Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:12, 17 May 2014

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Should AfC and Article Incubator both be moved to Drafts, and is there a need to distinguish them?

There are now three options for "draft" articles: the Draft namespace, WP:Article incubator for semi-deleted articles, and WP:Articles for Creation for partially constructed articles. I don't think we need all these; and I do think a separate namespace is a nice clean idea that will make it pretty obvious to all editors where to find draft articles. Question: is there any particular need to distinguish an AfC from an incubated article, except for a link to the relevant deletion discussion on the talk page using the standard template? Wnt (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support doing this for the incubator. It's not really used anymore and ought to be wound up. The few articles still there could be moved into this new thing. No opinion on AfC. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support There are (or have been recently) discussions in several places where there appears to be a growing consensus to close down the Incubator and move it's content to the Draft mainspace. Perhaps a quick RfC could conclude this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, there is currently an RfC over at WT:WPAFC about whether AFC should move to draft space. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and note I have received the first request at WP:REFUND to reverse a g13 and put it in the draft space. Draft:The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays The article incubator had a much better place here, as whether the content of the incubator conformed with consensus is dubious. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think that consideration should be given to moving drafts listed at WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts into draft space as well. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with that, so long as the links at the Wikiproject are fixed so that they're still pointing correctly to the drafts. Silverseren 11:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Responses

  AfC to Drafts: Yes, once the AFCH tool can support the draft namespace without having to use a beta/dev version of the tool

  Incubator to Drafts: Yes, post haste

  Distinguish: I would say no. AfC drafts will have an AfC submission banner on them to help us find the ones that are in the AFC pipeline. I would like to see a transparent template that is applied to all Draft pages which indicates when the page landed in the draft namespace as a category(i.e. Category:Draft Namespace Assumption/07 January 2014) so that we can track down Drafts that have been forgotten by their creators/contributors and to start a clock on potentially removing the draft under the argument that we're not a web hosting service and that the content can be retrieved at any time via a REFUND request. We really don't want to have another massive dark vault of pages that sits around and never shows improvement only to have the wiki community at large throw their hands up and authorize annother CSD rationale to deal with Drafts that no editor is expressing interest in improving. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why not? I've never understood the rationale of deleting drafts under a time limit. Removing drafts based on the quality and suitability of the content, sure; if the page is a personal recollection of stuff that could never be adopted in articles, propose it for deletion any time and kill it dead. But if the content could reasonably belong in the encyclopedia, just because no editor expressed an interest in improving it now doesn't mean that no one will find it interesting later, some months from now or two hundred years in the future. Misplaced Pages's nature as free content makes it intended to last forever, and an abandoned draft could very well provide whatever hints a scholar from a future civilization needs to kickstart a research project about our knowledge on an obscure topic. So why make iterative improvement harder by removing viable content from sight, when that content is not featured as a Misplaced Pages article? Diego (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• While space is cheap, we don't need to be the host for every single thought that ever occurred. Following your future scholar example, a scholar is more likely to spend time working on a research project if the page is in main space (as we know that academia is guardedly hostile to us). They're not likely to use a draft that never mustered enough interest or attention to make the transition to main space. Most of these drafts will have a single editor that focuses on it for a short while, looses attention and then abandons it. If a new editor comes along and discovers that there was a previous attempt at creating a article, they can request the text back as a starting place to continue the effort with nearly zero effort. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not provide indefinite storage of text. Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, the mechanism is iterative improvement; any deletion of valid content hurts that purpose. So I ask again, what is the purported benefit of making it more difficult to recover the content by introducing a human in the loop? This artificial barrier impedes the readers from assesing by themselves whether the content is relevant on the spot, and introduces a delay which can go from hours to days (thus making assessment of a large collection of drafts much harder). There should be a very good motivation to support hindering readership in that way, but I've never seen it articulated. Diego (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be the great compendium of human thought. The delay of requesting a refund is at most a few hours, therefore per WP:DEADLINE we can afford to give that much of a delay. Readers at large (not ones interested in improving the draft) aren't going to be in the draft namespace, they'll be reading the regular wikipedia articles. I think the primary users of the draft space are people who want to create articles those who improve articles. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Making people wait for review sucks and should be avoided if we can. No one like the long backlog that AFC has now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Hasteur. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, there's no need to separate them since they all serve almost exactly the same purpose and can help get all the draft articles in one place for easier viewing, editing, etc. by a potentially larger pool of editors. --Nicereddy (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Abandoned drafts

