User:Hasteur/Drafts are not broken
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In reply to User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken
Let us consider the thesis: Draft(space) is broken and it's arguments for such a statement.
Drafts do not encourage collaberation
[edit]The argument that Draftspace doesn't encourage collaboration is patently false. If you try to view a page that does not exist in mainspace, but a draftspace page of the same title does exist, Wikipedia presents a "There is a page in draftspace by the same title". So clearly the thesis is wrong on point one. Yes Draftspace is a little more difficult to find, but that is intentionally by design otherwise we would have to apply the same standards that apply to mainspace as draftspace.
Stub tags exist for a reason
[edit]The argument that there is an abhorance to stubs is accurate in wikipedia as a whole and not a defect with draftspace. Perhaps if this was 2002 when wikipedia was new and there weren't that many pages, but now we have a page on nearly everything or something very close which represents the topic. WP:NODEADLINE argues that there's no need to get something into mainspace today when more time could be spent to raise the topic above a stub. It is not the reviewer's responsibility or duty to come over and clean up a slopped out creation per WP:PROVEIT.
The problem with deleting drafts
[edit]The essay "Drafts are broken" fails to understand a significant component of how the space works. This applies to any pages in the draft namespace, as well as any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the
from WP:G13. The key phrase is not been edited in over 6 months. As long as effort is being made to improve the draft at least once every 6 months we can't use the G13 process to clean up the abandoned efforts.
{{AFC submission}} template in userspace, that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) in over six months. Redirects are excluded from G13 deletion. Drafts deleted in this manner may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.
Draftspace has become a huge unorganised mess
[edit]Again screaming that the house is burning down... Tell me, how would you go about categorizing Draftspace? Perhaps with Categories, oh wait. We don't use mainspace categories in Draft space. Hm... How about a WikiProject banner on the talk page? That would allow potentially involved projects/editors to drill down to only drafts they're interested in. Again a fundamental misunderstanding of the namespace.
Disclaimer
[edit]All contents of the page are my own thoughts and should not be construed as being endorsed by anybody unless otherwise endorsed below Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)