![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
In light of SmokeyJoe's proposal on the expansion of G13 to all drafts, which seems to be going to pass, I would like to propose the modified version of the draft classifier template ( #RFC: The draft classifier template.) It's the same template but without the G13 column. That is, the template is something like
Since we have already run a RfC and there was a broad support (except on the G13 part), I want to see if there is any strong objection to the template. In practice, the notability column should be used in conjunction with G13: use G13 somehow judiciously if the notability column is yes. That is, since G13 is essentially applied without reviews (many good AfC-drafts get deleted just because they are 6 months old), we require that G13 be applied with "some review" if the notability column is yes. Since I'm not familiar with the minutiae of the deletion process, maybe someone can elaborate on "some review" here. -- Taku ( talk) 00:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a pointer that, unless there is a strong objection to the template for the next 2/3 days, I'm implementing the template. -- Taku ( talk) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just hopeless but this (and the below) are not really about my drafts; I wanted to have some general discussion and work with the general mechanism. Apparently it's not working... -- Taku ( talk) 03:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Another pointer: since the above opposes do not address the merits of the template per se, they will be discounted. -- Taku ( talk) 03:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to classify Drafts with a template. It's an extra step that only postpones G13 deletion of hopeless pages. Editor time is far better spend CSDing or MfDing stuff that needs to go immediately, reviewing pages in the AfD backlog so their creators can fix them, and checking through 6 month+ stale pages for things that can be fixed and promoted. Adding a template to tell the next experienced editor something they can see themselves immediately is a waste of time. If it's junk, pursue deletion. If it raw gold try to move it forward. Legacypac ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This template is in a lot of ways redundant to Template:Draft article, which is already in use. Template:Draft article cross checks Wikipedia for articles of the same name, categorizes drafts by subject and lets readers know when the draft was last edited. Instead of creating yet another template, I suggest we expand the use of the current one.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am opening this section for a non-RFC discussion of Taku's concerns. I am a latecomer to this discussion, and I don't deal with drafts much, so my attempt at a starting summary may be faulty.
Here's the situation I understand it: There are tens of thousands of drafts. No one wants to delete useful drafts. No one wants to keep useless trash. There are all sort of things that we theoretically could or should do. But as I see it, the fundamental issue is labor. We can't do something if we literally don't have the person-hours to preform that labor. Another critical point is skilled labor. Draft space is used by experienced users, but we especially funnel new users there. We want experienced users doing the oversight work, and we especially want experienced users making the decisions about what gets deleted. We simply can't have multiple people expend a cumulative hour of expert-labor on each of the 20 drafts to review and categorize and preform heavyweight review-for-deletion processes. Even if we did have the people to do that work, we would be better off blindly bot-deleting every draft and just letting those trusted/skilled users spend those 20 hours building new articles themselves. People are particularly upset with the conflict over your drafts. I looked. They haven't been touched in over a year and a half or more. Some are substantial drafts, however you appear to have spammed a large number of one-edit one-sentence microstubs. When you apparently spend 2 minutes creating a page, people get upset that you appear to expect multiple other people to devote far larger amounts of their own time processing it and giving it a multi-user careful review before discarding it. If a page took two minutes to create, then it doesn't warrant more than two minutes of labor to delete.
There is currently an RFC in progress discussing rules for which drafts are eligible for a low-labor deletion process, and how it should work. It appears the consensus will be that any draft which has not been edited for 6 months is eligible. Yes, the community does have a soft-deadline where drafts are deemed "stale" and eligible for lightweight deletion processes. We do not permanently host non-articles. Any draft which has not been edited in 6 months has a low-likelihood of making it to mainspace. Anyone may evaluate whether the draft is useful. If they think it's junk, they can tag it CSD G13. Then an admin reviews it and decided whether or not to delete. There also appears to be significant support that deleted drafts may be restored on-request per REFUND.
Taku: If you have some question, comment, or proposal, I invite you to post it here. Please remember that any draft-management ideas won't work if they require more than minimal skilled/trusted labor expended on each draft. And please remember it is unproductive to use this page object-to or try to evade the proposed G13 process. Any concerns of that nature belong in that RFC discussion. If you have other thoughts, questions, or proposals, please post it here. Thanx. Alsee ( talk) 11:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Per multiple suggestions above to address the subject, I have added a new
What draftspace is not
permalink to suggested addition section. I invite people to endorse, expand, or criticize the addition.