All pages with titles beginning with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/

Now that DRAFT is live, shouldn't these all be moved into DRAFTspace? (the draft pages, not the project pages) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree Great idea, we should do this. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

LastSubstantiveEditDate

Lessons learned from the incubator, Part 1

A hot topic at the incubator was an operational definition for "stale draft".  Since there is no deadline at Misplaced Pages, some editors were satisfied that regular editors were getting access to some of the material that had been removed from mainspace, material that was otherwise only visible to admins.  At MfD, there was a case within the past few months in which a Userspace article that was seven years old was kept.  However, IMO the incubator and thereby draftspace is a place for communal editing, not an archive or a library.  At the incubator, a consensus briefly developed that one year was the appropriate amount of time for an article to exist without substantive edits before volunteers intervened.  One lesson learned is that software cannot identify the difference between housekeeping edits and substantive edits, and whatever period of time is selected, a new mechanism is needed to determine the date of the last substantive edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Would this imply that a draft should *not* be edited by volunteers in the first year or so? I don't think there's a need for that. It makes sense that a draft in user space may be owned by its creator, but the Draft namespace belongs to the community. Articles are not owned, so I don't see why drafts in project space should be. This is how we handle essays, for example; essays in WP space are open to anyone. If the author doesn't want this, the page is moved to their user space. Diego (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I stated that it is my opinion that draftspace is a place for communal editing, not an archive or a library.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Communal editing may take years to develop an article. Triggers for communal tasks (based on specific time lapses (other than closing active discussions) are usually rejected, as they interfere with the process to write articles. Diego (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Have you ever worked on an article in the incubator that has gone more than a year without a substantive edit?  Here is a case for your consideration: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Draft space is not the incubator - it doesn't make sense to compare the two as if they were. Articles only arrived to the incubator from deletion discussions, but draft articles can be created directly or moved from the main space without discussion, through a WP:BLAR. Diego (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A first proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate

There is a way to do this with the Defaultsort parameter, that would sort all articles in all categories by age.  It has the disadvantage that it takes over an existing function for a novel purpose, and must be reverted when promoting an article to mainspace.  It has the advantage that it can be done with the existing software.

It uses the yyyy-mm-dd date format which is inherently machine sortable.  For example, an editor could review the edit history of Draft:Fort Pierce Central High School and then make this addition:

{{DEFAULTSORT:2014-01-22 Fort Pierce Central High School}}

Likewise, Draft:Example could have this addition:

{{DEFAULTSORT:2014-02-03 Example}}

"Fort Pierce Central High School" would now appear before "Example" in Category:Draft articles as follows:

 • 2014-01-22 Fort Pierce Central High School

 • 2014-02-03 Example

Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (A first proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate)

If we can find a better way than this, use it. Overloading DEFAULTSORT is just asking for trouble. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A second proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate

Second proposal, part A

Add an optional parameter called LastSubstantiveEditDate to Template:Draft article.  This is by itself useful in manually maintaining a list of article ages.  This can be implemented with a bold edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Second proposal, part B

Automate the parameter using new software, which involves the developers.  If the parameter is unpopulated, software looks in the edit history and assumes that the most recent edit is a substantive edit.  The developers provide a display with draft articles sorted by the new parameter.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (A second proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate)

For the sake of simplicity, unless marked otherwise, all bot- and minor- edits should be considered non-substantial and all non-minor, non-bot edits should be considered substantial. This will avoid the problem of "oh, I forgot to mark the edit as substantial." If minor edits are likely to be substantial, change the above to "bot=presumed non-substantial, non-bot=presumed substantial" unless marked otherwise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A third proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate

