Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

When draftifying doesn't do Wikipedia or the article creator any favors

I've just had yet one more experience where I came upon an article that was not only a clear WP:A7 but about which there is also no ready evidence of the existence of coverage suiting WP:GNG—but I left it alone briefly so as to avoid being too hasty to tag for speedy deletion, and when I returned, someone had moved it to draft space with the comment "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace".

In this case, it was Draft:Lake Marion Artisans. I've been overridden at times on A7 recommendations, but I'm pretty certain there's nothing in the article that would be construed as a credible claim of significance—and that neither lack of detail nor lack of cited sources is the problem. So we have an article that would probably have been dispatched like that, which is going to sit around for a while until it's time for G13.

Is that doing Wikipedia any harm? That isn't the pertinent question. It's whether that's doing Wikipedia or the creator any favors. Maybe the creator will take it upon themselves to develop the article further, which is, of course, what draft space is meant for. But, in this type of situation, it means giving them false hope, leading them to continue with an article that has already been reviewed and found not suitable for reasons that can't be fixed through work on the article! They'll put in additional work, only to be told afterwards that they shouldn't have bothered. That's a needless and inconsiderate waste of their time, and of no benefit to Wikipedia either.

Further, this isn't the first article I've seen pushed back to draft space with a comment about a lack of citations. That's just wrong. Except for BLPs and controversial negative statements, a lack of citations doesn't disqualify articles from article space.

Unfortunately, I don't have a proposal for a remedy to this problem. We can't keep people from moving things to draft. I don't know how to convey to an article creator not to get their hopes up over the draftification of their article because it probably shouldn't have been, which might itself be taken harshly, and which is simultaneously a dig at the draftifier. Thoughts? Largoplazo (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

At AfC I occasionally see pages that should have been CSD'd instead of sent to Draft. Editors should remember we have fewer tools to delete back content in Draft. Most irritating is when notable but undersourced confltendlt is sent to Draft to rot just after I promoted it to mainspace. Why the heck anyone thinks a page will get fixed faster in Draft than Mainspace is beyond me. No solutions other than education. Promote, Fix or Delete as you find them. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. While I agree with most of the above concerns (especially the "undersourced" draftification rationale), I think A7 is actually one of the CSD criteria where there may be chance for rescue. A poorly written stub about a notable subject may not indicate its importance and therefore warrant speedy deletion under A7, but can still be rescued with the proper attention. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving to draft

Boleyn asked me[1] for references for two articles 2017 in Indian television, 2015 in Indian television, that don't actually need any references since all these shows are categorized under this category and similar articles too needed no references. I told him WP:DEADLINE, because of his repeated unnecessary requests to put references.[2] Now he has moved my articles to draft spaces only because I put no sources.[3]

I am asking if these actions were justified by the policy because WP:DRAFTIFY doesn't seem to be supporting such actions. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

She didn't move them only because they are unreferenced, and I have pointed you to WP:SourceList as to whether such a page should have references. These pages were judged, at New Page Patrol, as not yet ready for mainspace, needing a lot of work but having promise - so instead of deleting, I contacted you first (you were not helpful in response) and then moved them to draftspace to be worked on until they are ready. Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Boleyn: You obviously moved them only because they are unreferenced which sounds absurd reason to move to draft space. It is not necessary to add references on an article, especially these ones since all these shows are categorized under these categories (Category:2017 in Indian television, Category:2015 in Indian television). Similar articles for other countries like 1976 in German television, 1980 in French television, 1985 in Japanese television, etc. also includes no sources. It seems standard to leave articles as unsourced unless the information has been particularly challenged. Are you going to move to draft space only because there are no sources? What if there was only one reference in the entire article? Would you be still moving it? You have been warned many times on your talk page for this disruptive attitude.[4] Accesscrawl (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Your whole post above is moot - as said before, they were not moved to draftspace simply because they were unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have moved page to mainspace and also moved an unrelated article List of wars involving Albanian rebel groups because war lists don't necessarily need references since each war had their own article. Boleyn, like other users have already told you on your talk page, you really need to be careful when you are dealing with content that is unsourced. {{unsourced}} exists for a reason, use it. Rzvas (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Moving newly-created unsourced articles to draft-space is an acceptable practice, and useful for cases like this. I went through the articles and found several errors, all of which would be corrected if the entries were sourced. All three of these, 2017 in Indian television, 2016 in Indian television, and 2015 in Indian television are merely categories in list form. While that can be acceptable in certain cases, they should be placed in draftspace until they are useful and verifiable. Rzvas, please revert your move. Bradv 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Where's the policy which says index articles should be moved? We drafity articles only when the subject is struggling with notability or the article is badly formatted. None of these criteria(s) took place here. These types of index articles are acceptable in every case. If you have problem with the entries there, you can add the "unsourced" or "{{citation needed}}" tag or otherwise remove the information you can refute successfully. Information has been provided on the main articles of each of the name, hence there is no immediate need of sources. You cited WP:V but you need to read WP:CHALLENGE which state that if "you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Because all these information are easily verifiable, it is clear that anybody would be supposed to add a source in place of tagging or moving article to draft space. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the examples provided above (1976 in German television, 1980 in French television, 1985 in Japanese television), that are no different than these articles. Also check the other article I moved (List of wars involving Albanian rebel groups) which was similar to other ones like List of wars involving Jamaica, List of wars involving Japan, that have also got no sources. Unless you have consensus to move all of these and other examples to draft space or you can show a policy that how many entries should be sourced, then only it would make any sense to move pages to draft spaces. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in Singapore (where issue with being "not even sourced" was raised), if these articles were nominated for deletion then we would see them ending up as Speedy Keep, not Drafity. You should further refer to the complaints made on Boleyn's talk page regarding this kind of mishandling of unsourced articles.[5][6][7] Rzvas (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Rzvas, your diffs are misleading, not including the responses and linking to one where the author retracted the comment! However, as before, articles are not moved by New Page Patrol to draftspace solely because they are unreferenced, and list articles clearly do need references, per WP:SourceList. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter when same thing is being told by everyone to a single person. Index articles needs no references. Rzvas (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I see where the confusion is. WP:SourceList does not say that lists of links to existing articles need refs. The pages listed do need refs but if the page is just a list of pages that can easily be verified as belonging to the list, sources are not needed. 2018 films in Country is exactly such a situation as every bluelinked page will have the date and confirmation it is a film in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Like it was suggested on a recent AfD. We can convert them, only if we have a wider consensus for it since we have thousands of similar articles. Though same can be suggested for many non-years related articles like songs lists, list of monuments, etc. Rzvas (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the draft deletion log

YES
There is strong consensus that the deletion, protection, and move logs of a draft page should be shown at its corresponding location in the main namespace if an article doesn't exist at that location. Editors believe this visibility would be helpful for:
  • using information from drafts previously deleted under WP:G13, and
  • assessing the suitability of an article topic when its corresponding draft page was deleted under WP:G11.
— Newslinger talk 10:57, 4 December 2018 (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.

