Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 13

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

Moving drafts back to mainspace

OK, so I can do the move to mainspace bit. But it leaves the draft behind as a redirect. Is that the expectation or does this need to be cleaned up? Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirects from draftspace to mainspace should stay. That is expected, and they are exempt from G13 and R2. Hope that helps. Thanks for checking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarity around Draftification

We need to clarify the guidelines around draftification. The only relevant guideline that has been formalized (that I know of) is the 90-day limit. The thing that absolutely needs consensus one way or the other is whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not. There is simply too much disagreement which has led to too much drama (I have diffs, but rather than dredge up old drama I am not including them at the present moment. If people want to see them, I can provide them). It may also be useful to identify the circumstances in which an article can be unilaterally draftified. The core reasons that seem to have WP:SILENT consensus for are the article contains no sources at all, needs translation into English, or is too promotional (but presumably not G11-eligible). So: can things be double-draftified? And when can things be draftified in the first place? HouseBlastertalk 00:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the default reasons in the MoveToDraft script sum up the "de facto" most common draftification reasons nicely. Click here to see the default reasons. With the caveat that "It needs more sources to establish notability" should probably only be used if the WP:BEFORE is ambiguous, for example, only finding one GNG-passing source.
I think the instructions located at Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review are complex and verbose to the point that they are probably impractical. I count 18 bullets.
As the person that created the redirect WP:DRAFTOBJECT, I do think it is a good idea to take any pushback against a draftification to AFD in most cases. Although perhaps there is some wiggle room in some cases, such as double-draftifying suspected UPE.
Is it worth creating RFCs and drawing red lines for some of these things? I have no idea. Could be a lot of effort expended to just end up with another 50/50 RFC like the 90 day draftification RFC. I get the sense that the community is deeply divided on the issue of drafts/draftification/AFC.
There is also the issue that WP:DRAFT is just an essay. How much time should we spend on RFCs to make modifications to an essay?
These are all tough questions. Which is perhaps why we're in our current situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review is too complex should not be draftifying. There are multiple different things to consider, but none of them are hard.
I don’t get the sense of any deep division over draftification. Instead, I get the sense that new page patrollers are responsible and trustworthy.
If in doubt about draftification of something, take it to AfD to request draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I've seen inconsistent application of WP:DRAFTIFY and plenty of drama. Working on rules might help. But before going to that trouble, have we considered whether this is a net useful process? Do we have examples of material that was saved from the jaws of AfD by this process? How often do the desired improvements occur in draft space? How many draftified articles make it out of draft space? How many times is it just a longer and quieter road to deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Good questions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
These are somewhat rhetorical questions as far as I'm concerned. I just have anecdotes (or lack thereof) in support of this position but I don't see anything good coming of it unless you think the best way to delete marginal material is through G13. ~Kvng (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
User:HouseBlaster, can things be double-draftified? Unilaterally, by someone other than the author, no. Simple answer is “no”. Take it to AfD instead, request consensus to Draftify at AfD. Draftification is an efficient tool for things that would be a waste of time at AfD, mainly abandoned substandard recent creations. If there is a history of multiple namespace moves, it is surely worth a week to help someone learn something. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand “whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not”.
DRAFTOBJECT is an author’s right to not have it sent to draftspace, and to insist on an AfD if the article is challenged (or if there is a COI challenge). If there’s an active disagreement about whether an article belongs in mainspace, the proper forum is AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
By "whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not" I mean "is it a best practice or is it a guideline". For example, WP:PROD strongly recommends that you notify the author of the article when you propose it for deletion, but it does not require you do so. On the other hand, administrators are bound by WP:ADMINACCT to be accountable for their actions – it is a hard-and-fast requirement.
Personally, I agree with you: any objections should lead to a discussion at AfD (assuming the draftifier still believes the article belongs in draftspace). But there is evidently disagreement on this point, and I believe we should seek a formal, definitive answer. HouseBlastertalk 00:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Standard practice and consensus for that

Hi folks, I'm seeing articles about places that we used to consider "automatically notable" (villages for example) being moved to draft immediately by someone other than the creator. I'm wondering if someone could help me out with

  • Where we decided that moving things to draft as part of new page patrolling was a good idea.
  • The current status of notability of villages seems to be found in WP:GEOLAND and would make all villages "typically presumed to be notable". Is it appropriate for an article that meets WP:V about a village to be moved to draft space by a NPP?
  • How exactly a user would contest such a move and if the standard text used by NPP should include that information.