Alsee (
talk)
15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Alsee, I've removed the section entirely, as it's in direct contradiction with the WP: Imperfect policy: Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. BTW, I fail to see why you would like to have for drafts some deletion criteria which are way more strict than what we have for stubs in main space? Drafts are much less visible overall. Diego ( talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(The statement: I'm quite busy with real-life stuff at this moment and so I cannot actively participate in this discussion. Also, since I have too much conflict of interest in this matter, it's probably better excuse myself from the discussion. I have zero problem if the community draws a bright line and wants to delete content crossing the line. My only problem is an attempt for the deletion of legitimate content. Some deletionists and I simply differ on what is legitimate. -- Taku ( talk) 23:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC))
On every AfC Draft the box says "There are no deadlines as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months." There is solid concensus to extend that same rule to non-AfC drafts too. Legacypac ( talk) 19:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the bold change that constitutes deliberately misleading advice contained in these revisions. I do not believe that the page and its instructions are outdated. I further believe that if the instructions were outdated the best solution would be to fix the instructions. As the editor I revered is one that I have had significant disagreemets with previously I am bringing the discussion to determine if there is consensus. Hasteur ( talk) 20:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:G13 also applies to Draft space. There is nothing more to debate. Legacypac ( talk) 18:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Turtles all the way down. Let's move on.
|
---|
Hi all, In [1], @ Legacypac: suggested an RfC to have more explicit rules on what type of a page can/should belong to the draftspace. I like the idea very much; in fact, I have already tried that twice above. Since it was pointed out that these RfCs are too disorganized, I wonder if we can come up with something more structured. -- Taku ( talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Specifically, I think we should ask
If this is the case, we cannot move, for example, a page in the mainspace to the draftspace that has some potential but is not up to the quality (say establishing the notability) required for the mainspace. Put in another way, does the draftspace support some sort of an archiving feature? Answering these questions should save us (in particular me!!) from having a lot of disputes. -- Taku ( talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No, you asked Does a page in the draftspace need to be being actively worked on?. What you didn't write, but have heavily implied in all of your follow ups is Does Draftspace require pages to be worked on in order to avoid CSD:G13? which each user has told you, Per CSD:G13, a page can be nominated for deletion (or deleted outright) after 6 months of no editing.
Hasteur (
talk)
22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
When you edit this talkpage it says: "This is the talk page of an information page, meant to accurately reflect a consensus established by one or more policies or guidelines, or other Wikipedia processes and practices. This information page is not a policy or guideline itself. Consensus on policies and guidelines are established on the talk pages of those policies or guidelines, not here. Please use this talk page to discuss issues specific to this information page—issues related to the consensus described here should be raised on the talk page of the associated policy or guideline" Taku needs to follow these instructions, and please don't try and change those instructions too. Legacypac ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
|
The opening sentence of this information page says:
Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. (Emphasis added.)
I'd like to focus on the final word. I am not interested in reprising the close-to-incomprehensible issues raised in the previous section now thankfully hatted. However, I do think the current wording has the potential to mislead and can be easily solved.
In preparation for this post, I walk through the development of this page edit by edit. I won't rehash the entire history but I'll note that the concept was first implemented in December 2013, and early in 2014 there were some edits indicating that G 13 applied to pages in draft space. That language was alternately in and out for a period of time and then left out in favor of kicking the can down the road.
We get tired of kicking the can down the road and finally made the decision that yes, G 13 does apply to drafts. Prior to that decision, one can make an argument that, other than removal for good reasons such as moving to mainspace or not so good reason such as identification of copyright violations, drafts might languish forever. Obviously, this is a bit of an over simplification, as there have been attempts to MFD drafts — however, now that the community has accepted that G 13 applies to drafts, which I interpreted as meaning that pages can stay in draft space until such time as someone notices a six month pause in editing, in which case they can be deleted (and they can be deleted for that reason alone).
A lot of words to say that the word "stored" will connote, to some, unlimited storage time and that is inconsistent with the recent decision regarding G 13.
One easy solution is to replace "stored" with "temporarily stored" and optionally include some language about the six-month deadline. I suspect we'll need a little more wordsmithing than that but let me start with that as a proposal.
