![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
There has been some confusion as to the purpose of the draft namespace as well as the minimum standard for draft articles. Given this situation, I would like to propose the following standard for the draft articles in the draft namespace.
Since I'm not a native English speaker, please feel free to suggest different phrasing if you can think any. Please also note what is missing. We don't require draft articles to have AfC reviews or some kind of submission procedures. This is very natural; there is no requirement like AfC submissions or deadlines for main space articles and it would be unnatural to demand more stringent review requirement for draft articles.
My hope is to dispel some confusion like the draft namespace is only for AfC or some other training-wheels-uses, as it is not. Also, most importantly, draft articles should be not deleted unless they fail these community-agreed requirements and not some other personal requirements editors impose as they feel like. I believe we should agree on what to delete before we discuss how to delete them. (I'm happy with streamlining the deletion process.) -- Taku ( talk) 03:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
A stub is an) I would explicitly note that the pages Taku is trying to save are below this standard and should be deleted. Hasteur ( talk) 11:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)articlepage that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.
See here, where the discussion for a PROD-esque process for drafts has been closed with consensus to initiate that process. We should hold off discussions on how to implement this until people have time to challenge the close, which I'm almost positive will happen. Everyone should be aware of it, though. ~ Rob13 Talk 22:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This information page assumes pages in draft space are drafts of entire articles although it does not explicitly forbid drafts of only a section of an article. Help:Userspace draft makes it clear that pages in userspace may be drafts of parts of articles. When I start to create a draft I automatically get a template announcing it is to be an article. Are drafts of sections of articles, or of project pages, allowed? I suspect IPs can't create anything in userspace. Thincat ( talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This question is in the same vein as the previous one. Do we want to require a page in the draft namespace to be complete? In the sense, for example, it should give enough context or references or it is complete content-wise. I believe the answer must be "NO"; it is alway preferable to put a complete draft in the main namespace, where it is visible to both editors and the readers and so there is more chance for improvement. The purpose of the draft namespace, as I see, is to hold incomplete drafts, those that we don't want for the public to see. -- Taku ( talk) 04:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, how is that different from having that collection of theorems on a talk page or user page? You wouldn't request that a talk page were deleted if somebody placed such content there for requesting commentary and developing some paragraphs that could potentially be used at an article, would you? Talk space is not "infinite, indefinite space for anything that could ever exist" even if we don't go removing everything there that gets stalled; somehow the WP:NOT policies plus archiving are enough to get keep them in good shape without a need to delete everything that wouldn't be allowed at main space (isn't that the whole purpose of having separate namespaces?). Diego ( talk) 23:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I understand where SmokeyJoe is coming from. There is a reason why we don't want content fork or other types of duplicate efforts in the mainspace; because that would be duplicate of editors efforts and because, as principle, we want to have a single article on each notable topic (incidentally, the draft mentioned was not content fork, but that's irrelevant for the debate.) The error in this reasoning is that the draft namespace is not the encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. I, and I believe many others, don't see the draft namespace as a proper part of the encyclopedia. A draft is a complete copy of a main article. So what? Why is that automatically wrong use of the name space? I believe any use of the namespace is basically permissible as long as the editors are using it for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. The draft namespace is not part of the encyclopedia but just some convenient space for the content development. It follows that, at least in my view, it is perfectly ok to have incomplete drafts or some content materials not correspondent to a single topic, again, as long as they are encyclopedic contents or using them for the purpose of content development. (Obviously we don't want some people to use the draft namespace for the purpose completely unrelated to Wikipedia, like say having a chat about a dinner plan.) -- Taku ( talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Since various AFC participants were constantly interfering with the new page patrol I had been performing on behalf of a particular WP for years and years, I quit doing it for the most part several months ago. Part of the problem entailed reviewers ignoring the hints I was leaving regarding notability or non-notability or suitability otherwise of a particular topic. This submission was just recently declined. However, it appears closely intertwined with Intuition (rapper). In 2013, as seen here, an AFC reviewer decided to unilaterally disregard clear community consensus formed here based on the mere existence of weak-for-BLP sourcing, with zero accountability to any of the editors involved in forming that particular consensus. The end result, yet another BLP about a barely notable person with the strong whiff of suggestion that our purpose here is to help bottom feeders promote their careers (as if we didn't have enough of that already). To be fair, I have a faint memory of this person having had a very minor hit song which sampled " I Go Crazy". If this is the case, then that song generated enough buzz to where I could buy that he belongs on the very bottom rungs of the notability ladder. The bottom line, if you have a higher opinion than I do of Intuition's notability, is there some sort of problem with integrating that submission into the existing article? I've had to do just that who knows how many times before in order to save valid encyclopedic content from deletion. Evidently, we have editors populating AFC who believe that every individual piece of business on the encyclopedia exists in a vacuum and that it's to be viewed in terms of "free beer or a fight" with no middle ground. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to nominate a draft in the user space of an inactive user, e.g. User:Sephiroth storm/19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command? If one is allowed to nominate an other user's work, how can I do that appropriately? I'm not interested in any credit. I just think this Army Unit needs to have a wiki. -- Trilotat ( talk) 04:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor added a link here to the article Rich The Kid. That link directed readers to a draft article . Should Wikipedia readers be directed to draft articles which may contain incomplete or incorrect information? There doesn't seem to be any policy or previous consensus about this. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Before being challenged in an RfC, Wikipedia:Drafts#Incubation 1st dot point read:
Subclause iv was directly challenged by the RfC ( Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#RFC:_Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves).