Should the deletion, protection, and move log for the corresponding draft article be shown at a non-existing mainspace article? wumbolo ^^^ 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion history is more easily seen by Admins. This would make it easier for everyone to see what titles have been deleted in Draftspace and why when working on mainspace. It has positives for finding useful info that can be estored but maye even more use in tracking spammers. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Two examples related to content in a topic area I frequently edit. Alaskan Bush People was originally created in article space in a subpar state, moved to draftspace, then buried and subsequently deleted by the usual suspects who have spent considerable effort WP:OWNing draftspace since the beginning. However, that subpar article addressed the controversies regarding the program's authenticity, something which reliable sources have discussed in abundance. When it was recreated, it contained no mention of that and the current article's creator actively attempted to keep such information out of the article. This suggested a whitewashing, or given related content created by that editor, at the very least an attempt to portray the notion that the program is notable primarily or solely because it airs on a particular television network. If not for my intervention, that whitewashing would have likely continued to the present. The second example is George Frank Boney. This began as part of a series of placeholders in draftspace related to justices of the Alaska Supreme Court. Most of these entries are still in draftspace as placeholders more than three years later, with that editor making only meaningless edits in order to game the deletion deadline process. What's worse, as seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska/Archive 2#Drafts for nine missing Alaska Supreme Court Justices, they showed up at a relevant WikiProject page basically expecting someone else to actually write these articles for them, while continuing to make meaningless edits solely to stave off deletion and doing little or nothing else. I can absolutely assure you that the draftspace regulars who have let that matter slide all these years are not affording the same courtesy to other contributors to draftspace who are not fellow admins. Back to Boney, that editor decided that it was "ready" for article space because the draft happened to have a source and happened to have an image, even though you can go look right now and see that it's still in a subpar state, that editor really having made no effort of their own to make it a proper biography. What they did do was to undo my good faith effort while it was still in draftspace to reflect the subject's common name, just plain George Boney, as shown by his obituary in The New York Times. This was done to make the article conform to some anachronistic naming convention, support for which was lacking in both WP:AT and WP:NCP last I checked. The move log could very well reflect an abuse of admin privileges in doing so. The bottom line here is that my experience with draftspace shows that we have a very small subset of the community with a fondness for shenanigans and a desire to aggressively delete, and in the process may very well be attempting to hide their shenanigans from the community at large through such aggressive deletion. Outside of Wikipedia, this sort of thing can be easily explained through a famous line from a famous film: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" is the attitude they show towards everyone else. There have been few if any checks and balances by the community at large. I think I've said plenty as it is and haven't even gotten to the whole Ricky81682 debacle. It's as if draftspace exists solely as a one-way judgement pipeline to satisfy those who get off on talking down to casual contributors. Therefore, anything which enables checks and balances by the community at large over draftspace activity is a good thing. Yes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes as it is information that is often relevant to the article. It should also help prevent the duplication of effort that occurs when a decent draft is abandoned and deleted, and then an article on the same topic created from scratch by a different editor. – Uanfala (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this possible? I don't see a reason to make a substantive comment if no-one has considered whether this can be implemented technically. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Look up one section. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think a good way to go about this is to make Special:Log default to search all namespaces for title searches, including by default for sure user and draft, but if there is exact title match for any namespace, why not show it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • ANOTHER RfC??????? I coulda swore that certain editors are fond of making it appear as if they had this all figured out already, especially through their constant shouting down of fellow editors when the question of the purpose of draftspace comes up. The number of RfCs I've seen related to draftspace over the years is dizzying to think about. Really, it proves that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is one more thing which exists on the encyclopedia purely for show. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm still paying attention to the substance (or more appropriately, lack thereof) found across the encyclopedia, not merely the style. Are you? I've seen precious little evidence over the years that the regulars here contribute much of anything to fostering collaboration or improving content coming through draftspace. It's people like me who have taken the initiative to correct that while others merely want to bury and delete everything they possibly can. Chester Creek (Alaska) is one such example, with no help from any of you, that's for sure. As for A2soup's piece, what's your point? That we should further justify an entire namespace existing as a walled garden benefiting a select few editors with a serious control freak complex? Because I don't obsessively homestead this page, you may have not noticed that I've been following happenings related to draftspace since before its introduction. This was due to watching the user page of an admin, someone who was among those shouted down for questioning what exactly you folks are doing here. Because they chose to drop the matter, evidently some folks here view "go along and get along" as more important than the bigger picture WRT the health of the encyclopedia. It reminds me somewhat of when Usenet began transitioning to moderated newsgroups. How are they doing these days? You still have discerning human beings out there who may expect to apply a smell test to what they're reading, and mainspace is full of steaming heaps masquerading as encyclopedia entries. Meanwhile, many of the regulars here routinely make hundreds and even thousands of edits per week, week in and week out, without perceptible improvement to much of the encyclopedia. I'm supposed to be impressed by someone going through the motions running a script? That deserves an answer of "Seriously!". This sort of activity includes regularly burying and deleting attempts to increase our coverage of inherently notable topics (excepting when fellow admins create placeholders in draftspace with no intent to actually do any work on those drafts, as explained above), in the process giving more weight to the contributions of those who come here primarily or solely to push whatever the media's pushing today. I suppose WP:NOTNEWS also exists purely for show. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
User:RadioKAOS, the seriously was sarcasm. I agree with you, to the extent that I understand your screed. A2soup's piece explains pretty well why DraftSpace is a net negative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Please cut the wining and conspiracy theories. Draft space is nust a place to temporarily work on future mainspace articles. I work hard to promote the good out of Draftspace and delete the crap. Both improve the usefulness of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
DraftSpace is a net negative. It does do well to attract the junk and keep it out of mainspace, but there is a level of dishonesty in that. It hurts the small proportion of quality newcomers by waylaying them in a system that discourages them from joining the community. I thank Legacypac for his considerable efforts in filtering the very small proportion of drafts with potential and moving them to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2018 (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.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T211106

Discussion: New CSD criterion for rejected / advertisement-declined drafts

Please see the thread here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 draft

Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was originally on a new user's talk page and moved to draft space by another editor (log). The new user, Tariqmehmood8575 (talk) continued to use his user talk page as a sandbox, editing it hundreds of times and deleting messages until he was eventually blocked.