Create new categories, one for each month.  For example

Category:LastSubstantiveEditDate 2013 (12) December

Category:LastSubstantiveEditDate 2014 (01) January

Category:LastSubstantiveEditDate 2014 (02) February,

Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: if we want drafts not edited after a certain period to be called out in some way, there is probably no reason to rely on parser functions and categories. These are pretty hackish, from a technical standpoint. On the backend, we can quite easily distinguish between drafts that have been edited by others, by the original author, time between edits, minor vs. non-minor edits, and size of edits. Automatically placing such articles in a queue of some kind (and not just a category) is not that difficult. I think the best thing the community can decide right now is what kind of drafts we want to consider stale. Once we know that, we can shape the technical definition based on community needs, and then arrive at a decent working approximation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Counter comment Getting Drafts enrolled in some sort of "Draft created" category system so we know when the draft arived here allows houskeeping editors to look through the submissions on the whole and consider which ones are making progress and which ones aren't. As the operator of the G13-nominating/qualifying bot, scanning through the members of the category and seeing when the page was last updated (at all) makes it easy to figure out what's going on. I am uncomfortable with the fuzzy line criterion as to if the draft is eligible. What qualifies a stubstantive edit? If one person takes a hard line that fixing a parameter constitutes a substantive edit then you're going to have very few drafts ever land in the eligible state. If an editor takes the viewpoint that anything under a complete sentence change is not substatntive, you'll have vast swathes landing in the garbage heap every day. Hasteur (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A fourth proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate

Combining two of the above comments yields a fourth proposal: Add a new "Housekeeping" checkbox which is a companion to the minor edit checkbox.  This allows software to know the difference between a housekeeping edit and a substantive edit.  This has a training overhead in teaching editors how to use the checkbox.  Would it only apply to Draftspace?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (A fourth proposal to implement an operational definition for LastSubstantiveEditDate)

• I'm not personally seeing that this is a way to go for now because it requires training of all editors, whereas the previous proposals only need the wikignomes to be trained.  As proposed, there is no manual process to correct the LastSubstantiveEditDate.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 one year limit

I am moving the following comment from my talk page:

I am confused by this edit. The CSD policy does not discuss a one year limit for G13 or any other context. Where did that come from? If it is on another policy page then it should probably be noted at WP:CSD as well. SpinningSpark 14:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion left this page as opining that there is no deadline at Misplaced Pages.  Your edit wants a six month deadline, which as I understand it is the norm for AfC.  This is not AfC.  I have already stated above that previous experience is that one year is the appropriate amount of time for an article to exist without substantive edits before volunteers intervene.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unscintillating, that may be your opinion, and it may eventually turn out to be the consensus, but it is not currently what the CSD policy says. I am very surprised that you reverted my simple correction of fact to the page. I am doubly surprised after the fuss you have made at the WP:42 talk page over the accuracy of that page. It is simply wrong to change a correct statement of policy into an incorrect one because you disagree with the policy. SpinningSpark 08:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, your edit was not reverted.  I think I've figured out what you are identifying as a policy, it is an edit on 2014-03-01 to WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, where the edit comment is, "A bunch of minor fixes and using anchors in the section header is undesirable. (uninformative edit conflict warning. I apologize for whatever I'm overwriting.))".  Is this what you are talking about?  I suggest that you encourage discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted or changed what's the difference? I made a change that accurately reflects what the policy says. You changed it to something that does not accurately reflect what the policy says. The edit history is not the policy. What it actually says on the policy page is the policy. The CSD page is a policy page. There may be a discussion to be had over that edit but that should happen with respect to the policy page. Trying to maintain this page saying something different is not the answser. If you think the policy is wrong it is really for you to start a discussion on it, not me. SpinningSpark 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark, the CSD mention of Draft space does not have any consensus behind it, it was introduced as part of "a bunch of minor fixes" and not discussed, so I have reverted it. AFAIK there has never been a consensus on how of if Draft pages should be deleted under time limits, so information and policy pages shouldn't imply that there's one. Diego (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya It has been the understanding that CSD:G13 is applicable in any namespace as long as there is a {{AFC submission}} template attached to it. In practical terms this means any draft version (not submitted for review), pending version (submitted for review but hasn't recieved a review yet), or declined version (submitted and recieved a rejection). I did attempt to push a "After X time of being unedited and not covered by other CSD a draft page may be CSD nominated for summary deletion on the grounds of not being improved" but was firmly opposed. I would prefer to see the CSD rule codified to indicate that if the page is under the cloak of AFC then the G13 rule applies. But as to where the 1 year rule came about I would wager it was based on a doubling of the G13 rule's length. AFC and my bot will continue to process AFC submissions that are in the draft namespace as the rules are still applicable. If a consensus emerges to extend the "stale deletions" to pages in the draft namespace that are not under AFC's banner, then we can do that to. I'm keeping my hands clean because there is an end run that I could see what would nullify the entire debate but WP:BEANS would prevent me from suggesting it. Hasteur (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the CSD policy as written was being applied to *all* drafts, and there are drafts that have not been created through Articles for Creation (such as, for example, those that were created at Articles for Deletion). Applying the G13 rule to those drafts is obviously outside its scope (and I hope your bot is clever enough to avoid doing that), that's why the above misunderstanding happened. Diego (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: The only way my bot starts notifying and working the pages is by scanning through Category:AfC submissions by date and it's sub-children to look for submissions that are ripe for notifying that the page is eligible and enrolling the page in a list of "Potentially delete by bot process in 30 days". If the AFC submission banner is not present it takes someone adding the submissions by date category by hand to sneak the page into the category membership. Now if people are CSDing by hand under the G13 rule when there's no AFC banner then the Admin who reviews the deletion should be slapped around with a wet trout for not exercising the review function that they are supposed to. Initially the G13 cleaning was passing through ~500 nominations a day (because of the long backlog) but we're down to ~60ish a day so admins have plenty of time to review the nominations to verify that they are appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey, Guideline for CSDD