The RfC obviously repudiated the unqualified text of subclause iv. Of the 35 !voting participants, only two supported unqualified. Reading through the RfC, if you ignore the one prolific badgering supporter, the RfC is overwhelmingly against unilateraly bold instant userfication by a non-author.
While the closer, User:KrakatoaKatie's didn't speak directly to the nature of the overwhelming objection to the subclause, the closing statement "Way too many <caveats> for there to be a consensus either way" is a clear statement that the status quo (subclause iv unqualified) is not supported by consensus.
Her reinstatement of the pre-RfC language is incompatible with her close.
My assessment of the RfC is below. 14/35 posted an explicit or obvious rejection of unilateral draftification. Another 10/35 gave strong, objective caveats. Together, these groups represent 69%.
Together, this 69% would support complete removal of subclause iv, in favour of using subclause i. Arguably, I suppose, the required discussion doesn't have to be at AfD. For example, a discussion and agreement with the author would constitute a "draftification discussion".
Another 9 (26%) gave subjective caveats, clearly not supporting unqualified language, but implying that an experienced editor should be able to make the decision and act on it. This large minority makes a lot of sense depending on the sort of case considered. A new substandard article by a new editor? An established article on a contentious subject? Should WP:NPOV problematic articles be unilaterally draftifiable?
I suggest (and edited) a rewrite of subclause iv to
I think that at least this much caveat is required. "Bold" impies that the editor knows what he is doing and is prepared to explain it. New and unready articles are the main issue, especially when written by a driveby editor. I think old articles should definitely go via AfD if they are so bad that they can't be fixed by editing.
To not tighten the language is to allow a loophole for unilateral speedy deletion of anything from mainspace. The old language allows anything to be moved, and the subsequent dot points unreviewed deletion of a history-free WP:CNR. It is very plausible that an admin might perform this action without examining the article moved. If the admin does examine the article moved, the whole thing would have been better done through the PROD process.
No. Clear opposition to allowing immediate unilateral undiscussed draftification of articles. (14 in the group)
RfC initiator User:Hahnchen
No, that would be disasterous for the reasons that I previously explained User:James500
No. User:Od Mishehu
No User:FoCuS
No, unless done through AfD (which is subclause i) User:Nathan2055
No. User:SilkTork
No. User:Hobit
No User:A2soup ("unless explicitly agreed to by author" is contrary to the intent of the clauses, which is by non-authors)
No. At least, not unilaterally without discussion. User:DGG. (the language of the subclauses reads to empower unilateral draftification.
Objective caveats. (10 in this group)
Yes - it's perfectly acceptable to move a newly created article in terrible shape User:Sergecross73
Yes but they generally shouldn't. User:Starblind
Yes. ... "under- or inappropriately sourced new articles" ... & other multiple detailed caveats User:Csar
"Yes but" multiple strong caveats. User:TriiipleThreat
Yes, but only for new articles. User:Kaldari
Only for new articles, recently placed in mainspace and woefully unready. User:SmokeyJoe
within reason - especially for brand-new or just-moved-to-article-space articles that haven't already been through a review process. User:davidwr
Usually no. User:WhatamIdoing
Yes per User:Starblind ... with interweaving caveats User:Soni
Conditional yes if it is quite clear that the article is not in a state for publishing as an article User:Steel1943
Subjective caveats. or a defined PROD-like process. (9 in this group)
Note that WP:PROD doesn't require objective justification.