I added {{Draft article}} to it today, because of where it is, but I don't know what it's about and whether it's fictional or based on anything real. Any experienced draftologists (and perhaps cricket fans) around who know an appropriate way to treat it? – Athaenara ✉ 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I solicited further input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 in the hope that someone there might have the time to come over here to provide the cricket angle on this. – Athaenara ✉ 04:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara. A draft which goes unedited (excluding maintenance edits) for six months is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13. So, unless the creator gets unblocked and resumes work on it or some new else decides to take it up, it will eventually be deleted. Another option is WP:MFD if you feel the draft should be dealt a little more quickly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I'm well aware of G13, having deleted many myself, I'm seeking more specific information here. At this stage of development, what tags should a draft have? What attention should it invite? If you look at the page history you will see literally hundreds of edits, none of which state what the page is about. If it's a fantasy about something that will never happen, we have WP:CSD#A11. If it's about something real, someone at Wikiproject Cricket might tell us that, you see? – Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if my post seemed a a bit preachy. I didn't realize you were an admin. There is a cricket player named Hamza Tariq and there is a 2019 Cricket World Cup, so perhaps the title was just a mashup of the two with the date wrong. I googled some of the matches listed in the draft, but was unable to find any record of said teams playing each other on those dates. Perhaps restoring the creator's user talk page access and asking them about the draft might help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks for the checking you did. As for the user's talk page access, look at that user talk page history (nearly 1,000 edits and not one response to any message) and note the absence of any unblock request. This is not a reasonable or even normally responsive editor. – Athaenara ✉ 05:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
From a cricketing perspective, it is definitely WP:MADEUP, so if it ever made it to article space I'd CSD it for that, but I don't know if that holds for drafts too. Spike 'em (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes hoaxes in Draft should be G3 deleted. So tagged. Legacypac (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-English drafts

Are non-English drafts (perhaps for article in other language Wikipedia's) OK or would they be better off as a WP:USD. I came across Draft:A Pertubação: Capítulo II while checking on some non-free images, and it doesn't seem to ever have progressed beyond the infobox stage; however, I've previously come across more fully developed drafts which were entirely written in a language other than English and seem like someone was either using the page to work on a draft for a different language Wikipedia (not to translate into English) or possibly even as a free web host to store content for some non-Wikipedia reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. Translating is just one more way that others may find themselves moved to fix a page up for posting to article space. What gets me, though, is that several editors have taken non-English articles published directly to article space and moved them to Draft space. There's already a process in place at WP:PNT for such articles, and there's no reason to circumvent that. I figure the chances that the article will be translated are greater when they're listed at WP:PNT than if they're pushed to Draft space (at which point they're de-listed from WP:PNT because drafts are out of scope there). Largoplazo (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Recently, a university course in Haitian Creole had a project here that involved drafting articles in Haitian Creole here (presumably because participants were communicating in English) with the realization that they would be published to Haitian Creole Wikipedia. No harm done, in my opinion, though I can see that others might take issue with that. (I also didn't understand the project entirely. From its description, it was an entry-level course, yet these students were writing articles in fully developed Haitian Creole.) Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I can see a draft being used for WP:TRANSLATE reasons since the only issue would be to make sure the original source article is properly attributed. However, I'm not so sure about using drafts for WP:TrU or simply to work on a new article for another language Wikipedia. The finished version is eventually going to have to be moved to the other language Wikipedia and might even need to be approved via that Wikipedia's AfC process; so, it seems better to keep everything on that other Wikipedia from start to finish sine it's that particular Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which will determine whether the draft ultimately kept. As for needing a draft to be written here in order to communicate in English, I'm not sure why the editors working on the draft cannot just communicate in English on the other language Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Here are two examples I've just come across: User:さとカツ/sandbox and User:Nvanderlit/sandbox. These seem to be WP:USDs so maybe that makes them different enough from a regular draft so to speak, but they look like they are translations of Mor ve Ötesi and Sumo Digital articles which are eventually going to be moved to another language Wikipedia. It seems like it would be better for these non-English version drafts (even as userspace drafts) to developed in on the other Wikipedia's then here since that's ultimately the place it's going to have to be moved one the draft is completed. Working on the draft would require a copy-paste move, whereas working on it in the user/draft namespace of the other Wikipedia should on require a simple page move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Draftspace etiquette

Does anyone know what the best practice is regarding moving drafts to mainspace? I've twice recently watched editors arrive at a draft that was written by experienced editors, and move them to mainspace without discussion, even though (in my view) they weren't ready. This page says: "[A]ny other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft." But then what is the point of draftspace if not to allow an article time to be worked on away from mainspace?

Has a set of best practices developed about consulting the main editors before publication? SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