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're willing, consider listing some examples. Each page's notability situation could have its own nuances. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
We do have some individual NPPers who lean this direction. Doesn't sound right. I would suggest starting a dialog on their user talk page to understand their thinking then politely use WP:DRAFTOBJECT if you're unsatisfied and suggest they then use WP:AFD if they're unsatisfied. WP:AFD is ultimately, the best place to work this out. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I share the concerns of @Hobit. In particular, the repeated actions of @Onel5969 have raised a number of questions around improper article moves to Draft space instead of tagging them appropriately and improving them in main space, or letting our consensus driven processes play out. Pinging others who have encountered issues with the editor and have tried to discuss it with them in the past: @Liz, @BeanieFan11, @Tigraan, @Etoile, @Jayron32, @Ianmacm, @Tamzin.
For examples of discussions, please see:
I don't doubt there have been useful contributions by this editor, but this has become a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii seems to be largely ignored in these considerations; if something would likely survive AFD, then it shouldn't be draftified. WP:GEOLAND seems to be one of those areas that consensus still holds allows for WP:GNG exceptions, I'm not sure whether I personally agree or not that it should, but AFAIK, there has been no AFD-based test showing that consensus exists to delete such villages in the mainspace if they pass WP:GEOLAND, which says to me that 2a-ii is not met, the article would survive AFD, and as such, should not be draftified. --Jayron32 18:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    2a-ii is just one of a number of examples of a 'page is obviously unready for mainspace', which is why the line begins with or. It is not an absolute requirement of WP:DRAFTIFY. Your conclusion of 'if something would likely survive AFD, then it shouldn't be draftified' is therefore flawed. --John B123 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    No, it's not. Use of the draft space is optional, and draftifying someone else's work against their will has been, is, and always will be bullshit. If the article is appropriate for the mainspace, then it shouldn't be draftified. If it isn't appropriate for the mainspace, WP:AFD exists for a reason. --Jayron32 11:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have taken issue with Onel's draftifications in the past, but I'm not sure if that's because he's inappropriately draftifying more often than others, or because he draftifies a lot and a large percentage of draftifications are inappropriate. I've said before that we need an actual, proper, enforced, obeyed policy or guideline on who can draftify and when, and I think that's the real solution here, more than focusing on one user. Pings to @John Cline, Cullen328, and Joe Roe, who agreed with me in that thread. To quote Joe: The situation we've come to in the last few years, where solo new page patrollers can arbitrarily decide an article is "not ready for mainspace", leaving the creator with only a canned edit summary and jargon-filled template message to try and decipher why, is untenable, and I dread to think how many potential editors it has driven away. Just brainstorming, I think the best approach would be to limit draftification to: articles that meet A-series CSDs but not any G-series ones; anything that would fall within the discretionary range of WP:BLPDELETE; author's request; and technical draftifications (e.g. clearly published prematurely). I'd also support restricting the first two to new page reviewers and sysops. The use of draftification as a backdoor form of deletion should end. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    I wasn't asked about this, but personally, I think the whole "forced draftification" thing was wrongheaded to begin with. If I had my druthers, I'd entirely end the practice, and ONLY allow article creators to draftify something; if someone creates something in the main space, it's CSD, PROD, or AFD and that's it. If you want to drop a note on someone's talk page politely asking them to draftify the article they created, fine. If someone wants to use the draft space themselves to work on their own article, that's fine too. But if it would likely be deleted, do that. If it wouldn't, the main space is fine. The whole "send it to the Draft space" is misguided. --Jayron32 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Jayron32 this is a constructive proposal but allowing the creator to draftify is going to be hard to administer as soon as more than one editor has contributed to an article.
    As I have stated previously, I would prefer to just eliminate the process. I haven't yet seen a case where an article is improved by using it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    I've jotted down a rough draft of my desired guideline at User:Tamzin/Draftification draft. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    Right now the most common use cases for draftification are suspected COI/UPE, poor/machine translations, zero citations, unintelligible grammar, and borderline notability (e.g. only 1 GNG passing source found via WP:BEFORE, but seems promising enough to not send to AFD, just need some sources added to the article). Before proposing to eliminate draftification, please be sure that there's a plan as to what we should do in each of these cases. For example, do we just let COI/UPE sit in mainspace? Do we need to take machine translations to AFD? etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'll be honest, Novem Linguae, basically all of those seem contrary to community consensus. I could see draftifying verified UPE, but beyond that, there is no strict rule against COI creations, nor against bad/machine translations, nor uncited nor poorly written articles; meanwhile an article either is notable and should be kept, and isn't and should be deleted. We have processes for all of these things: CSD, PROD, AfD, and the placement of maintenance tags. If there is a perceived need to expand any of those processes to accommodate the scenarios you're discussing, then changes should be proposed to the relevant policies (e.g. a CSD for machine translations [currently explicitly excluded from WP:G1], or expanding WP:BLPPROD's "zero sources" rule to all articles). But what you're saying sounds like an acknowledgment that draftification is being used as an end-run around the established deletion policy. I don't mean that as a slight against you. I think you're just repeating what has become the status quo among many new page reviewers. But that itself is a problem. A group of new page reviewers deciding that they're going to do something is not a consensus that overrides the heavily-vetted deletion policies. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think those could be reasonably interpreted as fulfilling criteria 1-4 of the "During new page review" section of WP:DRAFTS. Overall my impression is that about half the community dislikes draftspace and draftification, and the other half supports it, so I think reasonable editors can have reasonable disagreements about it. WP:DRAFT is not a policy or guideline, so there is a lack of clear direction on the topic. Anyway, I'm not married to any particular side on this issue. For example I am the one that created the redirect WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I do encourage discussion of this issue and crystallization of consensus, if that is possible on such a 50/50 issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I put no stock in the current text of WP:DRAFTS because it is, as you say, not a policy or guideline. It's just some editors' ideas of a good way to do things, and I think those editors are, frankly, wrong. I'm a big fan of draftspace. Most of my articles have been written in draftspace. But the specific practice of adverse draftification perverts the very purpose of draftspace. It's a place where people can work on potential articles together, not somewhere to exile content one can't bother to put through the deletion process. DRAFTOBJECT would halfway solve that problem if anyone adhered to it, but let's be honest, it's constantly ignored... and is, after all, no more a policy or guideline than the rest of this essay. The only real solution is to prohibit adverse draftification except as an alternative to deletion, and ideally to also restrict it to new page reviewers and sysops (i.e., if you can't review a page, you shouldn't be able to remove it from the encyclopedia). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think restricting draftification to NPPs and sysops has potential. I think folks would support that if we want to explore it further. We could enforce it to some degree by programming it into the WP:MOVETODRAFT script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    User:Tamzin, it is disruptive of you to post here “ there is no strict rule against COI creations”.
    If you want a debate on nuance of the words “strict” versus “should” with regard to the fourth bullet point of WP:COIEDIT, you should take it to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest.
    As is stands, there is a rule against COI article creation, and it is a justification for draftification or AFD. The rule is not absolute. Rules are preferred to not be written in absolutes unless there is a very good reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, there is no strict rule against COI creations. COIEDIT is a "best practices" section of a guideline. It's not just a non-absolute rule, as you imply: It's not a rule at all. Perhaps it should be—I see the case either way—but it currently is not. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    There is no strict rule, but there is a rule, a rule that should be followed. Does it work? Will it work by beefing the wording to “must”? Probably not. Not with anonymous editing and page creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    Also, the idea that sending stuff to AFD is less WP:BITEy than draftifying seems incorrect to me. I think draftifying is either less bitey or equally bitey compared to sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    AfD: A discussion ensues for a week and then it's over.
    Draft: You think you've figured out how to submit your draft but then you have to wait for months waiting for anyone to respond. If you stick around long enough in limbo, eventually you start getting endless petty requests for more and more sources, and the more sources you add the less notable the reviewers think your draft is (because without a lot of experience you won't know that fewer high-quality sources are better than more low-quality ones or even how to judge source quality, and the review comments provide little guidance in this respect) and the more unhelpful the review comments become. Eventually you give up and figure out that you can move it to article space yourself. But then someone draftifies it again, against policy. After more rounds of unhelpful AfC comments, or more move-warring, someone takes it to AfD, a discussion ensues for a week and then it's over.
    Which of those two processes do you think is more discouraging to newbies, really? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think the spirit of draftification is to give authors a chance to fix up the article, which should in theory be less bitey than deletion. Deletion stings quite a bit. The AFC process, via its decline reasons and commenting, communicates to the author exactly what needs fixing, which is good.
    Fundamentally, article writing for new editors sucks. And the core problem isn't AFD or draftification, it's that our notability guidelines are indecipherable to newer editors. The notability guidelines have too many undocumented nuances, and in many cases are out of alignment with actual practice at AFD. GNG is too short, and the SNGs are too long. So it is basically impossible for a new editor to determine if what they are spending a bunch of time writing about is notable or not, until they've already written it and it is going through a deletion process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    Draft space and draftification are advertized as giving authors a chance to fix up the article, but they do not. Instead, they actually function as a process for gatekeeping. The cognitive dissonance between the advertized purpose of drafts and their actual purpose is what makes them bitey. Spammers get gatekept, as they should, but good-faith new contributors who take the advertisements at face value get bitten. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    fewer high-quality sources are better than more low-quality ones
    How can we get that into the newcomer advice? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Kvng: I more meant that the draft space should really only be used to create articles in. But really, I'm behind your sentiment 100%. The entire AFC process is fraught with giving people the false hope that the article they wrote about their buddy the garage EDM DJ is going to be acceptable if they only did a better job of writing it. The world was better around here when we just deleted the bullshit and got on our way. Or, overly aggressive AFC reviewers refuse to move articles to the main space for reasons unrelated to deletability, and expect unnecessary changes before moving it. Either way, it's not a useful system. It was much better when we just used AFD. --Jayron32 11:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have little to contribute here, as this is the first time I have encountered this process. Onel5959 notability tagged an article I wrote, but when I made improvements and then asked for feedback, the article was instead draftified. This was demoralizing, and while others brought the article back to main space upon my request, I worry that articles worthy of mainspace will end up abandoned because not everyone understands that they can object to an inappropriate draftification. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Notified: WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think we need to do something about the draftifications, as I'm seeing a lot of them (the majority by Onel5969) which do not meet the criteria set out (specifically the part that says only do it when its likely to fail AFD and only when it does not meet the quality standard) - as an example of the many problematic moves, see Camerun Peoples - created with decent prose, fully sourced, arguably has a decent shot at notability (a National Football League player), and sources are arguably enough for notability - despite all that, it was draftified. It was then reverted, and taken to AFD, and now there's a clear consensus to keep. There's been many cases like that; however, not all of them have gone contested and so this acts often as a backdoor to deletion (something draftification is not) and only drives the new creators away. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have hit Onel5969 with WP:DRAFTOBJECT on a few occasions and they have been responsive to these requests. I don't get much when I've asked about what they intend to accomplish by draftifying or what "not ready for mainspace" means in specific instances. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    Camerun Peoples was tagged for notability and after no improvement moved to draft. It was moved back to mainspace, again without improvement, and then sent to AfD. I would note that whilst at AfD references were added to the article to establish notability. Many of the KEEP !votes were made after the references were added to the article. It seems to me that if these refs were added when the article was tagged, the subsequent draftification and AfD would have been unnecessary and multiple editors' time and effort would have been saved. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    The thing is it was arguably notable and was clearly of good enough quality when it was moved to draftspace - WP:DRAFTIFY says it should not be done when it has a decent shot at notability and is good enough quality for mainspace, both of which Peoples' article passed. Draftifications like this seem to happen often and in many cases it just acts as a backdoor to deletion for notable topics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Geoland is an automatic pass as reviewed. However none of the draftifications pass GEOLAND, as there is no sourcing which shows that it is a legally recognized place. The articles were tagged for improvement, and the editors were given a week to make improvements. Many times those improvements are made, other times they are not. If they are not, they get moved to draft as they meet all the qualifications for draft: promising, does not meet the standard (no sourcing showing they meet the GEOLAND qualification), there was no active improvement, and they did not contain copyvios.Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Moving to draft should not be an end-run around AfD or CSD. I feel you are using it that way. Secondly, GEOLAND doesn't require that sources exist in the article for GEOLAND to apply. I think you are misusing this process and my sense is that others largely feel the same. Ideally I'd like you to undo all of that. At the least I think you need to stop doing so until we get this settled out. Are you willing to send articles to AfD or use the speedy process if you think the articles don't belong in mainspace for now? Hobit (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
      Shouldn't WP:BURDEN apply here? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
      GEOLAND also doesn't require geographic articles to be written in English, but that doesn't justify writing them in Chinese. If notability doesn't need to be demonstrated on the page, why do the various notability tags, including geo, invite editors to do just that and warn that the article may be merged, redirected or deleted if they are not added? Demonstrating notability on the page is such a fundamental principle that in our advice to new editors creating their first article it is stated twice: we also ask that you demonstrate that notability of the topic, by citing these reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail and later You must cite such sources as part of the process of creating (or expanding) the Wikipedia article as evidence of notability for evaluation by other editors. --John B123 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Break 1