I did not miss that the instructions do include discussion of G 13. However, I will note the reality that not all editors especially new editors, will read the entire contents. While we can hold them to that standard it is a good practice to write an instruction of the form:
The rules allow X
.
.
.
lots of intermediate text
.
.
.
By the way, we didn't really mean "X" we really meant not "X"--
S Philbrick
(Talk)
18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted some of recent changes by User:Legacypac, which I don't think have the community support; e.g., "test page" to refer to a short draft. -- Taku ( talk) 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
G2 is not being expanded with my wording. Actual practice is to G2 delete draft pages that are blank or only repeat the title or otherwise have no evidently useful content. The addition of "and deleted" is to counter Taku's change that he will likely use to say pages should not be actually deleted G13. I'm fine going back to just "deleted". Legacypac ( talk) 01:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@ TakuyaMurata and Legacypac: Would both of you please stop edit warring over the definition. I'd ask both of you to start securing a consensus going forward as every active editor here has an axe to grind. Taku, if you don't like Legacypac's changes, explain why you have a problem with them. Legacypac, Some of that language is on the razor edge of not being supported by consensus. Further reversion warring will result in me asking an Administrator for indefinite semi protection to prevent both of you boneheads from disrupting the stability of the page. Hasteur ( talk) 01:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few reasons drafts my be speedy deleted. I've added another that is common now - many examples in User:Legacypac/CSD_log or whereever the logs of accepted G2 are kept. [2]. Legacypac ( talk) 02:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"No Context" This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.I can't find a recent discussion that seems to support this view, and can find one recent discussion (July of this year) where this usage was at best "no consensus". How about the following text:
The general section of the criteria for speedy deletion may be applied to drafts. Drafts that are copyright violations, vandalism, BLP violations, or blatant advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted without consideration of the draft's age or last edit.Does this work for both of you. Hasteur ( talk) 02:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)No special deletion policy for drafts has been decided. Drafts with no meaningful content are often deleted as G2 Test pages.Draft pages that are at least 6 months from their last non-bot edit may be speedy deleted as described in the "Deletion of old drafts" section
G2 currently functions for Draft space much like WP:A3 in mainspace and WP:G6 blank draft does for userspace. Legacypac ( talk) 03:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've long believed the wording here does not properly reflect the nuanced responses to the linked RfC. My proposed wording more accurately reflects actual practice across the hundreds of recent MfDs I've participated in. It also says why we don't apply N etc immediately. [3]. Legacypac ( talk) 02:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the latest bold edit by Legacypac, as it still doesn't have consensus, and it contradicts the latest part of the first paragraph which explicitly says " Drafts may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but not on a primary concern of notability". Notability is never applied to drafts, per the result of the linked RfC, not only "not immediately".
@ Hasteur:, you've reverted my getting back to the statu quo ante saying that there's consensus for such change, but there's no agreement regarding the term "immediately" in this current discussion; and a local consensus may not modify the result of the previous RfC anyway. Diego ( talk) 12:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Legacypac:, is this section the "see talk page" you referred to in response to my note that consensus was required for the proposed change? I do not see how anyone could characterize the discussion above, as it sits, as consensus to change the wording. VQuakr ( talk) 14:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Same section, this seems out of place and I think it should be removed. For example, "There is insufficient context in the draft for me to determine the draft's subject" seems a perfectly acceptable MfD rationale. Any objections? VQuakr ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
[5] the Twinkle description says "old, abandoned" but the [[WP:G13] criteria uses the word Abandoned more accurately. An "old" draft started a long time ago that is being actively worked on even occasionally is not subject to G13. An abandoned page is one that has not been improved in 6 months. The word Abandoned reflects G13 wording. I explained this in my edit summary [6]. I fail to see where there is any contention over this. Legacypac ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with part of this change [7] because I perceive it will be used to argue that Admins should not G13 delete nominated drafts and it gets away from the plain language that reflect the vast majority of G13 nominations get deleted. Legacypac ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Previously deleted draft has been
nominated for deletion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at the above link. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just copied the draft guidelines from
Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification to
Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification
Wikipedia:Drafts#Draftification_of_pages_from_Article_Space. I think these are a fair description of accepted practice, including accepted limitations. Someone who is not qualified to be a new page patroller should not be unilaterally draftifying pages. Someone who repeatedly draftifies poorly should lose their NPR permission.