All work is released for others to use. If you want to work completely alone use the hard drive of your computer. There are lots of reasons someone might promote a draft they find. Perhaps they were alerted when they went to start a new page. Perhaps the page was up for G13. Maybe it meets a redlink. "Ready" is pretty subjective. Hundreds of thousands of mainspace pages are stubs and nearly every page can be improved, often in significant ways. Pages will improve faster in mainspace where they get much more exposure than in Draft space. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, as you know, you're one of the reasons I'm posting this query, so I'd appreciate responses from others. If experienced editors are working on a draft, it seems odd for someone not involved in that effort suddenly to move it without discussion. So I'm asking here whether a set of best practices has developed. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"If experienced editors are working on a draft" is a gross misrepresention of the situation which paints me in an unfaltering light. I found a very good draft while reviewing abandoned pages up for G13. There was nothing "sudden" about my regular review of the daily bot report. A few editors review the same report so had I not acted on the page there is a high chance it would have been deleted within minutes. I absolutely took the correct action and I don't appreciate your efforts to paint my action as anything but proper. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • SarahSV, I agree with WP:DUD. The main benefit of draftspace is waylaying inept editors (good faith editors and paid editors all combined) so the don’t make so much mess in mainspace. Most get a bad experience, mostly through being separated from the main Wikipedian community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, I agree with it too, except for the issue that someone might come along at any point and publish it, ready or not. That seems to defeat the whole point of draftspace. In fact, the more I see of it, the less understand its point. When the WMF created it, it was around the time there was talk of removing userspace, in connection with WP:FLOW, so I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was set up as an alternative to sandboxes, which would soon no longer exist. When FLOW was terminated, I wondered what the point of draftspace would be. SarahSV (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What has User:Legacypac done to raise eyebrows? He often looks rough, but I think he is the only serious reviewer of old unsubmitted drafts. If not for him, they would all be auto-deleted via G13 by people who care a whole less than he does. There was some trouble early with him moving drafts to mainspace that were clear failures that then needed deletion, and some non-checking for copyvio, but that was an acceptable mistake years ago since corrected, I understand. The AfC standard is that to mainspace, the draft must stand a >50% chance of surviving AfD *if nominated*. That is a very low standard, way lower than most AfC reviewers. If he is to be faulted by that standard, the evidence is in a run of AfD delete discussions for pages that he mainspaced.
Looking for the "point of Draftspace" is something people come in wondering from time to time. The only point I believe is to help keep the crud out of mainspace. The cost of that is the burning of the few potentially good newcomers who get caught up in the AfC system and never meet the community. I think draftspace is a net negative, and Wikipedia would do better without it entirely. Newcomers should not be encouraged to create new pages, but instead should be encouraged to edit mainspace. The newcomer who arrives with a burning new missing topic is a myth, but if one does happen along, they can use {{help me}}, or any number of other routes. New event topics are very rapidly introduced by autoconfirmed editors, there is no benefit in encouraging newcomers to do that. IPs should be asked to register if they want to make new pages. This is not inconsistent with the freedom of any person, registered or IP, to edit Wikipedia right now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So, we're talking about a situation where an experienced editor, who is still active, has created a draft but somebody else comes along and promotes it to mainspace? Well, if the draft were ready, then the creator would have presumably moved it themselves, wouldn't they? Though of course, it's possible that they might have forgotten about it, in which case giving them a nudge would be a good idea. Jumping the gun and going straight for a move is probably not the best thing to do. But taking a broader look, I think such a situation probably wouldn't have arisen if the creator were aware the draft had become WP:G13 eligible: there is a bot that sends out notifications, but as far as I know it's designed to do so only for AfC drafts. And then, an experienced editor probably shouldn't have used the draft namespace in the first instance. Unless the draft is intended to go through AfC, or the creator is certain they're going to be done with it within a couple of months, using the draft namespace is generally counterproductive. – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I'd prefer not to discuss particular examples. Uanfala, yes, that's the kind of situation I have in mind, and I think we should add something about it to the guideline. Something along the lines that editors should not move drafts to mainspace without first alerting the main author(s) so that the latter have a chance to object and, if appropriate, move it to userspace instead. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Editors can’t WP:OWN drafts in draftspace, unlike userspace to a degree. Prefer: “When mainspacing a draft, notify its creator on their usertalk page, and ensure a redirect is left behind”. WP:BOLD should apply even more strongly in DraftSpace than it does elsewhere. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No let's discuss specifics because SarahSV came to my talkpage to chastise me [8] for using the AfC script to copyvio check, title check, and accept Operation Höss which I found up for G13. Than they started this thread to drum up a case against me or something. The topic is blindingly obviously notable, included good info/refs/infobox etc and included enough info that any reader wondering about the topic would be reasonably informed. Forgotten by the creator, the page can now be expanded by the creator or any other editor while readers benefit. Ironically the only reason SarahSV noticed the move was that I notified the creator of the move using the AfC script amd they happened to be watching the creator's talkpage.
Working to keep Draft and userspace a little bit organized is hard enough without enshrining notifications and permission seeking into the process of moving good drafts forward. We already have watchlist (automatic for the page creator). Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I do support a "rule" for notifying the draft creator of its move or deletion. I note that Legacypac's practice of personally submitting and then accepting (as opposed to simply WP:MOVEing) achieves this very nicely. Are you happy to continue that method of notification? If so, I think all qualified reviewers should be similarly encouraged. It is highly regrettable that hasteurbot and its successor have fallen into disrepair, that authors are no longer prompted about their drafts approaching eligibility for G13 auto-deletion (hasteurbot is a causality of the problems of the template {tl|Promising draft}}). At least when deleted, the author gets the notification of the deleted draft title and instructions pointing to WP:REFUND. I hope that is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, we don't encourage other kinds of contentious page moves without consensus. There's no reason to regard a move from draftspace to mainspace differently, if there's reason to believe it might be contentious. SarahSV (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I do politely disagree, draftspace to mainspace page moves are different. Draftspace is mostly used due to lack of confidence. Here I exclude the majority of draftspace that is promotional spam, WP:UPE paid product, and inept random stuff broadly labellable at NOTFACEBOOK. If any experienced editor in good standing finds anything worthy of mainspace in draftspace, they should mainspace it immediately. Maybe check the talk page for requests otherwise, but was that the case? I disagree with the increasing attitude of extreme meta:Immediatism on new article creation, although I more strongly argue that new topic writers should first flesh out some content within a section of a broader topic.
Reason to believe it might be contentious? Was there any such reason? If there is such a reason, then sure, be BOLD, not reckless. Do not do a BOLD thing if there is a recorded reason to not do it. Such a reason should be linkable.
In this case, the page was ripe for G13 deletion. Some people, unfortunately, get their jollies pushing the G13 process without a critical review. The page was ripe for being flushed without comment. Legacypac does a very good thing to do something. You might argue that he should have userfied, not mainspaced, but I support him doing one of the two to such a draft. Regrettable, the template {tl|Promising draft}} has not seemed to have worked out as I hoped. Mostly draftspace is hopelessly stuffed with worthless crap on the G13 process to auto-deletion, if anything deserves saving, everyone should be strongly encouraged to save it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Draft space is set up specifically for mainspacing by other users. If user A starts Draft:Example and user B goes to start mainspace Example they get notified that Draft:Example already exists, presumably so they can build on the work in the Draft. How would you propose to require user B to notify/ask permission from user A? What is the benefit? There is enough WP:OWN going on, let's not promote more OWNing. Anyway, I have not seen a hint of comment from the creator here just a third party trying to make a problem where there is no problem. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, "How would you propose to require user B to notify/ask permission from user A?" I propose that user B should be like you, that they first be a qualified reviewer, and that they use the afch tools to first submit the draft and second approve the draft, which has the result of auto-notifying User A. It seems you were not understanding me, but perhaps we are not understanding each other? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
User B is any random editor who decides to create missing page Example. When they start they are notified Draft:Example exists already. We can't expect them to be an AFC reviewer or to know some rule about notifying the OWNer of the Draft. We should just be happy if they look at and know how to move the Draft instead of plowing ahead and creating a possibly inferior page. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case, where User:B came to Wikipedia with an interest in the topic of the draft they found, that is great! Let them do what they will. I was thinking of draftspace reviewers wanting to sort the old abandoned stuff, and who probably won't be wanting to water the article indefinitely themselves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, when you say "in this case" and mention G13, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not here because of one case, no matter how much Legacypac tries to claim that I am. The problem in that case is that we now have two pages dealing with the Holocaust in Hungary (an important topic, not least because it deals with the final and most violent stage of the Holocaust): the first a long-standing, well-developed section of another article, and the second a short page named after the commandant of Auschwitz. The source supporting the title is Evil Online.
When Serial Number 54129 noticed this had been moved and already had several tags on it, he moved it to userspace, so all was well. But then Legacypac move-warred. Any claim that he did this to avoid deletion is clearly wrong, because no one would have deleted it from userspace.
But again, I'm not here because of one incident. I was hoping some draftspace regulars might tell me what best practice is when moving articles to mainspace. It seems there is no best practice, so my question has been answered, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, sorry. Draftspace is more like the wild west, or the messy fenced back property out of sight of the house and visitors. I have been much more concerned about WP:DRAFTIFY, whereby any editor may technically dispose of any article, into that back paddock, to be flushed 6 months later. There are way more checks on things moved out of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The specific example we are discussing was an adequate stub and an obviously notable topic at the time of promotion. It can be improved just as well in mainspace as it can in draft, and unlike in draft space is isn't in danger of deletion in mainspace. We don't need more rules about this. If there are examples of someone promoting a draft that is clearly in use (whether or not it has the template, if it has been edited or created in the last few hours), we can talk. We don't want writers getting frustrated by sudden page moves or edit conflicts mid-creation. VQuakr (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
So, ... SarahSV is concerned about content forking. Well yes, that is another problem of draftspace, it encourages content forking, by encouraging any editor to starting writing on any topic without engaging with mainspace or the community of editors maintaining mainspace. The rule against linking mainspace to draftspace means that drafts are orphans, and no one gets even a hint of the content forking in progress. The answer is to shut down draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