A previous suggestion is for CSDD as a companion for CSD. 

A similar re-branding can occur regarding CSD. We would need to create some criteria for speedy draft designation, CSDD if you will; which criteria could define mainspace examples that would be clearly appropriate to move directly into the draft namespace.—John Cline (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This meshes with a previous suggestion I have made for a speedy incubate.  The reception has been good, but nothing ever came of it.

Two example criteria:

1. WP:CRYSTAL articles for future events.  It is often urgent to remove these from mainspace as promotional, and these are well-suited to draftspace; because if there is verifiable material, there will be more material when the event occurs.
2. Breaking news stories.  Notability is in flux.  Serene Branson is a classic example.  Editors worked on an article, argued extensively at AfD, and bickered at DRV; but a CSDD would have allowed some time to pass before trying to assess notability.  Allowing two weeks to pass to allow the weekly news magazines time to weigh in has been suggested.  IMO, it is urgent in these cases to get such articles out of mainspace without stopping development.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Support creation of a CSDD guideline

1. Support  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
2. .

Oppose creation of a CSDD guideline

1. .
2. .

Discussion of creation of a CSDD guideline

• I just !voted speedy incubate at this AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show.  It is a future event with the current article needing work.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Suppressing categories, etc.

It looks like regular categories aren't used on drafts, so I use <nowiki> to suppress those as I would in a userspace draft. How about WikiProject tags on the talk page, though? My first instinct was to suppress them as well, but WikiProjects may find it useful to see which drafts pertain to their areas of interest. Has there been previous discussion on how to handle these issues? --BDD (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the main arguments for the creation of Draft-space is the ability to have WikiProject templates (and proper Talk pages) so please don't suppress them, in fact they should be added with vigour! BTW the proper way to "suppress" article categories on drafts is to put a colon in the link in front of "Category" like this - ] There is a discussion further up this page about Categories on Drafts. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not aware that there is a display difference between:

      </br>

and

      <nowiki></nowiki>

One takes six characters to code, and the other takes 17.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the <nowiki> approach for its simplicity. Especially if there are many categories, it can actually be fewer characters anyway. I suppose there's a benefit to the colon approach in that you could check the what links here from a category and see applicable drafts. Right now that doesn't sound super useful, but it may be worth adopting. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue with either approach is that it increases complexity of markup for new users to understand. They're supposed to format categories on drafts one way, but a different way when they apply them to any other page? We can potentially suppress categories from appearing in listings on the main Draft namespace pages, but allow them on Talk pages. Let me just ask the developers on my team. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a different solution:

• We explicitly acknowledge that normal categories should not be used in Draft: space articles. This allows for automated methods (bots etc.) for any of the methods above.
• We declare a subclass of category that starts ] for use only in the Draft space This allows for ], ], etc, etc. which can be removed automatically from article space articles.

