLER? Does double equal mean “no equal”, or congruence? AfC is not quite HITLER. It’s more a bureaucracy that has become a life unto itself. Not inherently bad, but far from an ideal way to operate. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The "old" parameter

Disregard

 – My bad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the |old=yes parameter I'm seeing on some of these not documented here, and what is it doing (or, more to the point, what are people doing based on it)? I have some "old" drafts that are 90% complete and awaiting discovery of some additional sources, and not self-styled "old drafts" killers should be nominating them for deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The template doesn't currently support the |old= parameter, and I'm not sure it ever did. Any usage of the parameter is likely based on your proposal back in 2010 to have a parameter to avoid having {{DMC}} reference redlink categories for drafts older than this template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to claim early-onset Alzheimers, and get back to ... what, what I was I working on?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

Implement changes here. NOINDEX is now implemented through MediaWiki (see https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/237330/). Also, make the |noob= → |newuser=, simply per usability. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Half done; "noob" is the name of a parameter and existing transclusions would need to be updated or some mechanism for backwards-compatibility installed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{#if:{{{noob|}}}| to {{#if:{{{newuser|}}}{{{noob|}}}| This should do it. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and broke everybody's formatting of this template. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove bloat?

Is there a way to remove the added bloat after the first section of the template? I added "newuser=no" but all that extra fluff is still there. I suppose I can just write my own. Praemonitus (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what you'd want removed? {{Find sources}} / {{automated tools}}? {{Last edited by}}? Other things? More things? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

All I want is the icon plus the text "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." Not being a new user, I have no use for any of the remainder and it just takes up room. Praemonitus (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: Write your own. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I switched to {{Workpage}}. Praemonitus (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: See Template:Userspace draft#Minimalist output. {{Workpage}} also works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template has extraneous markup after most recent edit

The template has extraneous markup at its end, following the most recent edit. @Timrollpickering: is this something you could look at? Thanks DferDaisy (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi DferDaisy this has been fixed with a follow up edit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Anthony Hernandez (photographer) Add to Awards: John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Fellowship 2018 <https://www.gf.org/fellows/all-fellows/anthony-hernandez/> Add to Exhibitions: La Biennale di Venezia, 2019 <https://www.labiennale.org/en/art/2019/artists> Kayne, Griffin, Corcoram, Los Angeles, 2019 <https://www.kaynegriffincorcoran.com/artists/anthony-hernandez/a-news>

Updated information about the artist MarkJohnstone (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarkJohnstone:  Not done This talk page is for changes to the template, not to Anthony Hernandez (photographer). Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Cosmetic change to the template. Add bottom padding to the button to prevent the descenders from touching the border, and add top padding to vertically center the text. See changes here. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Need {{{extra|}}} parameter

Please add a |extra= parameter immediately after Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft as {{nbsp}}{{{extra|}}}. I plan to use this parameter to explain what remains to be done on a draft of mine. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:  Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: So sorry, I forgot about the |help=no case. Can you add an ifeq to handle it? E.g. {{#ifeq: {{{help}}}|no|{{{extra|}}}|}} Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Why would you specify |extra= if |help=no? In other words, what's the point of this second edit request? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Please see User:Psiĥedelisto/Quo warranto in the Philippines for how I plan to use the parameter. I want to merge the {{ambox}} up into the {{userspace draft}}. I plan to use a link to my UD draft in a lengthy talk page comment I'm writing, and want people to be aware that I do have sources for it, and it's not an unencyclopedic essay, I just haven't had time. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Still not understanding you. The effect of the code you suggested is to hide |extra= if |help= is not set to no. I don't see why that feature is necessary: if you don't want |extra= to be visible, then simply don't set |extra= * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: But I do want |extra= to be visible even when |help=no. Right now it's ignored when |help=no. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: You're confusing me a lot, and I probably should have declined the request in the first place with  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES., but that's moot now. I've coded what I think you want in Template:Userspace draft/sandbox, can you confirm that that works as you expect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Yes, thanks, that's what I meant. Sorry, next time I'll put it in the sandbox and the test cases. This is only my second template-protected edit request. 🙇 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:  Done for real this time. Sorry for all the confusion; you told me to add content immediately after Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, so I did, as the immediate next thing in the Wikitext. For future reference, it is a good idea to sandbox your changes whenever you make a non-trivial edit request, and sometimes even for trivial ones. I judged this as sufficiently basic it didn't need sandboxing, which was apparently a mistake, but everything's resolved now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The confusion was entirely my fault. I thought your original edit was totally sufficient as well, but forgot about the |help=no if statement. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

Could someone please re-add the Category:Userspace drafts dated maintenance category, per this discussion with Timrollpickering? Special:Diff/970219093 in the template's sandbox shows how this could be done.  Hazard SJ  17:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing AFC button?

I just started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Removing_AFC_button_from_Template:Userspace_draft, because there is a lot of related discussion happening there, and it is a much more active page. Please provide any feedback there, thanks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

The AfC submission catcheck doesn't work after a page move, and the changes @Primefac: made didn't fix anything. –Piranha249 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC) –Piranha249 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)