  • Comment I'm going to jump in here because my comments don't have anything to do with GEOLAND. I look over the list of draftifications every night and it's a familiar story. We have a couple of power page movers who draftify quite a few articles every day, sometimes for questionable reasons, and then a larger number of editors who do occasional draftifications (a couple a day or a few every week). I get concerned about two matters:
  • Many of Onel5969's draftifications are reverted, some almost immediately after they've been moved. I commented upon this on their talk page and asked them to rethink their standards for draftifying since so many page moves were being undone but comments to them usually have little effect, no matter who is making their suggestion. I've had to warn them about draftying an article multiple times (once I saw them draftify the same article four times) but that problem has seemed to have lessened. In the past when Onel5969's editing came under fire, they stopped patrolling completely for many months...I wish they would be open to constructive criticism and adapt their behavior without quitting completely. They are a valuable contributor but like many long-time editors, after years of contributing, they are resistant to changing their behavior.
  • I come across very new editors who discover the page move option and kind of go to town with it, sometimes after only a few days or weeks of editing. They are too inexperienced to know when draftifying is a good decision and many of them have never created articles. Typically, a page warning can nip this in the bud but it is something to watch out for if you review the Move log. On a related point, some veteran content creators do not use Draft space and create and develop articles right in main space and it is not good for new editors or new patrollers to move these works-in-progress to Draft space while they are currently being improved. I have a general rule of thumb I tell new editors (which you might disagree with) to not draftify articles created by editors with more editing experience than they have. These article creators most likely know what they are doing and will only get annoyed and revert any move of their developing articles to Draft space.
That's it. I think this is an overdue discussion and when I have time, I'll review all of the many comments above mine. Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that if the standard practice which Onel5969 is an exponent of (as he really does what is de facto a standard, only doing it on a greater scale), was changed from unilateral draftification to a request to creator to draftify their new mainspace creation with a template recommendation about how it's a good idea to take it through AfC (only when doing so really does seem like a good idea—when less experiened article creators are concerned), many editors would accept the advice, and would consent to draftification. —Alalch E. 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think you're right that this is the de facto standard at NPP (though of course that doesn't mean we should accept it as a fait accompli), and that's why it's a bit unfair to pick on Onel5969 here. From what I've seen he's actually on the conservative side when it comes to draftification, compared to many other NPPers, he's just more visible because he's by far the most active. – Joe (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. This discussion comes across to me, at least in part, as a witch hunt against Onel5969. Pinging editors that are known to have issues with them previously hardly leads to a neutral or balanced discussion. As this has all been brought up previously at WP:ANI more than once, then it could be argued that this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There is a misguided argument running through this discussion against draftifying articles that would likely be kept at AfD based on 2a-ii of WP:DRAFTIFY. 2a-ii is just one of a number of reasons for draftifying, it is not a requirement for draftification. There are also suggestions that AfD should be used instead of draftification. In the case of 2a-ii, then I wholly agree. With other reasons for draftification I can't agree unless changes are made to AfD. AfD is to determine if a subject is notable enough for an article, the majority of draftification are to articles where the subject is notable but they don't meet the minimum standards of WP, often WP:V. The two processes have different aims. Whilst merge, redirect or send to draft are possible results at AfD, the majority are keep or delete. This leaves very poor articles in mainspace that are virtually untouchable because they have been kept at AfD. If notability is established at AfD then the content of the article needs to be looked at. If it largely meets the minimum standards (say WP:COPO) then keep should be returned, if not send to draft. I'd be interested to learn how people opposed to draftification would like sub-standard articles dealt with, or are they happy for these articles to remain untouched. --John B123 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    Having been mentioned (and thereby pinged) by Tamzin in this discussion in no way solicits me as an editor "known to have [had] issues with [Onel5969] previously". I've not had any such issue and, to my best recollection, admire Onel5969 as an esteemed colleague. My participation here is not to consider editor conduct (outside of this discussion) but instead to voice my opinion on draftification in general and likely to reiterate my belief that a codified process for draftification is needed. Unless I am missing something, I do not see how an argument "against draftifying articles that would likely be kept at AfD" could remotely be characterized as: "misguided". In my opinion, that argument is sound and I doubt that reason could arise to dissuade me of that opinion. Having said these things, I wish you (and all) well and look forward to participating further in this discussion (hopefully without the encumbrance of a label, wrongly assumed). --John Cline (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    @John Cline: I assume that John B123 is not referring to my ping of you and others, but rather Fuzheado's earlier ping of me and others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that you are almost certainly correct. And admit that my comment was engendered by a misunderstanding (on my part). Nevertheless, the resultant truth, as extraneous as it is, remains true and, being published, warrants no redaction. Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    (NB: Edited to correct for erroneously stating user was an admin. Doesn't materially change any of the issues, but it is now corrected for the record. Apologies for the error.) It goes against WP:AGF to characterize notifying folks who have had recent direct experiences with this editor as FORUMSHOPPING. I was alarmed by the massive number of WP:DRAFTIFY actions the editor was taking that were clearly against policy, and I was not aware of the previous ANI around this issue. I saw an admin a user that was draftifying obviously notable people (e.g. the current sitting ambassador from the Philippines to China, a legendary CNN journalist, published author, who was covered by multiple sources in the article) and getting a stream of complaints on their talk page. Onel5969 as an administrator, was using automated tools to enact changes at a large scale and because they were deletions, were hard to review or WP:BRD by ordinary users. Being an admin and a tool user means you face extra scrutiny and answering for your edits. With great power comes great... you know the rest. That does not constitute a "witch hunt." A reminder that the following were my exact words and are hard to see as a "hunt" or any call for action, but a mild call for discussion: I don't doubt there have been useful contributions by this editor, but this has become a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion.. – Fuzheado | Talk 11:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    Firstly, Onel5969 is not an administrator therefore your further remarks based on this and your edit summary are erroneous. Secondly, draftification is not deletion as you imply. a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion - pinging editors who are known to share the same or similar views to yourself doesn't seem to be a way of obtaining 'a wider discussion', in fact the opposite, narrowing down the discussion to similar viewpoints. I note you have moved many articles back to mainspace with the edit summary improper move to Draft namespace - does not satisfy WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii - "it would have very little chance of survival at AfD". WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii is just an example of a 'page obviously unready for mainspace', it is not a requirement of WP:DRAFTIFY and not complying with 2a-ii doesn't make a move to Draft improper. Many, if not all, of these article moved back to mainspace would have been draftified by Onel5969. Your comments about admin behaviour could well be applied to an admin undoing many actions by a single user based on a misinterpretation of WP:DRAFTIFY. --John B123 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    My bad, thanks for pointing that out. I have amended the post to correct the error of saying the user was an admin, though it doesn't change the argument materially. There's been so much drama around draftification that I got the user privileges mixed up with this case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:BigHaz redux. That said, it is clear we are seeing more conflict in draftify best practices, especially with the advent of new scripts and tools.
    If you inspect the pages I've moved back to main space, many of those articles exist in other Wikipedia language editions (e.g. Kolmogorov Prize in ru, de, pt) which speaks to their notability and appropriateness for inclusion, or are the continuations of very established article name patterns (e.g. 2027 in public domain). This audit and undoing of draftifying was appreciated by other Wikimedians. [1] [2] A quick perusal of the types of articles that were in dispute show a pattern of not considering them closely in context, which is a hazard of these types of script-based tools and the speed-running they facilitate. This is just to say - let's slow our roll out there, and take some more time to consider the articles and the editors that are affected by hasty draftifying. Thanks. – Fuzheado | Talk 23:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    I also appreciate this check on overuse of WP:DRAFTIFY. No need to accuse anyone of violating policy. Just use WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You might not even have to do the moves yourself if you're civil, reasonable and lucky. ~Kvng (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    many of those articles exist in other Wikipedia language editions (e.g. Kolmogorov Prize in ru, de, pt) which speaks to their notability and appropriateness for inclusion. Please be very careful assuming that other wikis having an article indicates notability. I think enwiki might be the strictest wiki in terms of notability, and I can think of multiple times I had to decline drafts due to notability issues from folks translating articles from other wikis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Notability from articles in other language Wikipedias is covered by WP:OTHERLANGS. That aside, the text quoted by Novem Linguae above continues the misinterpretation of WP:DRAFTIFY that notability is the only criteria for draftification. --John B123 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    "I think enwiki might be the strictest wiki in terms of notability" - Not at all, in my many years of experience. With English Wikipedia being the largest of all language editions at 6.6 million articles, just from a logical standpoint "strictest wiki" cannot be true. If you ever hang out at German Wikipedia, they are very strict about notability and new article creation, especially those around pop culture. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for that info about German Wikipedia. Good to know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Re: "Please be very careful assuming that other wikis having an article indicates notability." Of course. I said it speaks to their notability, not that it proves their notability. But it is clear many of the folks moving things to draft are not even bothering to check this very important data point in their evaluation. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:ONUS and WP:BRD would appear to apply here; assuming these are new articles that Onel is draftifying, then the onus is on the creator to get consensus to include the information in mainspace, not on Onel to get consensus to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    That is exactly the opposite of our draftification guidelines, which forbid repeat draftification and explicitly allow article creators to object to draftification and force the draft back into mainspace (at the expense of facing a likely AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:V, a core policy, takes precedence over WP:DRAFT, an explanatory essay. WP:BRD is also just an essay, but I suspect it enjoys greater community support than WP:DRAFT does. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:V says nothing about allowing draftifiers to unilaterally force content out of article space over others' objections. Failure to be verifiABLE (not even close to the same thing as being inadequately sourced) is a valid reason for deletion, but content worthy of deletion should not be draftified, and deletion should follow our deletion processes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:ONUS permits editors to remove newly inserted information they believe should not be included, up to and including the entirety of the article, and puts the onus for restoring it on the editor wishing to include it. Functionally, this means either draftifying or blanking-and-redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    Wp:onus is good policy. But it is not a blank check drawn solely on the removing editor's personal belief in the content's suitability, and does not constitute an unsurmountable blockage of content reinstatement. If the removal of content is not explained in the edit summary and shown to be rooted in consensus and best practice, the removal is subject to, and likely will -be reverted (without the burdens of onus coming to bear). And if the content removal's edit summary can not withstand the merits of a valid, policy based rebuttal, the burdens of onus are met. In the case of draftification (where the article is not subject to specific deletion criteria) mere objection to draftification is sufficient enough to meet the onus of reinstatement unless and until a consensus at AfD determines otherwise. Have I said anything in this posting that you feel is not correct? Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    Are there examples of where DRAFTOBJECT has led to AFD, but are not examples of WP:HEY? These AfDs would be informative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't know of AFD's that were a consequence of DRAFTOBJECT; it's not an area I've been active in. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have recently sent a couple, both are still going but one is pretty much over.
    A couple of days ago I sent Project Colored Mountains (video game) to AFD, a COI creation. I actually didn't realize the COI line when I sent it to AFD, but it's pretty much deleted (SNOW-level) at AFD; the creator tried to draftify it themselves once it ended up at AFD, and then got blocked for advertising.
    Earlier today I sent P.M Bhaktha Valsalan to AFD, which seems to be headed for speedy deletion under G11 (I didn't think it was that bad myself, but I defer). It falls under the 1 GNG source criteria for borderline notability that was talked about earlier.
    I think both of these could have been improved in draftspace (the first was more of a CRYSTAL situation, good for draftspace), but in both cases the creator themselves moved it back to mainspace and they ran into AFD, where neither seems likely to survive. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    If you're looking for examples of DRAFTOBJECT that were kept, but not through WP:HEY, a recent one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Pan (professor). Some improvements were made to the article over the AfD, but they were not discussed within the AfD as part of a keep rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yes thank you. That’s a good example.
    User:LilianaUwU unilaterally draftified a version identical to the version SNOW-kept at AfD.
    It was and is a very well referenced STUB with no secondary content. I can see why a reviewer might Draftify it, and I agree that such a stub is welcome in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, per WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN and other policies/guidelines we allow editors to remove content that does not have consensus, but when it comes to an entire article that isn't verified then it would have to be deletion, BLAR, and draftification—often expected to have affirmative consensus to remove the entire article. To me this seems inconsistent and when it comes to new articles I think draftification should be allowed when there is not consensus that the content belongs in mainspace. Ideally, new articles could be fixed or deleted if NN, but there's a fundamental problem when editors can flood Wikipedia with garbage like machine translations far quicker than it can be removed, which is what you get when consensus is required to delete said garbage. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    At WP:AFD we keep articles where there is not a consensus as to whether they belong in mainspace. It sounds like you would support changing that. Until that change is made, I don't think there is policy support for draftifying without consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    Draftification is not deletion, though. The content still exists and the creator can always move it back to mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
    I've asked above for evidence that articles ever get improved once draftified. I'm not sure anyone knows. Until someone makes the effort to do some objective observations, neither of us can say for sure how closely draftification resembles deletion in practice. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    While consensus is clear that draftification should not be used as a quasi form of deletion, the process very clearly does resemble deletion and deletion is, quite often, its resultant end. Furthermore, and, in my opinion. more importantly: the creator of an article unilaterally draftified from the main space is considerably disadvantaged in the scheme of article creation and in peril of irreparable harm (as a content creator) directly thereby. For example: the creator of an article that is draftified from the main space is not protected (as first mover) against another editor's subsequent creation of an article for the same topic and no recourse exists to restore their status as the article's creator if ever such a subsequent creation manifests while their creation languishes in draft space. One can easily see how such an occurrence would likely drive a potential editor from joining our community. This and other reasons are why draftifications should be carefully considered and furthermore, why I believe that unilateral draftification and all forms of hurried or speedy draftication should be discontinued as soon as possible. If a formal process can not be accomplished that puts and end to the "wild west" antics of draftification that are currently in play, I would support, and suggest that the entire draft space itself should be shut down and marked historical. --John Cline (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    I was with you until that last clause which would presumably also shut down WP:AFC. I suspect that until we have better information about what actually happens to an article after it is draftified, we won't be able to make much more progress on this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    It is a common misnomer that wp:afc is dependant on the draft namespace for its own ability to functionally exist. In fact, wp:afc was in operation long before the draft namespace was ever imagined. Notwithstanding: the good faith and very best intentions that gave birth to the draft namespace, and the enormous sums of effort and editor time invested to improve and maintain the same, not the first dividend or favorable gain has ever returned. And, sadly, all indications suggest that no such profit ever will come. Don't shoot the messenger but for everything hoped, nothing has come. In closing, I'd like to say that the presence of hyperbole, in my replies is a deliberate exercise of poetic license by me, meant to reflect the strength of my convictions regarding this topic. I thank all, in advance, for indulging this "old dog's" manner and writing style (from forming the words to arranging the prose); I've utterly failed to learn the "new tricks" (in writing) of concision and universal clarity (as if such were even possible). Thanks again, and be well. --John Cline (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    So you wouldn't be in favor of shutting down AfC, we'd just have to rework all the tools and template to operate in Wikipedia space again? If so the same could be accomplished by restricting use of Draft space to AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    I would never suggest or support the shuttering of AfC (of which I am a big fan). Unless one finds fault in the hugeness of their success, they are blameless for the current, unacceptable, state of draft space affairs. And while it would be possible to restore AfC operations into the Wikipedia space, it is, by no means, impossible to effect the needed repairs with all of our assets remaining in place. I'd certainly rather see things done by way of the latter. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    the creator of an article unilaterally draftified from the main space is considerably disadvantaged in the scheme of article creation and in peril of irreparable harm (as a content creator) directly thereby
    Although more strongly put that I would (small article countis harm is reparable by WP:History merge, as often done) I broadly agree. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is a remedy. If more is desired, I suggest a link to WP:DRAFTOBJECT be mandatorily provided (in the edit summary, or on the authors user_talk page) to the article creator on draftification, done by the script. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Just a quick response to:
    I suggest a link to WP:DRAFTOBJECT be mandatorily provided... to the article creator on draftification, done by the script.
    I'm astonished that is not the situation right now. In that sense, the User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js script is harsh and when used, does not adequately leave a message to explain: 1) what has happened or 2) what are the options. Yes, the script leaves a User_talk message with more elaboration, but for transparency the options should really be laid out at the top of the article itself.
    We should definitely be providing a more Wikipedia:Teahouse-compatible set of instructions. (Ping: Cullen328.) For the new or inexperienced editor or for subsequent editors, it is jarring and perplexing. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    The NPP team did a slight update to the MoveToDraft script about six months ago, including better and more customizable messages, and alerts to the script user for certain things such as draftifying too soon or double draftifying. It is located at User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft if folks would like to take a look. cc MPGuy2824. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Notified: WT:AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Break 2