IF it was a content fork - and no one suggested it was until a few minutes ago - the correct action would be to merge and redirect the valid title not delete it from mainspace (which is what Serial Number did). I'm still shaking my head about that action and their rude treatment of me around it. The page is about a particular part of the holocaust so obviously there will be other pages on overlapping and related topics. I believe the title of the page is correct as supported by thos book for example [9] Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd say the guiding etiquette is WP:BOLD. As Lpac rightly points out, all contributions cease to belong exclusively to their author as soon as they press "publish changes," and the draft namespace was specifically created to encourage collaboration in article creation. If an editor finds a draft they think would be better off in mainspace, they should feel free to move it. If the author (or any other editor) objects, they can revert the move. Then both parties can discuss what to do next.
If somebody really wanted to keep their draft out of mainspace, I'd suggest creating them in userspace, where there's more of a taboo on other users editing. – Joe (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on draft I made months ago

I was talking to someone in wiki months ago on creating a template for law enforcement units since the user has voiced the idea of not using a military unit template. I'm just wondering if I can get some feedback (in response to the initial conversation I had many moons ago) here or somewhere else since it's mostly done. I just need ideas/comments on whether it's okay. Ominae (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for that. You can make a template yourself of course. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft tests

What happens with cases like these, created by 75.97.183.77 (talk · contribs)?

{{db-nonsense}} doesn't seem right. What about {{db-test}}, or should they just be left for six months? If they should be left, I will remove the error from the first. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Draft tests. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

There should be a guideline for what should happen to draftspace articles if they are either copy/paste moved to mainspace, or are independently created whilst the draft exists in parallel. This has happened to Liam Stocker (Draft:Liam Stocker). When the draft article was declines, the player was not notable by WP:NAFL being a drafted player who hadn't yet played professionally. He now has, and the draft article creator did a copy/paste move, not a move. Should I CSD the draftspace article under G6, or manually delete the page and replace it with a redirect to the mainspace article? This scenario can't be that unusual, and whatever the preferred solution is, it should be listed in the Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting a draft section. The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@The-Pope: WP:HISTMERGE. wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, that works for copy paste moves, but what about articles that exist in draftspace, but have an independently developed mainspace article created in parallel? Either way, this advice should be on the Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting a draft section. The-Pope (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What to do?

Hyehwa Station Protest was recently moved into main space from user space, but the article doesn't look anything like ready to me. Not sure that covering it with cleanup templates would be constructive, and AfD might be too heavy handed. Looks like it was created as part of some external course. Would moving it to draft space be appropriate in this case? PC78 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving to draft space is only useful if it has hope of being an article, or someone will benefit by editing it. If you can find two references to add then that might be as much effort as trying to make an AFD argument, and more useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I manually re-userfied, with an explanation at User talk:Ypark025#Hyehwa Station Protest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a quick look for sources since I'm not familiar with the subject, it appears that there have been at least five related protests outside this station over the past year so the article may have merit. It was woefully under developed though. PC78 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Crikey, now there's Domestic violence among Korean-American immigrants which is quite substantial but completely lacking in references and therefore suspect with regard to WP:OR. PC78 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I left a note at User_talk:NicoleNourian#Domestic_violence_among_Korean-American_immigrants. I is part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCLA/FemiKorea (Spring 2019). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What to do with a draft when the article has been created separately?

Urbit has been created and is cited to pretty okay RSes. I just found Draft:Urbit, which is an entirely separate effort to create an article, and was rejected at AFC. What should be done with the draft? (Apart from mining it for RSes.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, WP:HISTMERGE to preserve WP:ATTRIBUTION for the rescued RSs & REDIR the draft to the article? Cabayi (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft moved prematurely to article space multiple times - what to do?

Draft:Kurt Iswarienko. RS, BLP, POV, NOT vios. I'm very tired of this, and unsure on how to proceed. Suggestions appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Caution the editor moving it live with problems & without review? Cabayi (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Tried that, and offered to help.
Draft is now protected and has an AfC template. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Drafts - loss of important history

I used to create articles without any problem - a stub with a single reference would be sufficient for an article to be seen and worked on by other editors. Now I find that my articles go to draftspace, and it seems that I alone am required to prove the notability etc. What happened to cooperation? In particular, I feel that there are many notable firms from Britain's past that it is hard or impossible to find good secondary sources for. An Example is my recent page draft:Erie Resistor Company. Erie resistors abound in early radios, as every radio man knows, the name was very well known, and as I have written, Erie employed ten percent of the Great Yarmouth working age population, yet refs. are hard to find. Surely the notability is obvious in the fact given which the reader can readily prove. Original research? Maybe, but do we really want our history to be lost when Wikipedia has no data limitation problem. Surely just having a 'needs more citation' template is enough for an article to remain permanently unless there are other good reasons to take it down, and the best chance of improving it comes from having it visible to all? Another problem firm was Repanco - known to every man who made radios in his youth. Collaro, I succeeded with, though sources are sparse. Good, because they made most of the record player mechanisms in our past - surely notable! Lindosland (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Lindosland, many Wikipedians are sympathetic to your point of view, enough that it has a name: Wikipedia:Inclusionism. I have added some sources to your Draft:Erie Resistor Company, which I think should be enough to establish notability. You could also cite their patents to expand the article. If you get into discussing their products, there will presumably be IEEE papers and such, too. For historical material, there may be a lot of excellent offline sources, perhaps findable by an e-mail to a local library or archive, or a local historian. Offline sources are entirely acceptable on Wikipedia. HLHJ (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Drafts with possibilities?