I think there is very little practice that is to be altered to fit, but documenting good practice is a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently came across a draftified AfD which had been revised, much improved, and sent to AfC. While I had no difficulty putting the article in the main space, it seemed like a peculiar approach (which apparently worked to improve the article). My own feelings on a "likely notable but delete because the author hasn't proven it" approach aside, I was thinking it might be worth creating an draftified category, so we can keep track of these articles. I worry that draftified option may be seen as the "delete lite" button--between delete and keep, but one which defaults to delete. A category would allow perusal and tracking of the draftified articles. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 03:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Better late the never ....pls see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#How_hard_would_it_be_to_set_up_ORES_for_the_Draft:_space? about linking or transclusion what is bellow.-- Moxy ( talk) 04:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tables
In a number of discussions it's been the starting point of some editor's opinions that moving an article to draft is a back-door deletion. When I've moved an article to draft I've always had it in mind that the article isn't ready for mainspace & needs improvement - improvement being preferable to deletion. I think the objective of improvement needs to be emphasised in the draftify guidance, specifically -
Any thoughts? Cabayi ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Check out this search: [8]. I went through the first 40 and found 12 that I moved to mainspace after no or very minor revisions. The process took me about an hour and a half. (This may mean that the first 28 are now garbage, because I already looked at them.) It might be nice to get a report of declined drafts that contain the word "died" or sandbox pages or things tagged user draft that contain the word "died". Chances are very good that a dead person being written about is notable. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Boleyn has moved a great many non-new articles to draftspace without discussion. [9] I first noticed this at Draft:San Antonio Island (Spain), but there appear to be dozens of affected articles, some of which were years old when moved by Boleyn. This seems to contradict the rules at Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space. Are her moves consistent with policy? In my opinion, it is highly problematic to unilaterally move articles from mainspace to draftspace when the default outcome in draftspace is deletion after six months. By the way, I'm not concerned with moves of unreferenced or significantly underreferenced BLP articles. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 08:54, 3 June 2018 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
In light of SmokeyJoe's proposal on the expansion of G13 to all drafts, which seems to be going to pass, I would like to propose the modified version of the draft classifier template ( #RFC: The draft classifier template.) It's the same template but without the G13 column. That is, the template is something like
Since we have already run a RfC and there was a broad support (except on the G13 part), I want to see if there is any strong objection to the template. In practice, the notability column should be used in conjunction with G13: use G13 somehow judiciously if the notability column is yes. That is, since G13 is essentially applied without reviews (many good AfC-drafts get deleted just because they are 6 months old), we require that G13 be applied with "some review" if the notability column is yes. Since I'm not familiar with the minutiae of the deletion process, maybe someone can elaborate on "some review" here. -- Taku ( talk) 00:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a pointer that, unless there is a strong objection to the template for the next 2/3 days, I'm implementing the template. -- Taku ( talk) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just hopeless but this (and the below) are not really about my drafts; I wanted to have some general discussion and work with the general mechanism. Apparently it's not working... -- Taku ( talk) 03:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Another pointer: since the above opposes do not address the merits of the template per se, they will be discounted. -- Taku ( talk) 03:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to classify Drafts with a template. It's an extra step that only postpones G13 deletion of hopeless pages. Editor time is far better spend CSDing or MfDing stuff that needs to go immediately, reviewing pages in the AfD backlog so their creators can fix them, and checking through 6 month+ stale pages for things that can be fixed and promoted. Adding a template to tell the next experienced editor something they can see themselves immediately is a waste of time. If it's junk, pursue deletion. If it raw gold try to move it forward. Legacypac ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This template is in a lot of ways redundant to Template:Draft article, which is already in use. Template:Draft article cross checks Wikipedia for articles of the same name, categorizes drafts by subject and lets readers know when the draft was last edited. Instead of creating yet another template, I suggest we expand the use of the current one.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I am opening this section for a non-RFC discussion of Taku's concerns. I am a latecomer to this discussion, and I don't deal with drafts much, so my attempt at a starting summary may be faulty.