  • The idea that WP:ONUS and/or WP:BURDEN means that we can keep articles out of mainspace until there is a positive consensus for inclusion is a novel argument, but one I've seen used a few times now. I can see the logic, but surely we can all agree that this wasn't the intended application of those policies? Both are part of WP:V, and read in context are clearly talking about individual pieces of information within articles, not entire articles themselves. The primary policy governing when things are removed from mainspace is, and always has been, the deletion policy, which has the opposite principle running throughout it: consensus is required for deletion, in all but the most obviously uncontroversial cases. I've never understood how the "draftify first" crowd can square that circle in their own heads – why would we, as a community, have gone to great lengths to spell out the narrow set of circumstances we'll tolerate an administrator deleting an article without prior consensus, but be a-okay with anyone moving any article to draftspace (to be deleted six months later) for any reason? Interestingly, the two predecessor processes to draftification, Wikipedia:Userfication and the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, stuck to DELPOL logic and explicitly forbade moves from mainspace outside the deletion process. I'm not exactly sure how it came to be that practices around draftspace departed from this tradition so dramatically, but I've seen firsthand how between around 2016 draftication went from being something we did in a few edge cases to NPP's tool of first resort, which I don't think is good for anybody. – Joe (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the excellent distillation of this issue into one question: why would we, as a community, have gone to great lengths to spell out the narrow set of circumstances we'll tolerate an administrator deleting an article without prior consensus, but be a-okay with anyone moving any article to draftspace (to be deleted six months later) for any reason?. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately there is a major flaw in this question: to be deleted six months later. Whilst some articles do get deleted after 6 months, the majority get moved back to mainspace at some stage either through DRAFTOBJECT or the article being improved and then moved back. The premise that draftification = deletion simply isn't correct in the majority of cases. --John B123 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    the majority get moved back to mainspace at some stage – do you have any evidence for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've been closely following discussions around draftification for years and I have never seen any statistics on what happens to drafts. I've tried to gather them myself, but it's not straightforward.
    Either way, I don't think it can be debated that draftification is a form of deletion nomination. "Soft" deletion, yes – but still deletion, because unless the creator of the article (or someone else) actively objects, the page will be permanently removed from mainspace. A "long PROD" is how I've seen it sometimes described. In that sense its immaterial whether or not most nominations are successful. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    I've also tried to get statistics but haven't been able to do so. My comments are based on my experiences when I was active in NPP. It's not just objections that get articles moved back to mainspace, some articles do get improved in draft and then moved back to mainspace which is the aim of draftification during NPP. Again I don't have any figures for this. If anybody can get these statistics then it would be a great help to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs)
    NPP's tool of first resort I'd say the opposite was true. Generally articles are tagged by NPP initially and only if the issues are not resolved is draftification used. --John B123 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    In my experience this has not been the norm for some years now. Even if it is, it's yet another policy innovation by NPP: there is a long-standing consensus that articles tagged for improvement can stay in mainspace indefinitely, as long as they're improvable. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    To a degree it depends on your definition of deletion: is removal from mainspace a deletion? Whilst I agree minor problems can be ignored, I don't see anything in WP:DEADLINE (an essay) that overrides the requirements for articles to comply with core content policies. --John B123 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Unlike a PROD or a hatted article in main space, a draftified article disappears from Google search and other external users, so it is indeed more akin to deletion than one might think. Also, since it is removed from categories, and thus becomes invisible to WikiProjects and other scripts and tools we have that operate in mainspace that deal with article improvement, notifications, and the like, it is eliminated from many process flows where there are more eyeballs and expertise. This is another reason why it draftifying needs to be taken a lot more seriously regarding notability and not just done with the flip of a button from automated tools. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment If a substandard article is created in draftspace and then rejected at AfC it remains in draft. As far as I'm aware nobody objects to this. If the same article is created in mainspace and moved to draft then people object. This seems illogical. A substandard article should be treated in the same way no matter where it was created. --John B123 (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Re: As far as I'm aware nobody objects to this. Ahem, cough. A large sector of our community (e.g. GLAM wiki, education, academia, teaching and learning) has longstanding significant problems with AfC and regularly counsel our trainees to avoid it altogether because of its gatekeeping that is often at odds with our mainstream policies of notability and deletion. So that assertion has a lot of problems. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'm an AfC reviewer and have seen these criticisms and can't dispute them in many cases. In reviewing resubmitted drafts, I also see some of the reasons my fellow reviewers give for keeping drafts from progressing to mainspace. AfC can be an unpredictable gauntlet. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Those opposed to draftification often suggest that articles should be sent to AfD rather than to draft. In most cases this would not be compliant with WP:BEFORE, especially C.1 If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. --John B123 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    If an article can be fixed through normal editing, why would you move it to draftspace? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Agree. If an article remains in main space, it is in the process streams that we have for categories and scripts that WikiProjects employ to notify editors of how to help and improve an article. When it is moved to the Draft space (er, gulag) that is interrupted. I think it's really important to note this which is too often forgotten in our discussions. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    The suggestion to send them to AfD I use more frequently as thought experiment than an argument. If you feel the article is "not ready for mainspace", what specifically is the issue? It usually boils down to "improving the encyclopedia" which is interpreted by many to mean raising the average quality of articles, not creation of rough new articles on notable subjects. Sometimes actions by editors focusing on the former without allowing the latter are not supported by policy, and WP:BEFORE is one of those policy points of contact in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Focal points of discussion