Does that sound productive? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Require mainspace categories to be embedded in a new template, Template:DraftCategories when they are used outside of mainspace. This template will take the 1= parameter and turn all instances of

[[Category:

into

[[:Category:

if the file is not in mainspace. For flexibility, it will also create a similar template, Template:DraftNonFreeFile, which turn all instances in the 1= parameter of

[[File:

into

[[:File:

For the sake of programming consistency, these should probably be a single template with multiple nicknames.

We will still have to deal with issues like templates that put pages into categories and how to handle non-free files in infoboxes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Support development of this proposal. One advantage of using the leading colon suppression method is that the existing AfC tool strips it out correctly when Accepting a draft into Mainspace. That feature can be kept when AfC tools are adapted for Draft-space. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving a mainspace article to Draft

I just moved Adaline (film) to Draft:Adaline (film) and the main space page has a redirect to the Draft. I don't think that is something we want to happen. The question is, what should happen automatically when it gets moved? Should the page be deleted? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You can have the redirect speedy deleted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that's an option, but I just feel that the default should not automatically make a redirect to the Draft article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to suppress the default automatic creation of a redirect when the target is Draft-space? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only admins have that tool.  Template:db-r2 or template:db-g6 is the way to go.  I've added a section to the Project page on Incubation that documents the procedure.  Maybe we should discuss a request to the developers, as this may be easy to implement.  The admins do a good job, but they are not likely to complain if this job is taken away.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Unscintillating. Like I said, if we can cut out a step in this process by having it not create the redirect automatically, that might make it easier for everyone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Draftlock

• Ok, here is a new synthesis of this section along with #Proposal for a placeholder on mainspace above.  I suggest that this is a draft proposal to submit to the implementors.  This proposal introduces a draftlock concept.

A move from articlespace to draftspace does this

1. Move the article, with an entry in the edit history documenting the move.
2. Delete the cross-space redirect.
3. Add a Draftlock to the articlespace deletion log, which is a variation of a salt.  With a draftlock, only a move back from draftspace is allowed to create an article.  But there is an exception for the creation of redirects, as listed in the Notes below.
4. An articlespace title with a Draftlock can be salted, i.e., salting is not changed.  This is specifically useful to prevent restoration of a future-event topic.
5. If the talk page doesn't exist, create it.  It can say "Talk page created during the move of <article x> to draftspace."
6. Move the talk page to draftspace, with an entry in the edit history documenting the move.
7. Leave the cross-space redirect in place, and draftlock it.

A move from draftspace to articlespace does this

1. Clear the draftlock on the main article.
2. Move the article, with an entry in the edit history.
3. Delete the remaining redirect.
4. Clear the draftlock on the main talk page.
5. Move the talk page, with an entry in the edit history.
6. Delete the remaining redirect.

Notes

1. For an articlespace title that is draftlocked, redirections can be created with the draftlock still in place. 
2. For a draftlocked redirect (both the article and the talk page), the draftlock will prevent the edit if someone attempts an edit that removes the redirect.  The draftlock will remain in place if the redirect is deleted.  The edit history for the redirect appears in the draftspace edit history.
3. Articles and talk pages in draftspace with an articlespace draftlock in place cannot be deleted.  They must be moved back to mainspace for deletion.  As per the WP:AI, this is already standard practice.  Relatedly, the only way to remove a draftlock is with a move back from draftspace.
4. Articles with a draftlock cannot be renamed.  They must be moved back to articlespace to be renamed.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: This requires the buy in from WMF to develop a new type of moving and a new type of protection that can be overriden. As evidenced by the fights just to get the draft namespace, WMF is overwhelmingly opposed to making any core system changes. Our current solution of leaving a redirect to a related article (possibly with a {{R from move}} style template below to indicate that a article was here, but has been pulled to Draftspace for significant improvement). Further these types of locks will make a mad land rush for namespace addresses on everything that could be reasonably (or unreasonably) created. I have no objections to the redirect for articles we yank to draftspace, but object to the reservation of destination if a draft article exists for that name. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