Yes per WP:PRESERVE, as it's a good way to keep around content that doesn't belong as a stand-alone article and for which there's not an obvious place to merge User:Diego
Not instantly. A PROD-like process. User:Hellknowz
Yes with notification User:ferret
Contextual - Sometimes User:The Mental Asylum
"is such a move ever allowed", then my answer is "obviously, yes". If you're proposing disallowing such moves, I would say "no". User:Rhododendrites
Depends on the situation. User:Anarchyte
Contextual/Depends User:LukeSurl
Yes, using caution and sense. ... yet generally done rarely. User:KillerChihuahua
Yes, under PROD User:Mendaliv
Yes. no limitations. (2 in this group)
User:Unscintillating. Made 14 posts to the RfC pushing for no restrictions outside limitations of WP:BOLD, mostly badgering, and few bothered to respond to his repetition. He frequently makes correct but barely relevant points.
Absolutely yes User:slakr
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised that the clause was allowed to remain. We have established procedures for removing inappropriate articles, and protections in place to avoid "bold" editors unilaterally removing articles from mainspace. I suppose the closer felt that the RfC question was too vague, but adding that clause was highly inappropriate in the first place, and not in line with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, so it should not remain. The discussion here is the wrong way round: if anyone wishes to add that clause, it needs to be discussed and gain consensuses. Adding a clause which is against policy, and then having a discussion to get rid of it, is not the way we generally do things. There's WP:BOLD and there's WP:RECKLESS. Changing policy by stealth is not the way to do things. I am removing the clause, and if anyone wishes it back, they need to provide a rationale and get consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Here Unscintillating ( talk · contribs) has again reverted to the pre-RfC version, reverting again attempts at compromise wording. He has removed the discussion pointer. The edit summary "restore stable/consensus version of article" misleading, is plain false. That version has a stable history of being disputed. The RfC demonstrated an overwhelming lack of consensus for it. Unscintillating has reverted to a version that only he and one other out of 35 participants can be read as supporting, a version the provides for a backdoor undiscussed deletion of any article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to start a thread to note the change I made to simplify the draft creation input form. This is unrelated to the current policy language dispute, but please ping me here if anyone disagrees or wants citations to usability research for why I made the change. Thanks! Steven Walling • talk 20:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal regarding redirects left from moving accepted drafts to article space being discussed at the Village Pump. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects. Cheers! Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
For quite a while, there are multiple articles that I would like to do a MAJOR overhaul of ONLY the tables, but allow other editors to join the "fun". I'm NOT wanting to replace an entire existing article, but instead ONLY sections within an existing article, though for some list article it might end up turning into a replacement. Is "Draft:" the only place to do this, OR can we create a temporary subarticle like "Article/NewTable" similar to how we do it in User space? Thanks in advance for feedback! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A few months ago, I proposed a bot over at
WP:Bot requests without thinking to gather consensus here. (I apologize for that.) Before typing your answer here, please read
my proposal on that page to see my reasoning, etc.. Now, should we have a bot to automatically add {{
AFC submission/draft}}
to articles moved from the mainspace into draftspace? As noted on the proposal page, there should be an opt-out ability for more experienced editors. —
Gestrid (
talk)
22:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place for this type of the discussion is, so I'm posting this here. This continues the deletion review on Draft:Abstract homotopy theory at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 5.