Is there something like a 'Drafts with possibilities' category or holding cell somewhere?... (If there is, it's not well advertised!) Such a thing might be a good idea – to be able to tag drafts that probably are notable, so that they are put in a cat or holding cell so other interested editors can take a look at them. Because I sometimes come across Drafts that I don't necessarily intend to "finish", but which other editors probably could quickly work on and promote to Mainspace... Just a thought. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There is. Template:Promising draft adds a draft to Category:Promising draft articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's good to know this – but I would say this has been under advertised, and needs to be promoted more to the wider editorship. Right now, there aren't that many drafts in Category:Promising draft articles, which leads me to think that most people don't know about it... But I'll go ahead and tag the draft I'm thinking of thusly. It would also be nice if Template:Promising draft had, like, a reason parameter so that a specific rationale could be added to the text of 'Promising draft' tag. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is enough - the pages that are hard to find good sources for are not ones that editors in general are going to be able to help with. They are more likely to get help from people who look for that page because of a special interest but don't find it. I am shocked by the tightening up of rules that turns article into drafts (see comment below). I've created hundreds of new pages, since the early days of Wiki, and watched them take off from stubs, but now I feel I can't be bothered because there are too many hurdles to jump without help. What happened to 'be bold'?Lindosland (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: -- Please don't use {{Promising draft}} for this purpose. If a draft is not edited for six months then it is deleted (generally, mechanically by an admin who is not applying any more judgment than, has this been unedited for six months?). If you have an article that will withstand deletion in mainspace, put it in mainspace, even if it sucks. Draftspace is just a holding pen before eventual deletion in ost cases. BTW the reason there are so few "promising draft" tags is because the "promising drafts" are not spared the six-month-deletion clock and in fact one editor targeted these drafts for special deletion requests. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY

Scope creep (and the banned CaillouFan) ‎has been moving a number of very old (one over 12 years) articles to draft space, saying they're basically not very good. I can't find a justification at WP:DRAFTIFY for any of these moves.

Pages moved include:

... and probably others. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're wondering why I'm here, 2093 is on my watchlist, and I decided that CaillouFan was probably violating a number of guidelines, so I went around fixing his non-drafts. But then Scope creep moved the first 2 again, and hasn't gotten back to me with reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Scott Spock is marginal. It was a redirect for some time, and recently edited to an article failing WP:BLPPROD. Possibly, it should be in draft space, with the redirect (the first 3 edits) restored into mainspace. Ripoff and Adrienne Alexander have long histories with apparently acceptable content, and should not be draftified without an WP:AFD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have opinions about all of these but this isn't the right place to discuss editor conduct. I see you posted some thoughts to Scope's user talk. The next step would be to give him time to respond there. Is the desire here to discuss the appropriateness of DRAFTIFY'ing old articles? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't see support on this page for DRAFTIFY'ing old articles; specifically noting point 2d. I was wondering whether I had missed something, this page not being exactly a guideline.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
All these have went through the WP:NPP queue and I reviewed them. Adrienne Alexander is a BLP with no references. Why are you advocating to push this BLP back into mainspace, when it has no references. I see that it was you that moved it out Draft without a single reference. It is a BLP. You also moved this article out, Caillou's Favorite Songs, which also has no references. I see it was rejected by user:AngusWOOF as being improperly sourced before you promoted it to mainspace, again with no references. All of these have been on the NPP queue. All your doing is making extra work for somebody else. I suggest you stop it doing. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep, Draft:Adrienne Alexander was created in 2012 by User talk:Kangasmokey04, who hasn't edited since. Caillou's Favorite Songs was created in 2011 by User talk:Erock23432, who is indefinitely blocked. Who are you expecting to improve these drafts? – bradv🍁 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) If a page was created in 2005 or 2012, it shouldn't be in the WP:NPP queue. If it is, it's your responsibility to take it out, as it's not new.
None of these qualify for removal from mainspace without discussion, under any guidelines I've seen. Of course, there may be guidelines relating to WP:DRAFTIFY which aren't reflected on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm heading out. If I don't see justification for the draftification, I'll submit a proper WP:ANI request. My question here is basically, can draftification be done by a page-mover as a delayed speedy delete; that is, speedily moving a relatively stable article with inadequate references to draft space, without any indication that anyone interested in the subject would know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep appears to have not been aware these were old articles. They were in the NPP queue because of Arthur Rubin's move out of draftspace, where they were previously moved – disruptively – by the now indeffed CaillouFan. I don't know if NPP reviewers are told to, but they should check the history of articles they're reviewing. Situations like the present one might be rare, but there are many other occasions where an old article might turn up in the NPP queue: if it's moved by mistake into the wrong namespace and then moved back, when it is blanked or redirected and then restored, or as a result of cut-and-paste moves. – Uanfala (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, if those old articles were moved to Draft and submitted, they will show up on AFC and reviewers such as myself will treat them as such. If you move them back to mainspace, they might still be treated like new articles and the NPP reviewers will have at it. If you don't want NPP to touch it, then apply the appropriate tags to the article and checkbox it in NPP. But if they are in the sights of NPP or AFC reviewers then "move to draft" is a very likely option, especially when those pending articles are sorted by oldest date, they will show up right away. If they are not notable despite all that, then they should be tagged appropriately, and AFD considered if they have no chance of being notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
In a sense, they were moved to Draft: and not submitted.... But how do I checkbox it in NPP; I don't have the "reviewer" or "new page reviewer" bit. I've never requested it, and didn't want to make "obvious" cleanup a new submission necessarily mark it reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I was aware they were old articles. I did check them. They were on the NPP queue and reviewed them, like all the rest of them. Of the 200-300 NPP reviews I've done on the last three days, about 10-12 articles have been moved back to draft. I now have a draftify log. During that time I have posted about 2 dozen Afds. The external links on Draft:Adrienne Alexander are both from sites that are user generated and a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. The Caillou's Favorite Songs was rejected by User:AngusWOOF several hours before Arthur Rubin decided it should go back into mainspace adding a citation needed tag. Ultimately all notable articles will be created by somebody, somebody. The whole point of NPP and AFC is to improve the quality of Wikipedias articles at every level. I believe strongly in article quality. I don't see it as bad thing moving a non-referenced blp article back to Afc and having it deleted. If I thought any chance of them being deleted, I would have sent them all Afd. The Ripoff article looked looked more like dictionary definition. The Scott Spock article I thought it needed an extensive copyedit. It is absolutely notable and was planning to do it myself. scope_creepTalk 22:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. User:AngusWOOFscope_creepTalk 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Scope creep: You obviously think you're doing the right thing, but I cannot find anything in WP:Draft which says you are allowed to draftify an old page without going to AfD. Can you point to anything? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
For Scott Spock, the obvious thing to do is to draftify and then either (1) request that an admin split the article, leaving the first 3 versions back in mainspace, or (2) create the redirect in mainspace. When you're ready to move the article to mainspace, put a {{db-move}} on the redirect. At least, that's the obvious thing to do if you want to work on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

For Adrienne Alexander, I will move her article back to mainspace as that was one of Caillou's inappropriate moves that made it appear on NPP. But then I will boldly redirect her article to husband Tom Ruegger. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If something is in the NPP queue it's arguably not an old article and deserves to be checked for new page criteria. In this case it's complicated. CaillouFan should not have draftified any of them. Upon them being restored to mainspace if they were not notable I agree with Arthur that they should not have been re-draftied but Angus' boldly redirecting strikes me as appropriate. In the abstract, if there's a page which was an article from 2006-2010, turned into a redirect in 2010, and created as an article again in 2019 it's possible that this article could be appropriately draftified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to Adrienne Alexander or Caillou's Favorite Songs being turned into an appropriate redirect. As an aside, is 2093 marked as "new" at this point? If so, someone needs to mark it as patrolled, so it doesn't get draftified before being merged (redirected, in this case) into 2090s. I still think some clarification needs to be done, here, as I'm now sure Scope creep is acting in good faith, but is not following WP:DRAFTIFY. If WP:DRAFTIFY is correct (this is an explanation page, not a guideline, itself), Scope creep needs to change. If not, WP:DRAFTIFY needs to change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