Here's the situation I understand it: There are tens of thousands of drafts. No one wants to delete useful drafts. No one wants to keep useless trash. There are all sort of things that we theoretically could or should do. But as I see it, the fundamental issue is labor. We can't do something if we literally don't have the person-hours to preform that labor. Another critical point is skilled labor. Draft space is used by experienced users, but we especially funnel new users there. We want experienced users doing the oversight work, and we especially want experienced users making the decisions about what gets deleted. We simply can't have multiple people expend a cumulative hour of expert-labor on each of the 20 drafts to review and categorize and preform heavyweight review-for-deletion processes. Even if we did have the people to do that work, we would be better off blindly bot-deleting every draft and just letting those trusted/skilled users spend those 20 hours building new articles themselves. People are particularly upset with the conflict over your drafts. I looked. They haven't been touched in over a year and a half or more. Some are substantial drafts, however you appear to have spammed a large number of one-edit one-sentence microstubs. When you apparently spend 2 minutes creating a page, people get upset that you appear to expect multiple other people to devote far larger amounts of their own time processing it and giving it a multi-user careful review before discarding it. If a page took two minutes to create, then it doesn't warrant more than two minutes of labor to delete.
There is currently an RFC in progress discussing rules for which drafts are eligible for a low-labor deletion process, and how it should work. It appears the consensus will be that any draft which has not been edited for 6 months is eligible. Yes, the community does have a soft-deadline where drafts are deemed "stale" and eligible for lightweight deletion processes. We do not permanently host non-articles. Any draft which has not been edited in 6 months has a low-likelihood of making it to mainspace. Anyone may evaluate whether the draft is useful. If they think it's junk, they can tag it CSD G13. Then an admin reviews it and decided whether or not to delete. There also appears to be significant support that deleted drafts may be restored on-request per REFUND.
Taku: If you have some question, comment, or proposal, I invite you to post it here. Please remember that any draft-management ideas won't work if they require more than minimal skilled/trusted labor expended on each draft. And please remember it is unproductive to use this page object-to or try to evade the proposed G13 process. Any concerns of that nature belong in that RFC discussion. If you have other thoughts, questions, or proposals, please post it here. Thanx. Alsee ( talk) 11:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Per multiple suggestions above to address the subject, I have added a new
What draftspace is not
permalink to suggested addition section. I invite people to endorse, expand, or criticize the addition.
Alsee (
talk)
15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Alsee, I've removed the section entirely, as it's in direct contradiction with the WP: Imperfect policy: Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. BTW, I fail to see why you would like to have for drafts some deletion criteria which are way more strict than what we have for stubs in main space? Drafts are much less visible overall. Diego ( talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(The statement: I'm quite busy with real-life stuff at this moment and so I cannot actively participate in this discussion. Also, since I have too much conflict of interest in this matter, it's probably better excuse myself from the discussion. I have zero problem if the community draws a bright line and wants to delete content crossing the line. My only problem is an attempt for the deletion of legitimate content. Some deletionists and I simply differ on what is legitimate. -- Taku ( talk) 23:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC))
On every AfC Draft the box says "There are no deadlines as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months." There is solid concensus to extend that same rule to non-AfC drafts too. Legacypac ( talk) 19:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the bold change that constitutes deliberately misleading advice contained in these revisions. I do not believe that the page and its instructions are outdated. I further believe that if the instructions were outdated the best solution would be to fix the instructions. As the editor I revered is one that I have had significant disagreemets with previously I am bringing the discussion to determine if there is consensus. Hasteur ( talk) 20:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:G13 also applies to Draft space. There is nothing more to debate. Legacypac ( talk) 18:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Turtles all the way down. Let's move on.
|
---|
Hi all, In [1], @ Legacypac: suggested an RfC to have more explicit rules on what type of a page can/should belong to the draftspace. I like the idea very much; in fact, I have already tried that twice above. Since it was pointed out that these RfCs are too disorganized, I wonder if we can come up with something more structured. -- Taku ( talk) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Specifically, I think we should ask
If this is the case, we cannot move, for example, a page in the mainspace to the draftspace that has some potential but is not up to the quality (say establishing the notability) required for the mainspace. Put in another way, does the draftspace support some sort of an archiving feature? Answering these questions should save us (in particular me!!) from having a lot of disputes. -- Taku ( talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No, you asked Does a page in the draftspace need to be being actively worked on?. What you didn't write, but have heavily implied in all of your follow ups is Does Draftspace require pages to be worked on in order to avoid CSD:G13? which each user has told you, Per CSD:G13, a page can be nominated for deletion (or deleted outright) after 6 months of no editing.