The argument I wanted to make in the review discussion is that the current system of having draft pages of two types, AfC-type draft and the other, seem to confuse the editors. The G13 deletion of a non-AfC draft is wrong but is happening too often. I believe this is due to design flaws; i.e., we should redesign the system rather than keep instructing the editors about the correct usage (I for one am tired of pointing the misuse of G13.) There are three obvious solutions:
-- Taku ( talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I must admit the argument for preserving the G13 was very persuasive. I definitely get the point that "having it is better than not"; like democracy, it has a flaw but we need it. But I would like to repeat what led me to start this thread: I don't like the "status quo", the way the draftspace is used (or misused). I suspect the continuing use of G13 (or AfC) has to do complacency on the parts of the editors rather than the lack of alternatives (as some already pointed out). All seem to agree that the G13 is deeply flawed. So can I propose the following:
The idea is to "force" us to be less complacent; as pointed out, many problematic drafts should just be gone, 6 month-old or not. We can already do this by the other deletion mechanisms. There might be a better way to deal with the backlogs which are destined to keep growing. Again the absence of G13 would force us to come up with such alternatives. At best we can learn whether the lack of G13 leads to a disaster (must I commit seppuku if so??) -- Taku ( talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the moratorium on G13, in order to address the backlog problem, I would like to propose the following PROD-type deletion mechanism. Create a tag that says an along the line
The idea is that this tag will allow us to say, in a polite diplomatic way, this draft page is a crap and get it deleted sufficiency quickly (but not too quickly). Note the tag canno be used just because the quality of a draft page is low or, most important, it cannot be used just because it is old. Also "one month" does not mean a creator is expected to finish the draft page, but he (or occasionally she) must show the materials are encyclopedic and useful for Wikipedia. The tag does not distinguish between a AfC draft and non-AfC draft, so should be easier to use. If putting this tag is disputed, the page should be sent to MfD. This tag should however be very useful to get rid of worthless stuff like ad pages; since the tag essentially indicates the page is worthless, from the pointview of Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to think there is a solid support for the suspension of the use of G13 for time being. Am I right? Therefore, unless there is new strong opposition, in a next few days, I'm going to (actually ask an admin) to implement the suspension by modifying the template and the policy page. -- Taku ( talk) 23:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Should I start an RfC? Perhaps, a simple support/oppose poll for the suspension of G13? Maybe I will. As for the replacement, I think there is the consensus that we need a replacement: (1) one that applies to both AfC and non-AfC drafts (I'm sympathetic to the view having two types of drafts is confusing and maintainance headache) and (2) one that does not delete inactive drafts without any review. I have proposed one replacement above. I think there is the consensus that the inclusion criterion for the draft space should be "potentiality"; the potential that a draft can be turned into a mainspace article someday. So we can have the "non-potentiality tag" and we can delete drafts with the tags by bots and by humans with some time delay. There are of course other possibilities. As G13 is causing real damages, suspending G13 meantime is a no-brainer for me. Like a cessation of hostility (love the term): people can work on the piece agreement while agreeing not to engage. But yes, given the magnitude of the change, an RfC is needed. -- Taku ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have started the draft of a RfC on G13 at User:TakuyaMurata/RfC: G13. It will go live in the next few days or so. Please feel free to modify the wording or adding new questions if you can think any. -- Taku ( talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC) It's now running. -- Taku ( talk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, as a gnome who almost never talks to anyone on here my apologies if this is not a suitable venue but it's related to the above. Someone mentioned in the above discussions re:G13 that these stale drafts do not fall under G13 but are instead just sitting there cluttering up the place. I would argue that most of these qualify as test pages (seeing as they're the only edits made by the user/IP in question and appear to be them figuring out how to make a page and then leaving). If they were submitted they would fall under G13, most of them would be A7 regardless, and there is some vandalism sitting there. There's also quite a few that are just duplicates of existing content. This list is just over 6k drafts long.
However, there are some that are subjects which could possibly become articles ( I made a little list here) and there are some that were made by users who are still active and who might like to shuffle them over to user space as forgotten subjects they'd like to write about.
I'm enjoying going through the list since it was posted above, but it has been pointed out (or at least suggested) that (a) we move potential candidates for articles out of Draft Space when nothing is being done, as is best practice (b) it's 6k drafts long and I am but one gnome. So it was also suggested that I ask in the Ideaslab if that other people would like to join me. Especially as I have nowhere to move them to.
Does that peak anyone else's interest as a project to deal with drafts that aren't falling under G13? Or do people think it's a good idea at least? The ones that aren't vandalism aren't exactly bothering anyone and it would be nice to collect a bunch of red links for content creators. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This is something related. Does anyone think it is a good idea to have a list of draft pages by subject? The idea is to make it easier for the editors (especially long-time ones) to discover drafts that can be worked on. Obviously, it is impractical to list all drafts, especially hopeless ones (e.g., my brother was born in ... He is good with ...) But there are also drafts that are on more traditionally encyclopedic subjects like science and math. For those good drafts, the list should be of manageable length. Some editors might not prefer to see their drafts appearing in such a list; but then they should develop their drafts in their user page not here. Also, the idea is this is a sort of mix of drafts and requested-articles. There are many instances that someone knows a topic is notable but is not covered in the main namespace. AfC is the least satisfactory solution; they needs to create a complete start article that has references, establish the context, etc. The list I'm proposing can be allowed to have red links so it can double as the list of requested pages. Fundamentally, this type of approach makes the process more wiki-y. Which is a key since the fundamental reason why the AfC doesn't work is because it is not wiki but is of the submission/review process, the very process Wikipedia rejects. -- Taku ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How about categorizing drafts by subject? ... editors ... could help improve drafts if they could easily find them by subject, and WikiProjects could probably also get involved.