For Scott Spock, it is one of those redirect turned into an article in 2019 cases, so yes, draftify is appropriate there. Those are the cases the NPP review process should be catching AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, if the particular situation that prompted this thread is not the result of error, then I think the general question needs to be addressed. Is it OK to draftify old articles? Well, no, it's not. As hinted at by Bradv above, moving to draftspace is predicated upon the idea that the article will be worked on, and that presupposes there will be someone there to work on it. For new articles this is the creator, who's usually still around and can be presumed to be still interested in their creation. You don't often get that with old articles. I think that's pretty clear from the wording in WP:DRAFTIFY. Yes, it doesn't explicitly say "don't draftify established articles", but that's probably only because nobody so far had thought to start draftifying such articles. A related issue is that if no-one is interested in working on the draft, it will get deleted in six months. The corollary is that people shouldn't draftify articles unless they're happy to see them deleted; but if deletion is the aim, then draftification is not the means (and that's something WP:DRAFTIFY is explicit about).
    But draftification of old articles is disruptive even if there are people willing to work on the draft. To varying degrees, established articles are integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia: they're linked from other articles, and they likely have redirects pointing to them (which will likely get WP:G8 speedy deleted after the draftification, and there'll be no way to track them down and restore them afterwards). They might have incoming external links as well (readers can't see the move log, so if they follow such a link what they'll get will be as good as if the article never existed).
    Overall, NPP and AfC are there as an elaborate filter for new content. For improving the quality of articles at every other level, Scope creep, you have the entire remaining wiki arsenal – from deletion processes, to editing, writing and rewriting. If an article on a notable topic is bad, cut out the bad parts; if everything in it is bad, throw it all away and replace it with a single-sentence stub (something that I myself am guilty of doing from time to time). Even actions as radical as that avoid the complications of draftifying. – Uanfala (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly. There are 40,000 drafts, and anything older than 6 months get deleted. Moving old articles to draftspace with no one to work on them is nothing short of an out-of-process deletion. – bradv🍁 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep has extensively edited the draft and AFC submitted Spock's article, and I've approved it back to mainspace. Meets WP:COMPOSER as he is listed individually in some of the songwriting credits for major songs, and has a Grammy nomination for such songs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of existing page in the main namespace and draft of the same name

If a main namespace page has the same name as the draft page and the draft was approved by a page mover, would the edit history and page statistics (XTools) merge together, or would one of the page's data be deleted? —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback needed: long translation draft with many "empty section" templates

Hello, have a question concerning the use of the {{empty section}} template on a Draft translation that is not yet complete, as it impacts (or doesn't impact) a move to mainspace.

We (several experienced editor/translators) are working on this draft, which is being translated from a long article on pt-wiki. The article will end up having more than 60 sections when complete; it appears to be more than half done now. However, that still leaves many sections that have not been translated yet, which are currently tagged with the {{empty section}} template.

There is plenty of useful information in the article now, and I think the encyclopedia would benefit by having the Draft moved to Mainspace now, or soon; even incomplete as it is. However, it would be annoying for our work flow, if the many {{empty section}} templates were removed by another editor, during the ongoing translation. I think it's a shame to leave it in Draftspace at this point. We know what we're doing, and all core content policies are being observed as we go; this is not a question about whether the draft is ready to be moved in the newbie/Afc sense; it's about the empty-section issue, specifically. I had considered adding a custom-hat at the top after moving to mainspace, requesting editors not to remove the templates while expansion is ongoing. Any advice here? Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there something like {{Expand Portuguese}} for sections? Or how about creating an ad hoc template with an appropriate message, to substitute for the {{empty section}} tags? Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Would it help to comment out (with <!-- -->) your empty sections, so that readers don't see them but in edit mode you can still see what's left to do? – Joe (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That would be ideal. Or else as most of them have Further information entries, they don't need an empty section entry. As the article is going to be fully completed, then they can all be pulled, if it is moved out of draft. They are not generally needed. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Workpages, a subpage of the talk page for the draft under further development? Largoplazo (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback; we'll probably go with some combination of the above. Largoplazo, I see you have some knowledge of Portuguese; if you're like me, your {{User pt-1}} box probably hides a lot more facility in reading than in writing the language. We'd love to have your help at Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations in whatever capacity; adding new section translations, proofreading existing ones, commenting at the (long) Talk page, or especially, hunting down good English language references to add to the existing Portuguese refs. Reuters and BBC and English-language services of Brazilian media and other English MSM have plenty of references, it's just a matter of finding them and adding them. We would welcome your contributions, as well as from anyone else that is willing to help out. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

I request to draft a article on Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida please allow me to create it please i can send you my draft if needed but i want it published on wiki 71.254.13.6 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You can use WP:YFA to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Draftified article recreated in mainspace

If an article has been draftified, as here for example, and then recreated in mainspace (Ayyappanum Koshiyum for example) rather than the editor improving the draft, what should happen? There's no appropriate speedy deletion criteria as far as I can see. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, those actions don't create a speediable situation. According to WP:DRAFTIFY, for draftifications that aren't the result of a deletion discussion, "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD." So the editor who recreated Ayyappanum Koshiyum in mainspace could have simply said "I object" and moved the draft back to mainspace. (Indeed, that's what they should have done to preserve the page history.) Either way you may take to it AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Blogs

Are they also used for blogs? Please be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael grutsch (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Contesting draftification?

WP:DRAFTIFY currently states "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD." That makes very little sense because the point of nominating an article for deletion is to provide a rationale for why an article should be deleted. This page as it's phrased leads to nominations like this, where no argument for deletion is advanced, which is technically an invalid deletion nomination. Something should probably be changed somewhere to clarify; I'd propose rephrasing it to be like contesting a PROD nomination where users provide an explanation and the user who DRAFTIFIED the article can take it to AfD where they could advance a rationale for deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree it should be changed. Suggest "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it does not meet the notability criteria then list at AFD." Its not worth mentioning prod because the objection to draftifying is a clear challenge to deletion. Also articles about notable subjects are often moved to draftspace because they are unreferenced, badly referenced or one-line stubs, whether that is correct procedure or not, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate use of namespace