I'm going to try and focus this discussion a bit further – there's a bunch of various discussions going different directions, and these, in my opinion, are the most important ones to fully discuss.

  • 1) This is not the place to start discussions about individual editors. Let's leave that behind for now. If their actions fall foul of what we decide is acceptable for draftification, we can let them know about it. They clearly know the current discussion is active and they can comment on it if they want (and they have).
  1. I agree that editor conduct should not be considered here and suggest that such discussion be stayed until such a time when a codified rule set is in place to measure their conduct against.--John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 2) WP:DRAFTOBJECT is currently part of an explanatory essay, and while it is treated as a best practice, it is not outright required as such. It may benefit from being upgraded to guideline or policy status.
  1. I support upgrading wp:draftobject to either of the two suggested forms with equal preference. --John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 3) WP:DRAFTIFY has a clause (2a-ii) which says any article that has some merit, but in its current form would have very little chance of survival at AFD, qualifies for draftification clause 2a. This is only part of an explanatory essay and is not outright required, and may benefit from being upgraded to guideline or policy status. It does not outright imply that any article that would be kept at AFD should not be draftified – you only get that by reading the clause and assuming the opposite applies.
  1. I am neutral about this upgrade in stature but suggest that if it is to occur, a copyedit should be incorporated to afford better clarity regarding the clause.--John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 4) All forms of rushed or hurried draftication should be discontinued unless and until specific criterion are established to specify the narrow circumstances where speedy draftication would be appropriate.
  1. Support - As proposer. --John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 5) All forms of unilateral draftication should be discontinued unless and until specific narrow circumstances are set in place to identify which and when -articles may be moved (and perhaps whom) when done at the sole discretion of a single editor. Otherwise, the process that should become practice is for one editor to propose draftication by stating the grounds and effecting the proper notifications and then, after an appropriate prescribed wait time has elapsed where no corrections were made to mitigate the grounds and/or no valid objection was made, some other, allowed editor, may effect the draftifying move (expressly disallowing the editor who published the proposed draftification from ever moving the same article.
  1. Support as proposer. --John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

