Items 1 and 2 in the preamble are misleading. They are the typical ruses employed by diehard inclusionists who want to keep any trash that arrives, or arguments from the hundreds if not 1000s of users in the grey areas of spammers and UPE.
No NPPer in his or her right mind is using draftify as a backdoor deletion. The G13 6-month deletion is perfectly acceptable because the onus is on the creator to submit a policy compliant article. They should be made perfectly aware at the instant of registration that Wikipedia editors have enough to do than completing or repairing junk articles that are simply dumped on us by creators who have no intention of following up. Such abandoned articles are no loss to Wikipedia nor are their creators. This is where it is essential for the WMF to create an appropriate, immediate landing page for newly registered users. It's something that the devs are deliberately avoiding doing and Jorm's excellent wireframes done 10 years ago were neatly swept under the carpet when he resigned.
The
 | Wikipedia does not have an article by this name. There is a draft for this article at Draft:Example. The draft has not been approved for inclusion into the encyclopedia. It may not have sufficient references to establish that it is a notable topic. If you can help improve draft, please consider doing so. More information on why it is presently not approved may be found in notice at the top of the draft or on its talkpage. |
is a good idea. However, the original article is deleted from mainspace when it is moved to draft space, and this is essential. There are already too many instances of users simply recreating the article again in mainspace by simply using a slightly different article name, and leaving the draft to rot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kudpung, Items 1 and 2 may be "misleading", but they are the views held by the diehard inclusionists and I am trying to find ways to overcome their objections.
- If we don't delete the articles after 6 months, they can't say it is backdoor deletion. Objection gone. You haven't said what is wrong with keeping them. We let them stay forever in user space. What is the harm of keeping them in Draft space? Especially if this no-delete-draft rule applied only to "promising drafts" moved from mainspace by NPP. It's a strategic tradeoff to overcome a major objection.
- On the pink banner, I am proposing that it be left in place of the article. Yes, the article is deleted when its moved to Draftspace. Then we recreate an article in its place with this banner as the content. This makes the "Draft", via the link in the pink box, indirectly visible to people looking for the topic in mainspace, so the draft can be improved. This overcomes the other major objection, that Draftified articles are not improved because they are out-of-sight/out-of-mind. This pseudo-article would have to be protected so it couldn't edited, unless someone with the necessary rights were accepting the draft. MB 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- There may be more reasons for moving to draft, and other users than NPPers may have access to the 'move to draft tool'. I can't remember. I see absolutely no harm in G13 deletions. In fact I find it most appropriate, but maybe the creators should be informed at the level of the 'Your article has been moved to draft' template that '...and will be deleted if not improved within 6 months'.
- I am reminded of one editor's comment that went something like: "5mio articles is better than 6mio of which 1mio are trash". Wikipedia nowadays is not short of articles and most articles moved to draft are of very dubious relevance and/or notability; the principle of moving to draft being 'an article that might survive an AfD', means that NPPers should be less afraid of using AfD directly, PROD, or CSD.
- I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionst, but I believe in keeping a clean corpus, and as an NPPer I use a measured, but consequential approach. The danger in moving anything and everything to draft as a catchall is that it creates a fake backlog and some well intended editors might waste their time trying to rescue abandoned ones. I know that DGG rescues a lot of abandoned drafts, but he is highly selective, very experienced, and knows his chosen topic areas very well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative text (less is more):
| Wikipedia does not have an article by this name. A draft exits at Draft:Example but it has not been approved for inclusion into the encyclopedia. It may not have sufficient references or its quality is not ready for publication. Click the notice at the top of the draft or its talk page for more information and if you can, please consider improving it. |
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- As an example, you may wish to see what happened here (red link, but please click it). Unfortunately I no longer have the tools to view deleted pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- While we're talking about draftifying, where is this template located? Why doesn't it have a 'Preview' button? Can the text 'Drafts not improved within 6 months risk deletion' Without requiring a great global discussion. IMO one could be bold and just include it, or simply add the text manually when draftifying. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)?