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
There has been some confusion as to the purpose of the draft namespace as well as the minimum standard for draft articles. Given this situation, I would like to propose the following standard for the draft articles in the draft namespace.
Since I'm not a native English speaker, please feel free to suggest different phrasing if you can think any. Please also note what is missing. We don't require draft articles to have AfC reviews or some kind of submission procedures. This is very natural; there is no requirement like AfC submissions or deadlines for main space articles and it would be unnatural to demand more stringent review requirement for draft articles.
My hope is to dispel some confusion like the draft namespace is only for AfC or some other training-wheels-uses, as it is not. Also, most importantly, draft articles should be not deleted unless they fail these community-agreed requirements and not some other personal requirements editors impose as they feel like. I believe we should agree on what to delete before we discuss how to delete them. (I'm happy with streamlining the deletion process.) -- Taku ( talk) 03:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
A stub is an) I would explicitly note that the pages Taku is trying to save are below this standard and should be deleted. Hasteur ( talk) 11:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)articlepage that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.
See here, where the discussion for a PROD-esque process for drafts has been closed with consensus to initiate that process. We should hold off discussions on how to implement this until people have time to challenge the close, which I'm almost positive will happen. Everyone should be aware of it, though. ~ Rob13 Talk 22:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This information page assumes pages in draft space are drafts of entire articles although it does not explicitly forbid drafts of only a section of an article. Help:Userspace draft makes it clear that pages in userspace may be drafts of parts of articles. When I start to create a draft I automatically get a template announcing it is to be an article. Are drafts of sections of articles, or of project pages, allowed? I suspect IPs can't create anything in userspace. Thincat ( talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This question is in the same vein as the previous one. Do we want to require a page in the draft namespace to be complete? In the sense, for example, it should give enough context or references or it is complete content-wise. I believe the answer must be "NO"; it is alway preferable to put a complete draft in the main namespace, where it is visible to both editors and the readers and so there is more chance for improvement. The purpose of the draft namespace, as I see, is to hold incomplete drafts, those that we don't want for the public to see. -- Taku ( talk) 04:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, how is that different from having that collection of theorems on a talk page or user page? You wouldn't request that a talk page were deleted if somebody placed such content there for requesting commentary and developing some paragraphs that could potentially be used at an article, would you? Talk space is not "infinite, indefinite space for anything that could ever exist" even if we don't go removing everything there that gets stalled; somehow the WP:NOT policies plus archiving are enough to get keep them in good shape without a need to delete everything that wouldn't be allowed at main space (isn't that the whole purpose of having separate namespaces?). Diego ( talk) 23:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I understand where SmokeyJoe is coming from. There is a reason why we don't want content fork or other types of duplicate efforts in the mainspace; because that would be duplicate of editors efforts and because, as principle, we want to have a single article on each notable topic (incidentally, the draft mentioned was not content fork, but that's irrelevant for the debate.) The error in this reasoning is that the draft namespace is not the encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. I, and I believe many others, don't see the draft namespace as a proper part of the encyclopedia. A draft is a complete copy of a main article. So what? Why is that automatically wrong use of the name space? I believe any use of the namespace is basically permissible as long as the editors are using it for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. The draft namespace is not part of the encyclopedia but just some convenient space for the content development. It follows that, at least in my view, it is perfectly ok to have incomplete drafts or some content materials not correspondent to a single topic, again, as long as they are encyclopedic contents or using them for the purpose of content development. (Obviously we don't want some people to use the draft namespace for the purpose completely unrelated to Wikipedia, like say having a chat about a dinner plan.) -- Taku ( talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Since various AFC participants were constantly interfering with the new page patrol I had been performing on behalf of a particular WP for years and years, I quit doing it for the most part several months ago. Part of the problem entailed reviewers ignoring the hints I was leaving regarding notability or non-notability or suitability otherwise of a particular topic. This submission was just recently declined. However, it appears closely intertwined with Intuition (rapper). In 2013, as seen here, an AFC reviewer decided to unilaterally disregard clear community consensus formed here based on the mere existence of weak-for-BLP sourcing, with zero accountability to any of the editors involved in forming that particular consensus. The end result, yet another BLP about a barely notable person with the strong whiff of suggestion that our purpose here is to help bottom feeders promote their careers (as if we didn't have enough of that already). To be fair, I have a faint memory of this person having had a very minor hit song which sampled " I Go Crazy". If this is the case, then that song generated enough buzz to where I could buy that he belongs on the very bottom rungs of the notability ladder. The bottom line, if you have a higher opinion than I do of Intuition's notability, is there some sort of problem with integrating that submission into the existing article? I've had to do just that who knows how many times before in order to save valid encyclopedic content from deletion. Evidently, we have editors populating AFC who believe that every individual piece of business on the encyclopedia exists in a vacuum and that it's to be viewed in terms of "free beer or a fight" with no middle ground. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to nominate a draft in the user space of an inactive user, e.g. User:Sephiroth storm/19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command? If one is allowed to nominate an other user's work, how can I do that appropriately? I'm not interested in any credit. I just think this Army Unit needs to have a wiki. -- Trilotat ( talk) 04:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor added a link here to the article Rich The Kid. That link directed readers to a draft article . Should Wikipedia readers be directed to draft articles which may contain incomplete or incorrect information? There doesn't seem to be any policy or previous consensus about this. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Before being challenged in an RfC, Wikipedia:Drafts#Incubation 1st dot point read:
Subclause iv was directly challenged by the RfC ( Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#RFC:_Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves).