Hasteur (
talk)
22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
When you edit this talkpage it says: "This is the talk page of an information page, meant to accurately reflect a consensus established by one or more policies or guidelines, or other Wikipedia processes and practices. This information page is not a policy or guideline itself. Consensus on policies and guidelines are established on the talk pages of those policies or guidelines, not here. Please use this talk page to discuss issues specific to this information page—issues related to the consensus described here should be raised on the talk page of the associated policy or guideline" Taku needs to follow these instructions, and please don't try and change those instructions too. Legacypac ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
|
The opening sentence of this information page says:
Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. (Emphasis added.)
I'd like to focus on the final word. I am not interested in reprising the close-to-incomprehensible issues raised in the previous section now thankfully hatted. However, I do think the current wording has the potential to mislead and can be easily solved.
In preparation for this post, I walk through the development of this page edit by edit. I won't rehash the entire history but I'll note that the concept was first implemented in December 2013, and early in 2014 there were some edits indicating that G 13 applied to pages in draft space. That language was alternately in and out for a period of time and then left out in favor of kicking the can down the road.
We get tired of kicking the can down the road and finally made the decision that yes, G 13 does apply to drafts. Prior to that decision, one can make an argument that, other than removal for good reasons such as moving to mainspace or not so good reason such as identification of copyright violations, drafts might languish forever. Obviously, this is a bit of an over simplification, as there have been attempts to MFD drafts — however, now that the community has accepted that G 13 applies to drafts, which I interpreted as meaning that pages can stay in draft space until such time as someone notices a six month pause in editing, in which case they can be deleted (and they can be deleted for that reason alone).
A lot of words to say that the word "stored" will connote, to some, unlimited storage time and that is inconsistent with the recent decision regarding G 13.
One easy solution is to replace "stored" with "temporarily stored" and optionally include some language about the six-month deadline. I suspect we'll need a little more wordsmithing than that but let me start with that as a proposal.
I did not miss that the instructions do include discussion of G 13. However, I will note the reality that not all editors especially new editors, will read the entire contents. While we can hold them to that standard it is a good practice to write an instruction of the form:
The rules allow X
.
.
.
lots of intermediate text
.
.
.
By the way, we didn't really mean "X" we really meant not "X"--
S Philbrick
(Talk)
18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted some of recent changes by User:Legacypac, which I don't think have the community support; e.g., "test page" to refer to a short draft. -- Taku ( talk) 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
G2 is not being expanded with my wording. Actual practice is to G2 delete draft pages that are blank or only repeat the title or otherwise have no evidently useful content. The addition of "and deleted" is to counter Taku's change that he will likely use to say pages should not be actually deleted G13. I'm fine going back to just "deleted". Legacypac ( talk) 01:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@ TakuyaMurata and Legacypac: Would both of you please stop edit warring over the definition. I'd ask both of you to start securing a consensus going forward as every active editor here has an axe to grind. Taku, if you don't like Legacypac's changes, explain why you have a problem with them. Legacypac, Some of that language is on the razor edge of not being supported by consensus. Further reversion warring will result in me asking an Administrator for indefinite semi protection to prevent both of you boneheads from disrupting the stability of the page. Hasteur ( talk) 01:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few reasons drafts my be speedy deleted. I've added another that is common now - many examples in User:Legacypac/CSD_log or whereever the logs of accepted G2 are kept. [2]. Legacypac ( talk) 02:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"No Context" This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.I can't find a recent discussion that seems to support this view, and can find one recent discussion (July of this year) where this usage was at best "no consensus". How about the following text:
The general section of the criteria for speedy deletion may be applied to drafts. Drafts that are copyright violations, vandalism, BLP violations, or blatant advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted without consideration of the draft's age or last edit.Does this work for both of you. Hasteur ( talk) 02:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)No special deletion policy for drafts has been decided. Drafts with no meaningful content are often deleted as G2 Test pages.Draft pages that are at least 6 months from their last non-bot edit may be speedy deleted as described in the "Deletion of old drafts" section
G2 currently functions for Draft space much like WP:A3 in mainspace and WP:G6 blank draft does for userspace. Legacypac ( talk) 03:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've long believed the wording here does not properly reflect the nuanced responses to the linked RfC. My proposed wording more accurately reflects actual practice across the hundreds of recent MfDs I've participated in. It also says why we don't apply N etc immediately. [3]. Legacypac ( talk) 02:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the latest bold edit by Legacypac, as it still doesn't have consensus, and it contradicts the latest part of the first paragraph which explicitly says " Drafts may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but not on a primary concern of notability". Notability is never applied to drafts, per the result of the linked RfC, not only "not immediately".