Items 1 and 2 in the preamble are misleading. They are the typical ruses employed by diehard inclusionists who want to keep any trash that arrives, or arguments from the hundreds if not 1000s of users in the grey areas of spammers and UPE.
No NPPer in his or her right mind is using draftify as a backdoor deletion. The G13 6-month deletion is perfectly acceptable because the onus is on the creator to submit a policy compliant article. They should be made perfectly aware at the instant of registration that Wikipedia editors have enough to do than completing or repairing junk articles that are simply dumped on us by creators who have no intention of following up. Such abandoned articles are no loss to Wikipedia nor are their creators. This is where it is essential for the WMF to create an appropriate, immediate landing page for newly registered users. It's something that the devs are deliberately avoiding doing and Jorm's excellent wireframes done 10 years ago were neatly swept under the carpet when he resigned.
The
| Wikipedia does not have an article by this name. There is a draft for this article at Draft:Example. The draft has not been approved for inclusion into the encyclopedia. It may not have sufficient references to establish that it is a notable topic. If you can help improve draft, please consider doing so. More information on why it is presently not approved may be found in notice at the top of the draft or on its talkpage. |
is a good idea. However, the original article is deleted from mainspace when it is moved to draft space, and this is essential. There are already too many instances of users simply recreating the article again in mainspace by simply using a slightly different article name, and leaving the draft to rot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kudpung, Items 1 and 2 may be "misleading", but they are the views held by the diehard inclusionists and I am trying to find ways to overcome their objections.
- If we don't delete the articles after 6 months, they can't say it is backdoor deletion. Objection gone. You haven't said what is wrong with keeping them. We let them stay forever in user space. What is the harm of keeping them in Draft space? Especially if this no-delete-draft rule applied only to "promising drafts" moved from mainspace by NPP. It's a strategic tradeoff to overcome a major objection.
- On the pink banner, I am proposing that it be left in place of the article. Yes, the article is deleted when its moved to Draftspace. Then we recreate an article in its place with this banner as the content. This makes the "Draft", via the link in the pink box, indirectly visible to people looking for the topic in mainspace, so the draft can be improved. This overcomes the other major objection, that Draftified articles are not improved because they are out-of-sight/out-of-mind. This pseudo-article would have to be protected so it couldn't edited, unless someone with the necessary rights were accepting the draft. MB 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- There may be more reasons for moving to draft, and other users than NPPers may have access to the 'move to draft tool'. I can't remember. I see absolutely no harm in G13 deletions. In fact I find it most appropriate, but maybe the creators should be informed at the level of the 'Your article has been moved to draft' template that '...and will be deleted if not improved within 6 months'.
- I am reminded of one editor's comment that went something like: "5mio articles is better than 6mio of which 1mio are trash". Wikipedia nowadays is not short of articles and most articles moved to draft are of very dubious relevance and/or notability; the principle of moving to draft being 'an article that might survive an AfD', means that NPPers should be less afraid of using AfD directly, PROD, or CSD.
- I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionst, but I believe in keeping a clean corpus, and as an NPPer I use a measured, but consequential approach. The danger in moving anything and everything to draft as a catchall is that it creates a fake backlog and some well intended editors might waste their time trying to rescue abandoned ones. I know that DGG rescues a lot of abandoned drafts, but he is highly selective, very experienced, and knows his chosen topic areas very well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative text (less is more):
| Wikipedia does not have an article by this name. A draft exits at Draft:Example but it has not been approved for inclusion into the encyclopedia. It may not have sufficient references or its quality is not ready for publication. Click the notice at the top of the draft or its talk page for more information and if you can, please consider improving it. |
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- As an example, you may wish to see what happened here (red link, but please click it). Unfortunately I no longer have the tools to view deleted pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- While we're talking about draftifying, where is this template located? Why doesn't it have a 'Preview' button? Can the text 'Drafts not improved within 6 months risk deletion' Without requiring a great global discussion. IMO one could be bold and just include it, or simply add the text manually when draftifying. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)?