The RfC obviously repudiated the unqualified text of subclause iv. Of the 35 !voting participants, only two supported unqualified. Reading through the RfC, if you ignore the one prolific badgering supporter, the RfC is overwhelmingly against unilateraly bold instant userfication by a non-author.
While the closer, User:KrakatoaKatie's didn't speak directly to the nature of the overwhelming objection to the subclause, the closing statement "Way too many <caveats> for there to be a consensus either way" is a clear statement that the status quo (subclause iv unqualified) is not supported by consensus.
Her reinstatement of the pre-RfC language is incompatible with her close.
My assessment of the RfC is below. 14/35 posted an explicit or obvious rejection of unilateral draftification. Another 10/35 gave strong, objective caveats. Together, these groups represent 69%.
Together, this 69% would support complete removal of subclause iv, in favour of using subclause i. Arguably, I suppose, the required discussion doesn't have to be at AfD. For example, a discussion and agreement with the author would constitute a "draftification discussion".
Another 9 (26%) gave subjective caveats, clearly not supporting unqualified language, but implying that an experienced editor should be able to make the decision and act on it. This large minority makes a lot of sense depending on the sort of case considered. A new substandard article by a new editor? An established article on a contentious subject? Should WP:NPOV problematic articles be unilaterally draftifiable?
I suggest (and edited) a rewrite of subclause iv to
I think that at least this much caveat is required. "Bold" impies that the editor knows what he is doing and is prepared to explain it. New and unready articles are the main issue, especially when written by a driveby editor. I think old articles should definitely go via AfD if they are so bad that they can't be fixed by editing.
To not tighten the language is to allow a loophole for unilateral speedy deletion of anything from mainspace. The old language allows anything to be moved, and the subsequent dot points unreviewed deletion of a history-free WP:CNR. It is very plausible that an admin might perform this action without examining the article moved. If the admin does examine the article moved, the whole thing would have been better done through the PROD process.
No. Clear opposition to allowing immediate unilateral undiscussed draftification of articles. (14 in the group)
RfC initiator User:Hahnchen
No, that would be disasterous for the reasons that I previously explained User:James500
No. User:Od Mishehu
No User:FoCuS
No, unless done through AfD (which is subclause i) User:Nathan2055
No. User:SilkTork
No. User:Hobit
No User:A2soup ("unless explicitly agreed to by author" is contrary to the intent of the clauses, which is by non-authors)
No. At least, not unilaterally without discussion. User:DGG. (the language of the subclauses reads to empower unilateral draftification.
Objective caveats. (10 in this group)
Yes - it's perfectly acceptable to move a newly created article in terrible shape User:Sergecross73
Yes but they generally shouldn't. User:Starblind
Yes. ... "under- or inappropriately sourced new articles" ... & other multiple detailed caveats User:Csar
"Yes but" multiple strong caveats. User:TriiipleThreat
Yes, but only for new articles. User:Kaldari
Only for new articles, recently placed in mainspace and woefully unready. User:SmokeyJoe
within reason - especially for brand-new or just-moved-to-article-space articles that haven't already been through a review process. User:davidwr
Usually no. User:WhatamIdoing
Yes per User:Starblind ... with interweaving caveats User:Soni
Conditional yes if it is quite clear that the article is not in a state for publishing as an article User:Steel1943
Subjective caveats. or a defined PROD-like process. (9 in this group)
Note that WP:PROD doesn't require objective justification.