@ Hasteur:, you've reverted my getting back to the statu quo ante saying that there's consensus for such change, but there's no agreement regarding the term "immediately" in this current discussion; and a local consensus may not modify the result of the previous RfC anyway. Diego ( talk) 12:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Legacypac:, is this section the "see talk page" you referred to in response to my note that consensus was required for the proposed change? I do not see how anyone could characterize the discussion above, as it sits, as consensus to change the wording. VQuakr ( talk) 14:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Same section, this seems out of place and I think it should be removed. For example, "There is insufficient context in the draft for me to determine the draft's subject" seems a perfectly acceptable MfD rationale. Any objections? VQuakr ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
[5] the Twinkle description says "old, abandoned" but the [[WP:G13] criteria uses the word Abandoned more accurately. An "old" draft started a long time ago that is being actively worked on even occasionally is not subject to G13. An abandoned page is one that has not been improved in 6 months. The word Abandoned reflects G13 wording. I explained this in my edit summary [6]. I fail to see where there is any contention over this. Legacypac ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with part of this change [7] because I perceive it will be used to argue that Admins should not G13 delete nominated drafts and it gets away from the plain language that reflect the vast majority of G13 nominations get deleted. Legacypac ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Previously deleted draft has been
nominated for deletion. Watchers of this page are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at the above link. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just copied the draft guidelines from
Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification to
Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification
Wikipedia:Drafts#Draftification_of_pages_from_Article_Space. I think these are a fair description of accepted practice, including accepted limitations. Someone who is not qualified to be a new page patroller should not be unilaterally draftifying pages. Someone who repeatedly draftifies poorly should lose their NPR permission.
I think there is very little practice that is to be altered to fit, but documenting good practice is a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently came across a draftified AfD which had been revised, much improved, and sent to AfC. While I had no difficulty putting the article in the main space, it seemed like a peculiar approach (which apparently worked to improve the article). My own feelings on a "likely notable but delete because the author hasn't proven it" approach aside, I was thinking it might be worth creating an draftified category, so we can keep track of these articles. I worry that draftified option may be seen as the "delete lite" button--between delete and keep, but one which defaults to delete. A category would allow perusal and tracking of the draftified articles. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 03:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Better late the never ....pls see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#How_hard_would_it_be_to_set_up_ORES_for_the_Draft:_space? about linking or transclusion what is bellow.-- Moxy ( talk) 04:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tables
In a number of discussions it's been the starting point of some editor's opinions that moving an article to draft is a back-door deletion. When I've moved an article to draft I've always had it in mind that the article isn't ready for mainspace & needs improvement - improvement being preferable to deletion. I think the objective of improvement needs to be emphasised in the draftify guidance, specifically -
Any thoughts? Cabayi ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Check out this search: [8]. I went through the first 40 and found 12 that I moved to mainspace after no or very minor revisions. The process took me about an hour and a half. (This may mean that the first 28 are now garbage, because I already looked at them.) It might be nice to get a report of declined drafts that contain the word "died" or sandbox pages or things tagged user draft that contain the word "died". Chances are very good that a dead person being written about is notable. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Boleyn has moved a great many non-new articles to draftspace without discussion. [9] I first noticed this at Draft:San Antonio Island (Spain), but there appear to be dozens of affected articles, some of which were years old when moved by Boleyn. This seems to contradict the rules at Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space. Are her moves consistent with policy? In my opinion, it is highly problematic to unilaterally move articles from mainspace to draftspace when the default outcome in draftspace is deletion after six months. By the way, I'm not concerned with moves of unreferenced or significantly underreferenced BLP articles. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 08:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)