{main cat only}

I have created {{main cat only}} (or {{article cat only}}). It is intended to be a next option to prevent categorisation of non-articles. It might be interesting & easy for draft editors. One issue is mentioned for co-thinking at village pump. Enjoy this:

Template:Main cat only

-DePiep (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's see if I understand.  When preparing an article for draftspace, ], can be changed to:

{{main cat only|Category:Living people}}

and then does not need to be modified during future moves between articlespace and draftspace?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That is right. The 'does not need to be modified' is the main feature. Together with automated settings & options.

But I've had to set this up otherwise (using {{main other}}). I wanted to feedback to the editor a message on the page saying "this page will be added to Category:X when this page is in mainspace" (instead of nothing at all in Draft space).

Probably will have it deleted. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice to group regarding Template:AIAssessment; use it in the Draft namespace?

I recently posted a discussion to delete {{AIAssessment}}; the discussion can be found here. This template was previously used to assess drafts in the Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator namespace. I proposed deletion of it (due to the Article Incubator now being retired), but the template's creator brings up a good point: could this template somehow be utilized for pages in the "Draft:" namespace? Or, for example, is consensus to use method established in Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation for approving article creation from the "Draft:" namespace? (Either way, input on the TfD discussion would be greatly appreciated.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you "appreciate" discussion, why did you make the nomination before getting such input?  You have already !voted to delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I provided this notification here as a courtesy to the template creator (who commented on the page directly after my nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I take your point that you are here as a courtesy to the template creator.  But now that you are here, the concept amounts to "use it or lose it".  I don't agree that draftspace is impelled to convene an emergency caucus to make a determination.  If you didn't like the possibility of the template being used, I think you could have put an "historical" template on it, without having a direct impact on draftspace going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Draftspace and NFCC

I have received a preliminary ruling from Masem that the draftspace is not articlespace for NFCC images.  The rule at WP:AI was that such images had to be removed when added to the incubator.  As I understand the process, this means that they will be deleted in ten days.  This creates multiple problems, so I wonder if there are any other options.  I looked at the AFC mainpage, but I don't see the issue mentioned.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The rule is correct. As I recall from AFC, we do not allow NFCC images to be permitted to drafts until they are accepted (i.e. they are in Article-space). It would be sensible for draftspace to follow the same guidelines and maybe just keep the image's link preserved in the talk page so the image could be undeleted when the draft reaches articlespace again. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 09:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• The rule is a good one. Non-free content is only allowed on mainspace articles. If you preserved the links until the article as moved into the mainspace, any editor could go request for undeletion at WP:REFUND. As the image would then be in compliance, any administrator could undelete unless there were other concerns that need to be handled. -- TLSuda (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• That is helpful, and suggests ways to semi-automate the process of restoring.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• If the article has a draftlock in article-space, I wonder if that would satisfy the fair use criteria.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  What is a draftlock? The only way we reserve a namespace address in mainspace is by creating a redirect to a related topic. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Drafts never an orphan

"{{Orphan|date=March 2014}} removed. This draft will not be an orphan when it is moved to article space." This is what I said for Draft Kimberly Wright Cassidy.

Do other editors agree that draft articles are never orphans, and perhaps other tags are not appropriate in draft articles, either?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article is now at Draft:Kimberly Wright Cassidy.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• One of the bottom lines at a volunteer organization is the people doing the work, so I don't think that main article contributors in draftspace are compelled to accept tags.  There is a counterweight here that tags in theory improve an article.  Another viewpoint is that draftspace is for collaborative editing, so if a main article contributor doesn't like the type of collaborative help he/she is getting then a consideration is to move the article to userspace.  What do you think?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake and created the article in mainspace instead of draft space, and another editor moved it to draft space. The draft article is in the draft namespace as I expect it to be used as part of the ] Editathon at Bryn Mawr College next Tuesday.