Yes per WP:PRESERVE, as it's a good way to keep around content that doesn't belong as a stand-alone article and for which there's not an obvious place to merge User:Diego
Not instantly. A PROD-like process. User:Hellknowz
Yes with notification User:ferret
Contextual - Sometimes User:The Mental Asylum
"is such a move ever allowed", then my answer is "obviously, yes". If you're proposing disallowing such moves, I would say "no". User:Rhododendrites
Depends on the situation. User:Anarchyte
Contextual/Depends User:LukeSurl
Yes, using caution and sense. ... yet generally done rarely. User:KillerChihuahua
Yes, under PROD User:Mendaliv
Yes. no limitations. (2 in this group)
User:Unscintillating. Made 14 posts to the RfC pushing for no restrictions outside limitations of WP:BOLD, mostly badgering, and few bothered to respond to his repetition. He frequently makes correct but barely relevant points.
Absolutely yes User:slakr
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised that the clause was allowed to remain. We have established procedures for removing inappropriate articles, and protections in place to avoid "bold" editors unilaterally removing articles from mainspace. I suppose the closer felt that the RfC question was too vague, but adding that clause was highly inappropriate in the first place, and not in line with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, so it should not remain. The discussion here is the wrong way round: if anyone wishes to add that clause, it needs to be discussed and gain consensuses. Adding a clause which is against policy, and then having a discussion to get rid of it, is not the way we generally do things. There's WP:BOLD and there's WP:RECKLESS. Changing policy by stealth is not the way to do things. I am removing the clause, and if anyone wishes it back, they need to provide a rationale and get consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Here Unscintillating ( talk · contribs) has again reverted to the pre-RfC version, reverting again attempts at compromise wording. He has removed the discussion pointer. The edit summary "restore stable/consensus version of article" misleading, is plain false. That version has a stable history of being disputed. The RfC demonstrated an overwhelming lack of consensus for it. Unscintillating has reverted to a version that only he and one other out of 35 participants can be read as supporting, a version the provides for a backdoor undiscussed deletion of any article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to start a thread to note the change I made to simplify the draft creation input form. This is unrelated to the current policy language dispute, but please ping me here if anyone disagrees or wants citations to usability research for why I made the change. Thanks! Steven Walling • talk 20:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal regarding redirects left from moving accepted drafts to article space being discussed at the Village Pump. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects. Cheers! Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
For quite a while, there are multiple articles that I would like to do a MAJOR overhaul of ONLY the tables, but allow other editors to join the "fun". I'm NOT wanting to replace an entire existing article, but instead ONLY sections within an existing article, though for some list article it might end up turning into a replacement. Is "Draft:" the only place to do this, OR can we create a temporary subarticle like "Article/NewTable" similar to how we do it in User space? Thanks in advance for feedback! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A few months ago, I proposed a bot over at
WP:Bot requests without thinking to gather consensus here. (I apologize for that.) Before typing your answer here, please read
my proposal on that page to see my reasoning, etc.. Now, should we have a bot to automatically add {{
AFC submission/draft}}
to articles moved from the mainspace into draftspace? As noted on the proposal page, there should be an opt-out ability for more experienced editors. —
Gestrid (
talk)
22:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place for this type of the discussion is, so I'm posting this here. This continues the deletion review on Draft:Abstract homotopy theory at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 5.
