![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
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)
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)
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)
Please see the thread here:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 ( | 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
<!-- -->
) 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Drafts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Are they also used for blogs? Please be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael grutsch ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'"? BOVINEBOY 2008 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=Draft:Claude_Douglas_Sterner_(Doug_Sterner) and Douglas Sterner appears many places in WP.
Thanks Pabobfin ( talk) 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
In use}}
tag, which lasts for several hours.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
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)
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)
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)
Please see the thread here:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Hamza Tariq World Cup 2018 ( | 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
<!-- -->
) 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Drafts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Are they also used for blogs? Please be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael grutsch ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'"? BOVINEBOY 2008 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=Draft:Claude_Douglas_Sterner_(Doug_Sterner) and Douglas Sterner appears many places in WP.
Thanks Pabobfin ( talk) 18:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
In use}}
tag, which lasts for several hours.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff)
17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)