The tag {{linkrot|date=March 2014}} is the only one I would apply myself, as it provides the Reflinks tool, which can be used to polish up what otherwise would be bare URLs. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Classification of drafts

From what I can gather, drafts arise from AFC or outside of AFC from a new creation, transfer from userspace or transfer from mainspace. In the first case, the draft should contain {{AFC submission}} and in the second case {{Draft article}}. Those that are in neither (e.g. Draft:Gogyōka) could be listed in a database report for maintenance or have {{Draft article}} bot-added. We could have database reports of 'stale' drafts and such.

However I haven't found a definite consensus on the idea of placing workpages, article sandboxes and similar pages in draft namespace, which are occasionally created in talk space (examples: Talk:Thelema/Rabelais, Talk:Solar energy/Sandbox) with the same disadvantages, especially if we intend in the future to use another discussion system.

As a note for further development, any kind of hardcoded association between a mainspace article and its corresponding draft article should consider that they don't necessarily have the same subject - see Thor 3 and Draft:Thor 3 for example. Cenarium (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

workpages and anything in user sandboxes should remain as they are now, so user draft articles do not get changed or published. Draftspace articles can and do get published in mainspace, regardless of the wishes of the creator. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If an editor of a userspace-draft or a collaborator speaking for a "workpage"-tagged collaboration explicitly requests a move to the Draft: page or if he uses a template like {{afc submission}} (aka {{subst:submit}}), this should override any restrictions mentioned in this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the case of WP:AFC submissions, current technical limitations on the AFC Helper Script gadget mean that AFC submissions are frequently still moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Pagename instead of Draft:Pagename. Any rules we develop regarding what should and should not be in Draft: should have a general allowance for ignoring the rules if there is a good technical reason supported by either established practice (as is the case with the AFC Helper Script) or and obvious/non-controversial need (which, by definition, I can't give an example of). In other words, include the explicit exemption rather than forcing editors to invoke WP:Ignore all rules. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cenarium: I have never seen a case where the use of the new {{draft article}} template in a mainspace page was taken as an automatic reason to move it to Draft: or Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/. It has been past (and likely current) practice to sparingly and judiciously move a "not ready for prime time" newly-created page from mainspace to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/ as an alternative to deletion when deletion would be the almost-certain outcome and the newly-created article could reasonably be improved with effort and/or a likely-non-notable topic will become notable soon but not soon enough to avoid falling at AFD. I'm not sure whether this practice should be encouraged with similar mainspace pages that just happen to have {{draft article}} on them or not.

This should probably be discussed as a formal proposal:

Should newly-created mainspace pages that were marked as a "draft" by a primary editor and which are likely to be deleted at AFD or through a speedy-deletion request be moved to Draft: as a preferred alternative to initiating a deletion process, with the understanding that any time-critical issues (e.g. copyright violations) are immediately dealt with and there is a good reason to believe that all remaining issues that would lead to deletion can be resolved while it is in the Draft: namespace?"

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is already an open discussion above, #Survey, Guideline for CSDD.  This would fit there.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Venue to hold deletion discussions for Drafts