These are the main points of the discussion that I think needed to be summarized. Feel free to add another if I missed something – very possible, I'm not perfect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added focal points 4 and 5 to this grouping per the timestamp given. --John Cline (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Procedural note, incase anyone tries to claim WP:TALKO on my behalf: I am fine with this. Don't try and wikilawyer something about my comment being adjusted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks for attempting this. The starting point here was surprise and dissatisfaction about how DRAFTIFY is being used at NPP. This is potentially an issue with select patrollers or it could be a systemic problem. Or it could just be a new round of bellyaching from inclusionists. It does appear to be fairly recent (within the last year or so) area of tension.
I don't see discussion about policy vs. essay. I doubt any such conversions would change patroller behavior significantly. There has been a little about DRAFTIFY requirements and we could try to focus discussion on proposals for improvement.
There are several of us who have questioned whether DRAFTIFY serves a useful purpose. Before we attempt to improve DRAFTIFY it might be worthwhile to verify there is still consensus to keep it.
Another thing multiple editors have pointed out is that we lack good information about what (statistically) happens to DRAFTIFIED articles. Maybe brainstorming how to study this is a better place to start. ~Kvng (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh this has been a point of contention for a lot longer than a year. See e.g. this RfC from 2016. Basically, there has never been an explicit, positive consensus permitting unilateral moves to draft. It became acceptable through the implicit consensus amongst NPPers, periodically constrained by community-wide RfCs (e.g. [3] and [4]). WP:DRAFTIFY originates in an attempt to codify these implicit practices, and I think it has been treated as a de facto guideline by editors working in new pages/draftspace for a few years now. But if you're ever unfortunate enough to be dragged to ANI over a draftify dispute, there will be a bunch of editors who don't work in those areas who will say "DRAFTIFY? Never heard of it, and it's just an essay!". So formally upgrading it to a guideline would be helpful.
I'm hesitant to support upgrading it now though, because while the current text does a pretty good job of explaining when draftification is inappropriate, it's extremely unhelpful on when it's appropriate. The phrase "not ready for mainspace" originates in this essay and has become the standard justification/explanation for draftifications (because it's the default message of automated scripts). But it's a concept that has no basis in existing policy and is poorly explained here. The result is that pages are moved based on what individual reviewers understand is "not ready", which varies considerably and is rarely actually communicated to the person who wrote the article. In my opinion this has been extremely damaging, one of the main things facilitating NPP's slow drift from its original goal of being a quick "triage" for major content problems into a sort of all-encompassing notability police that uses draftspace to quarantine the "time-consuming judgement calls" that have always jammed up the queue. If we upgrade it to a guideline with this deficiency baked in, it's going to be much harder to fix it down the line. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
On the question of statistics, I've noticed that MPGuy2824's move to draft script now very helpfully tags its edits with #moveToDraft, so monitoring is much easier. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, since 9th January. So, we'll start getting data on how much were eventually deleted via G13, only in July. One caveat: a majority of draftifications aren't via my version of the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
In the interim, it may be helpful for folks to look at Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace. S0091 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Add now that look, I see many of the are due to the RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs which is going to skew statistics so something to keep in mind. 14:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Example and G13

Surely there's a better way to handle this than having someone make an edit every 6 months on a page that shouldn't really be touched? Is there no (simple) way to code an exception into the bot that handles G13 deletions? (If it's a bot? I assume it is, but I don't know for certain and there are no current G13 candidates so I can't check the edit history.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd that it says it's not a sandbox. I wonder what its purpose is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It's an example page, mainly for layout, I guess? It's similar to User:Example. Though, now that I look at it closer, I'm not really a fan of its layout for new editors (the only section is References, and it only has one "reference", placed after the first sentence. I feel like that could give the impression that large articles without sections and large portions of unsourced text are acceptable. User:Example also has an image, which I feel would be more useful at Draft:Example than it is currently at User:Example. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Might want to move this thread to WT:AFC. Assuming you want to continue exploring this issue. Might not be worth the effort though. The page has never been deleted, so whatever we're doing is currently working. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
My original query about G13 does still stand, but there is another discussion to be had here about its purpose, which I will bring up over at WT:AFC. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Never deleted? So, it’s an example of how human discretion exists in the G13 process? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
It’s working excellently. It should be deleted whenever unedited for over six months, as an example of what happens. To make it special in being exempt from G13, would make it a bad example. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Draughts" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Draughts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Wikipedia:Draughts until a consensus is reached. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

RDRAFT

Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. is an inaccurate summary of the cited RfC, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects. That RfC was a failed proposal for the systematic deletion of draftspace-to-mainspace redirects, including existing ones, akin to a new CSD criterion. It was not a RfC on whether draftspace-to-mainspace redirects should be retained as a general practice, and it is inappropriate for this essay to extrapolate the results of the RfC in a misleading way. Please amend or remove the section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Move draft" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Move draft has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 10 § Move draft until a consensus is reached. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 21:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Workshop: draftifying. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion What do folks think about also adding a statement like "Before draftifying editors may consider adding the appropriate maintenance tag(s) to allow the creator and/or other editors time to address the issues."? S0091 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You might want to move this siggestion to its own talk page heading. I am not inclined towards this, because it adds a bunch of steps to the draftification workflow (tagging, waiting, remembering to come back and recheck the article) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Outside of the WP:Drafts#During new page review section, this essay is not specific to NPP and note WP:DRAFTIFY is not part of that section. Anyone with the ability to move pages can draftify an article. Nevertheless, point taken about this needing to be a separate discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone with the ability to move pages can draftify an article.
While not disputing that this is technically correct, and should remain technically correct, editors who are not New Page Patrollers should not be unilaterally draftifying articles, unless, they are the author, or it is extremely obvious. Basically, unilateral draftification is a new page patrol function, and it is one of the most severe things that can be done. And from another perspective, anyone competent to unilaterally Draftify articles should acquire the full toolset of NPR tools. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If what you state is truly consensus, then I think it should be reflected this essay/potential guideline which currently it is not. The policy only states draftification is done "typically as part of new page review" so it kind of hints but does not indicate others generally shouldn't. Either way, I still think this essay should serve as guidance to any editor who has ability to draftify. Looking through the move logs, over the past couple days or so I see out of 25ish draftifications a handful (4 or 5) were performed by non-NPP editors on articles that were not their creations.
A couple of questions as well (to anyone). Should this essay and WP:NPP#Reviewing articles align regarding draftification? Also, should the See also link provided in 'During new page review' sub-section go to WP:NPPDRAFT, rather than WP:NPP#Drafts? S0091 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's the other way round; we've historically tried to keep WP:NPP aligned with WP:DRAFTIFY. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that this has in fact been recommended in WP:NPP#Reviewing articles for many years (though personally, if you've added the maintenance tags, I don't see the point of moving it draft, which is sort of a giant generic maintenance tag):