Is this draft of a proposed new en-Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure a proper use of the Draft namespace since it's not an article? I'd like to comment on it, but am not interested in doing so if this is the wrong place for it. This seems more like something for the entire community to comment upon rather than just a single reviewer in the draft review process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I admit and agree that the draft isn’t an article nor will ever be an article, but the only viable alternative is to create it directly into the Wikipedia (WP) namespace and add a message saying that the page is currently undergoing edits. This isn’t ideal because it’s not fully ready yet and could cause confusion. As well, I wholeheartedly agree that it is vital to receive comments and establish strong consensus before creating a new method of dispute resolution. I created a section on the draft talk page with a link to the original Village Pump proposal. Also, as far as I know, using the draft space for non-article pages isn’t specifically prohibited anywhere, though you may prove me wrong if you would like with the appropriate policy/guideline/information page. You are free and welcome to leave comments on the draft, I don’t see anyone having a problem with it. As a precaution, I have added a notice to the draft to clarify its intended purpose. MrSwagger21 (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, that's why I asked here. But drafting things like this in the Wikipedia namespace, appropriately marked as a proposal using the {{proposal}} template, has been the practice in the past. I just thought things might have changed with the advent of the Draft namespace. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
It can be in draft but the boxes to submit it for AFC consideration should be removed and noted that it will go in as policy upon a separate approval process. Another option is to move it to someone's userspace sandbox where it can be worked on. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories

In Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing_drafts, the second items says to "Disable any categories by inserting a colon before the word 'Category'". There are now several categories that are intended to be used with drafts (see Category:Draft articles). Should the instructions be modified to say something like: "Disable any main space categories by inserting a colon before the word 'Category'"? BOVINEBOY2008 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Launching a completed draft when a mainspace redirect is in the way

Please see the discussion at WP:VPT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am working on a page of a notable person, and he is referenced many places in Wikipedia. Can I go to those pages and [[ ]] link him to the page I'm working on, or must it be accepted for publication after review? The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Claude_Douglas_Sterner_(Doug_Sterner) and Douglas Sterner appears many places in WP.

Thanks Pabobfin (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • It must be published in mainspace first as redirects from mainspace to draftspace are not permitted, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The reason draft space articles are there is that they aren't (yet) suitable for presentation to the public as Wikipedia's offerings on their topics. Sending readers to articles that aren't suitable to be presented to them would defeat the purpose of holding them apart in draft space and isn't what we want to do. Largoplazo (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox history from 2019 showing up in current draft

I've been working on this song draft for a month and a half now and realized recently that my sandbox history appears in the page history (I started on the draft June 30, 2020). I don't know what I can do to change this (if it can be fixed) or what I was supposed to have done before creating a new draft. Help would be appreciated. Also my apologies if this is not the correct place to ask, but this is only my second time creating an article so forgive my ignorance. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's usual for user-space histories to be included. So, it should be usual for draft-space histories to be included, as well, although I myself have never used draft space for creating articles. I don't see how that inclusion would be a problem. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: I'm referring to the history of anything done in my sandbox prior to when I started working on this particular draft. Surely the only history in a draft should be the edits related to it specifically and not the entirety of one's sandbox. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie: I see (I've created separate subdirectories for each of my articles). If there's something you don't think should be in the article's edit history, perhaps requesting a revision deletion is appropriate here. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: I read the page and I don't think my draft history meets that criteria? It seems to be more for extreme cases and the like. Do you know of another place I could possibly ask about this? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: I asked one other editor's opinion and they said your rec was appropriate so I have taken your advice. Struck my prev reply. Thank you for your help. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Carlobunnie, What happens with all pages is that a complete record of all work done on it is preserved. I suggest you ask for a revel
May I suggest in future that you give each potential article its own subpage? To create User:Carlobunnie/Foo you enter this in the search box and work from there? Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RfD opened which could affect WP:RDRAFT

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. I've posed a question in this discussion which may benefit with input from editors who are versed in the purpose of the "Draft:" namespace, specifically regarding redirects and WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

PP-template

For the last few days I've seen multiple several drafts using the following template: {{pp-protected|reason=meant to be copied, not edited|small=yes}} At first I thought it was because users were copying it from another article, but after seeing those "meant to be copied, not edited" several times I concluded this comes from a cheat-sheet template specifically for artists (as they tend to be pages for artists[10]). I don't know where users can access it, but it should be removed because drafts don't require that template. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Tbhotch, It seems to me that at least one you have seen, Draft:Zaleb Brown is a re-creation of an oft declined and once deleted page. The back of my mind recalls a site that grabs all WP's deletions. Mayhap they come from there.
I also suspect sock puppetry, and perhaps UPE in some cases, where a promotion organisation tries to foist cruft upon WP Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak of sockpuppetry, but as I said I have seen this template in drafts that use {{infobox artist}} and have [placeholder] tags[11][12][13][14][15][16][17], etc. That's why I thought there was a step-by-step page that you could just copy material from and users were copying the pp-template. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying new articles

What's the time period for an article to be considered 'new'? I just saw a two-month old article draftified, presumably as a 'new article review'... DYKs, for example, define new as within last week or so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not counting some weird outliers, the tail end of unreviewed articles in Special:NewPagesFeed looks to be late June right now. So that's probably the current cutoff. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Draftification: How active is active?

This guideline/supplement/whatever it is states that draftification of new articles can only occur if "there is no evidence of active improvement". Has there been a consensus developed here of how active the work on an article needs to be to count as evidence of active improvement? I would have thought, for instance, that at least a day of inactivity might be required. However, I found (in a case I am deliberately not naming, because I want this to be about the general principle and not the specific case) an example of an editor who was granted page-mover privileges a week ago, draftifying an article whose two edits (neither by me) were both made less than an hour before its draftification, with an edit summary stating that more was to come. The article creator made another flurry of about 15 edits over a period from 1–2 hours after the move. The draftifier maintained and continues to maintain that this is not active enough to count as active improvement, neither as seen when it was draftified nor in retrospect. To keep things simple let's suppose that the other conditions for draftification are met (the topic had potential merit but the writeup was in a substandard state, with no evidence of a COI). Is there precedent for whether draftification would be appropriate in cases like this? If there is a past consensus that might provide more specific guidance on activity to patrollers, would it be worth saying something about it on this page? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't have much experience with draftification, so commenting only as an average editor. I generally wouldn't think it's advisable to draftify if the article has received substantive edits in the last couple of days. That's not an absolute rule though: if there's suspicion of serious problems with the content (NPOV, FRINGE, etc), I'd dratfity right away regardless of activity. On the other hand, there needs to be at least some expectation of future activity before draftifying in the first place – that's what drafts are for; if it doesn't seem like there's someone who would continue working on the page, then draftification is tantamount to deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would treat it like someone putting up an {{In use}} tag, which lasts for several hours. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree with Uanfala, specifically the "it's [in]advisable to draftify if the article has received substantive edits in the last couple of days" part. Logical and reasonable. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I would also be thinking along the lines of a quite day or two consider it inactive. The good people over at WP:NPP have a different definition. They start reviewing new articles (including possible draftification) if they haven't been improved for 2 hours. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_11&oldid=1011133699"