In a nutshell (and straight to the point, and because there is currently not a deletion forum established for pages in the "Draft:" namespace), I propose that Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD) be used as the venue to nominate drafts for deletion. Per WP:MFD, pages in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace can be nominated there for deletion, which would include pages in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation namespace that the "Draft:" namespace has essentially taken over. Support or oppose? Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• 57 related examples  See Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD for transclusions of 57 such discussions.  These were all sent to MfD by one editor who then stopped editing Misplaced Pages.  I volunteered to work on these articles if the nominator would withdraw the nominations, but by then the editor was gone.  Most of these MfDs were ignored for weeks.  Why these MfDs were not procedurally closed in a timely manner is a question that I've not seen discussed.  After about four weeks, a few administrators jumped on board with the idea to use these abandoned discussions to claim the authority to delete.  I asked one of the admins if there was any background discussion between these closing admins that is not on the record, that led to these deletions, but I did not get an answer.  In the end it was my request at WP:AN/Requests for closure seven weeks into the process that finished getting these closed, and even one article that had been rewritten was deleted.  Many of the deletions were soft deletions, and one admin has said that his are soft deletions even though they are marked as hard deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith is another example of an MfD discussion.  Again, no one wanted to participate.  But this case is different because the article had already been through a pilot-project discussion called the Greenhouse that attracted attention through community-wide invites.  The Greenhouse was an alternative venue whose discussions took place on the talk page of the article.  One of the basic problems with the Greenhouse process was that when articles are deleted, the talk page is normally also deleted.  The closing admin made an exception here, at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith, so it is still available for your review.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose  The history from WP:AI IMO strongly says not to do this.  The basic problem there was that articles in the AI were already deleted from mainspace.  Where are the guidelines to delete a deleted article?  The result at MfD is anarchy.  Is there a deadline at Misplaced Pages, is there a deadline at userspace, is there a deadline in draftspace?  If there is no deadline in draftspace, should we have an archive of articles that no one wants to sponsor?  How do we organize the corpus of non-articles so that editors can do research, but Misplaced Pages mirrors cannot "see" the non-articles?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Proposal is moot as MFD is exactly the place for deletion discussions for all namespaces that do not have specialized deletion discussions. This includes Draft:. Now, the relevant question is what criteria should be used in such discussions. On one end, the criteria could be "keep anything that isn't speediable unless WP:Ignore all rules applies." On the other extreme could be "evaluate all drafts as if they were articles." Clearly neither extreme is desirable. In any case, this discussion should be closed as "moot" and the discussion of "what criteria to use in a deletion discussion" should be in a new discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Venue to hold promotion discussions for Drafts

There is another venue that is missing, and that is one to promote the article to mainspace.  At the AI, editors marked an article "status = eval", and this added the article to a Category for the same.  Consider a current case, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Acayucan bus crash, where I've recommended a speedy incubate for two weeks.  Suppose an admin made a Bold speedy incubate, and salted the mainspace article for two weeks.  (1) What would be the process to return the article to mainspace before the two weeks had run?  (2) What would be the process to return the article to mainspace after the two weeks had run?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here is another example Draft:Reed Alexander.  I think this is ready to go back to mainspace, but I don't feel bold enough to move it myself.  I have no process to use.  Would a reverse prod work?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• To borrow from WP:AFC, I would recommend using the draft article's talk page (since the old-school AFC submissions does have a separate "talk" page for technical reasons, they use a special section at the top of the draft article). When the page is promoted, the draft-stage discussions should be removed, archived, or handled in some other organized, consistent manner. Due to sharing a page with the draft article, the AFC process included removing the discussions when the article was moved into the main encyclopedia. They remain visible in the edit history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Template:Draftspace graduate and Category:Draftspace graduates

Template:Draftspace graduate appears as: {{Draftspace graduate}} Template:Draftspace graduate is a version of edited by @ThaddeusB:

The template puts articles in Category:Draftspace graduates. Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Would we put this on article talk pages?

If we want, we could potentially build in a list of all published drafts in the future. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also a beautiful way to make novice editors aware of the existence of draftspace and AfC. Diego (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Articles for Creation move to Drafts?

Several discussions and an RFC about this, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 16:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the above statement and section header is not accurate. There are 2 questions to whit. 1. Change the destination of the AFC output from the Article wizard to create the new pages with the prefix of "Draft:" instead of "Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/" 2. Should a bot be allowed to move all "pending" AFC submissions to the Draft namespace?. The first question is an outgrowth of the second due to people being concerned about the original AFC continue to accumulate pages. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation has already decided to relocate to the Draft namespace back in November, but making the actual movement to the goal is what these proposals are for. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Process for deleting drafts

Okay, due to some disputes on this page, I think it's about time to start a discussion about the deletion of drafts. I have thought of a few options that could be possible for drafts, and I will present these three options below. If anyone has any other ideas for this discussion, fell free to present them:

Option 1: Use MfD process for draft deletion

Discussion for Option 1

Option 2: Use MfD process only after consensus formed on draft's talk page

Discussion for Option 2

Option 3: Create a new "Drafts for deletion" process

Discussion for Option 3

General discussion for deletion options