If the page is not a candidate for a deletion process, but has other issues, there is rarely any need to rush. Inform the creator of any problems using maintenance tags, the article talk page, or the message feature of the curation tool and give them time to address them (perhaps several days) before taking further action. If improvements are not forthcoming, it may be appropriate to move the article to draftspace, to give the creator more space to work on it. However, it is important to remember that 'draftifying' is not a substitute to the deletion process, nor a catch-all solution for articles you don't know what to do with.

– Joe (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Positive criteria for draftifying

I'd like to revisit an old suggestion from Novem Linguae to add a clear set of criteria that describe where there is community consensus that draftification is an appropriate action. It didn't go anywhere because of disagreements about what the criteria should be, which is a shame because I think it's a really good idea and could be just the thing we need to get WP:DRAFTIFY over the line to being a formal guideline. I also don't think it needs to be controversial if we start with those criteria that everyone can agree upon and then set up further discussions for anything potentially controversial.

My sense is that there are four reasons for moving an article to draftspace that already have broad consensus behind them (borrowing from Novem's original suggestion, User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft and User:Onel5969/Draftify_templates):

  1. The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest
  2. The article is an unedited machine translation (and maybe we could add WP:LLM creations to this?)
  3. The article does not cite any sources (conflicts with WP:NOCITE, but this seems to have become established practice regardless)
  4. The article is about an upcoming event or unreleased work that is not notable now, but likely to become notable soon

And some relatively common reasons that are potentially controversial and/or conflict with existing policies:

  1. Sources cited in the article do not show that the topic is notable (conflicts with WP:NEXIST?)
  2. The article needs more references (i.e. it has some; conflicts with WP:CHALLENGE/WP:MINREF?)
  3. The article reads like an advertisement (conflicts with WP:CSD#G11?)
  4. The article has too many problems of language or grammar (conflicts with WP:IMPERFECT?)

I'm thinking and hoping that the first set is uncontroversial enough that we could just add them after some workshopping here. If we manage that, I'd suggest we then organise an RfC to decide on the second set (individually). But please let's try and avoid discussing the controversial set now: I think we'll get bogged down unless we focus on things that everyone agrees upon. Suggestions for additions to either set are of course welcome.

To be clear I'm not suggesting that this replace the existing criteria (at least not right now) or that we say that these are the only permitted reasons to draftify (WP:BOLD and WP:IAR of course admit individual editor discretion). A natural corollary would be to add a list of circumstances where there is a consensus that draftication isn't appropriate—we already have two of these, WP:DRAFTOBJECT and 'older articles should not be draftified'—but we could revisit that later. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's quickly move "reads like an advertisement" to the first, unambiguous, list, because draftifying for this reason does not conflict with G11. CSD is not the only policy about deleting ad pages. An article can read like an advertisement but not be "exclusively promotional". The editor who would draftify can remove the advertisement content. Leaving some content behind that then does not cite any sources for example and does not have an encyclopedic purpose. In the sense of WP:DEL-REASON#4. But it may be onerous to remove advertising language because it requires sitting down and rewriting the whole article. Which usually no one wants to do because what sources there are will often be really bad. And attempting to do serious article work using terrible sources is more or less absurd and a waste of time. In the meantime, the page is not suitable for mainspace. Hosting advertisements is one of the worst things for Wikipedia and pages being advertisements is a reason to delete under the deletion policy. So draftifying advertisement pages that G11 can't be applied to is very good. —Alalch E. 11:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I'd really like to start with cases that are completely clear-cut. From my point of view, if it's an unsalvageable advertisement, it should be tagged with WP:CSD#G11, and if it's a salvageable advertisement, it should be in mainspace with {{advert}}. But we are unlikely to reach a consensus on that point in an informal discussion here; what we can do right now is improve this proto-guideline with the addition of uncontroversial, broadly-supported criteria. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Support the idea of adding 1.1 through 1.4 to this essay somewhere. I agree that starting with those is fine and we can add more later. What wording were you thinking for right before these? Something like The following are common reasons for draftification that the community usually finds uncontroversial:? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
That sounds good, but maybe add something like "included but not limited to", against any impression that it's an exhaustive list? – Joe (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's implied by "common reasons", but no objection to your wording. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Support adding 1.1 through 1.4, and no objection to "included but not limited to".—Alalch E. 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I've gone ahead and added the first set under Wikipedia:Drafts#Reasons to move an article to draftspace. – Joe (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Object - Sorry for the late reply but I was not aware that item 3 in the first list was being practiced. As you note, it is in conflict with WP:NOCITE. We need to resolve this conflict before declaring this item uncontroversial. ~Kvng (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I took out "uncontroversial" after reading back through some old talk page discussions; I agree that's overstating things. However, #3 does regularly happen: it's the default reason provided by User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, probably the most commonly used reason, and in this ongoing discussion of new unsourced articles, people are basing their votes on the assumption that it's established practice.
I do agree that it shouldn't be used this way and would welcome an RfC. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I've reviewed Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Deprecating_new_unsourced_articles and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles and don't see any potential consensus for moving WP:NOCITE towards what's in #3 here. It looks like we'd have to move #3 towards WP:NOCITE to resolve the conflict. I'm not sure what form that would take other than removing it altogether. I'm not sure how to formulate an RfC on this so I suggest, unless there's some other background information I haven't seen, it should be removed from the list at least for now. Just because it's being done doesn't mean we should be advising editors to do it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You and I agree totally on the substance here. But guidelines (if that's what we're aspiring to write here) are supposed to describe actual practice, not the other way around. I think this page has for a long time tried to describe an ideal scenario, and the result has been that people have ignored it and come up with their own reasons, more and more every year. I see drawing a line in the sand here as a step towards regaining community control over that process, but we have to start from the status quo. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with this approach. I understand that paddling in what seems like the wrong direction is sometimes necessary to get somewhere else but most often it just results in you going the wrong direction. I have my own approach but I don't know if it is effective either. In the end I console myself with the knowledge that I am a WP:VOLUNTEER and I contribute what I can to improve Wikipedia culture and policy but I am not responsible for it and if I find it flowing the wrong direction, I'm either going to learn to flow with it or I'm going get out of those waters. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't we just remove item #3 from the "broad consensus" section? Then we're starting from an actual status quo no one has objected to yet. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Joe Roe already did that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_13&oldid=1236834447"