The argument I wanted to make in the review discussion is that the current system of having draft pages of two types, AfC-type draft and the other, seem to confuse the editors. The G13 deletion of a non-AfC draft is wrong but is happening too often. I believe this is due to design flaws; i.e., we should redesign the system rather than keep instructing the editors about the correct usage (I for one am tired of pointing the misuse of G13.) There are three obvious solutions:
-- Taku ( talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I must admit the argument for preserving the G13 was very persuasive. I definitely get the point that "having it is better than not"; like democracy, it has a flaw but we need it. But I would like to repeat what led me to start this thread: I don't like the "status quo", the way the draftspace is used (or misused). I suspect the continuing use of G13 (or AfC) has to do complacency on the parts of the editors rather than the lack of alternatives (as some already pointed out). All seem to agree that the G13 is deeply flawed. So can I propose the following:
The idea is to "force" us to be less complacent; as pointed out, many problematic drafts should just be gone, 6 month-old or not. We can already do this by the other deletion mechanisms. There might be a better way to deal with the backlogs which are destined to keep growing. Again the absence of G13 would force us to come up with such alternatives. At best we can learn whether the lack of G13 leads to a disaster (must I commit seppuku if so??) -- Taku ( talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the moratorium on G13, in order to address the backlog problem, I would like to propose the following PROD-type deletion mechanism. Create a tag that says an along the line
The idea is that this tag will allow us to say, in a polite diplomatic way, this draft page is a crap and get it deleted sufficiency quickly (but not too quickly). Note the tag canno be used just because the quality of a draft page is low or, most important, it cannot be used just because it is old. Also "one month" does not mean a creator is expected to finish the draft page, but he (or occasionally she) must show the materials are encyclopedic and useful for Wikipedia. The tag does not distinguish between a AfC draft and non-AfC draft, so should be easier to use. If putting this tag is disputed, the page should be sent to MfD. This tag should however be very useful to get rid of worthless stuff like ad pages; since the tag essentially indicates the page is worthless, from the pointview of Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 23:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to think there is a solid support for the suspension of the use of G13 for time being. Am I right? Therefore, unless there is new strong opposition, in a next few days, I'm going to (actually ask an admin) to implement the suspension by modifying the template and the policy page. -- Taku ( talk) 23:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Should I start an RfC? Perhaps, a simple support/oppose poll for the suspension of G13? Maybe I will. As for the replacement, I think there is the consensus that we need a replacement: (1) one that applies to both AfC and non-AfC drafts (I'm sympathetic to the view having two types of drafts is confusing and maintainance headache) and (2) one that does not delete inactive drafts without any review. I have proposed one replacement above. I think there is the consensus that the inclusion criterion for the draft space should be "potentiality"; the potential that a draft can be turned into a mainspace article someday. So we can have the "non-potentiality tag" and we can delete drafts with the tags by bots and by humans with some time delay. There are of course other possibilities. As G13 is causing real damages, suspending G13 meantime is a no-brainer for me. Like a cessation of hostility (love the term): people can work on the piece agreement while agreeing not to engage. But yes, given the magnitude of the change, an RfC is needed. -- Taku ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have started the draft of a RfC on G13 at User:TakuyaMurata/RfC: G13. It will go live in the next few days or so. Please feel free to modify the wording or adding new questions if you can think any. -- Taku ( talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC) It's now running. -- Taku ( talk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, as a gnome who almost never talks to anyone on here my apologies if this is not a suitable venue but it's related to the above. Someone mentioned in the above discussions re:G13 that these stale drafts do not fall under G13 but are instead just sitting there cluttering up the place. I would argue that most of these qualify as test pages (seeing as they're the only edits made by the user/IP in question and appear to be them figuring out how to make a page and then leaving). If they were submitted they would fall under G13, most of them would be A7 regardless, and there is some vandalism sitting there. There's also quite a few that are just duplicates of existing content. This list is just over 6k drafts long.
However, there are some that are subjects which could possibly become articles ( I made a little list here) and there are some that were made by users who are still active and who might like to shuffle them over to user space as forgotten subjects they'd like to write about.
I'm enjoying going through the list since it was posted above, but it has been pointed out (or at least suggested) that (a) we move potential candidates for articles out of Draft Space when nothing is being done, as is best practice (b) it's 6k drafts long and I am but one gnome. So it was also suggested that I ask in the Ideaslab if that other people would like to join me. Especially as I have nowhere to move them to.
Does that peak anyone else's interest as a project to deal with drafts that aren't falling under G13? Or do people think it's a good idea at least? The ones that aren't vandalism aren't exactly bothering anyone and it would be nice to collect a bunch of red links for content creators. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This is something related. Does anyone think it is a good idea to have a list of draft pages by subject? The idea is to make it easier for the editors (especially long-time ones) to discover drafts that can be worked on. Obviously, it is impractical to list all drafts, especially hopeless ones (e.g., my brother was born in ... He is good with ...) But there are also drafts that are on more traditionally encyclopedic subjects like science and math. For those good drafts, the list should be of manageable length. Some editors might not prefer to see their drafts appearing in such a list; but then they should develop their drafts in their user page not here. Also, the idea is this is a sort of mix of drafts and requested-articles. There are many instances that someone knows a topic is notable but is not covered in the main namespace. AfC is the least satisfactory solution; they needs to create a complete start article that has references, establish the context, etc. The list I'm proposing can be allowed to have red links so it can double as the list of requested pages. Fundamentally, this type of approach makes the process more wiki-y. Which is a key since the fundamental reason why the AfC doesn't work is because it is not wiki but is of the submission/review process, the very process Wikipedia rejects. -- Taku ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How about categorizing drafts by subject? ... editors ... could help improve drafts if they could easily find them by subject, and WikiProjects could probably also get involved.