Template talk:Draft article

Template:Find sources AFD

I propose that we combine Template:Find sources AFD, the best quick and easy aid to finding sources online, into Template:Draft article. Proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Template:Find_sources_AFD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lack of submit button

Is there a good reason why {{Userspace draft}} has a friendly "Finished? Submit your draft for review!" button, but this template doesn't? --McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

It is requested as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Subcategories for Category:Draft articles to add the parameter |subject= to the template, which with the necessary code will place the page in one of these categories:

• Category:Drafts about agriculture, food, and drink
• Category:Drafts about art and architecture
• Category:Drafts about engineering and technology
• Category:Drafts about geography and places
• Category:Drafts about language and literature
• Category:Drafts about mathematics
• Category:Drafts about media and drama
• Category:Drafts about music
• Category:Drafts about natural sciences
• Category:Drafts about philosophy and religion
• Category:Drafts about social sciences and society
• Category:Drafts about sports and recreation
• Category:Drafts about video games
• Category:Drafts about warfare

For example: |subject=Agriculture, food, and drink will place the page in Category:Drafts about agriculture, food, and drink. Use of this parameter should also override and negate automatic placement in Category:Draft articles. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Done I used parameter values which are generally shorter. New values can be added if desired. Izno (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Izno, could you perhaps update the template documentation as well so we now what the correct values are? Nevermind I can do it. I can see them in the template history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: You should also have access to a "View source" button which provides the source directly. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat and Izno: I updated the documentation, and added the full category name as an option (note that I also changed "arts" to "art" to match the category name). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ahecht, there was edit conflict as I was working on something similar at the same time but I self reverted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Izno and Ahecht: I forgot one. Can one of you also add Category:Drafts about history.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2017

Could someone please remove the TfD tag, because the discussion was closed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Let's add Template:Draft to all drafts

Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

TFD: Open draft

See the discussion for full details, but we could 'merge' the two templates, and have an update wording. Instead of

Current

Proposed

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Following feedback, mostly from Mike Peel (talk · contribs) I've updated the {{Draft article/sandbox}} to

• This is a draft Wikipedia article, a work in progress open to editing by anyone, which may or may not be ready for inclusion in the article mainspace.

This is shorter, to the point, and gets rid of a lot of implied redundancies. If it's a draft, it's obviously not necessarily ready/factual/etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite like "ready for inclusion in the article mainspace". The term "mainspace" is a bit too inside baseball. Could we say something like "ready to become a real Wikipedia article"? XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't like saying "may or may not" as it doesn't seem to assert anything. If the idea is to give editors a link to the core content policies, perhaps it can be something like this: Before publishing this draft to Wikipedia, ensure that it meets Wikipedia's core content policies. Something that provides direction regarding what to do, basically. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I like that. I'll put that in the sandbox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you make it "please ensure"? (Or I'll do it after.) isaacl (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! On another note, is it just me, or is the "History" section at the start of the core content policies page just a big momentum killer in educating new editors on these policies? Perhaps it could be re-organized to emphasize what newcomers need to know, up front... isaacl (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be best discussed at WT:CCPOL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes; just looking for an opinion on whether it's just me or not, while we're looking at the page. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Add a link for a Wikipedia search of mainspace for the title

I propose that this template should include a google search for

"Draft article" +wikipedia

The links begin with a search for

"Draft article" -wikipedia

which is great for finding external sources, but the search within Wikipedia is an important thing to do to find content forks and merge targets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template sexy brevity

Suggest the template would be more satisfactory to wider diversity of editors like this (Wikilinks omitted)

This is a Wikipedia draft article. Anyone can help edit it. These links have more info

• For readers
• For editors willing to work on it
• Things to do before posting to article space

Compact. Not busy. Speedy to digest. Simple. I have not attempted to write text that would open with the various links. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The point is to make the information available right then and there (and those links will only work when found on the page directly). Things could certainly be organized differently, no reader should end up in draft space (first bullet would be near useless) and all links are relevant for 'editors willing to work on it' in some way or form. "Things to do before posting to article space" has some potential, but specifics would matter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any tools that allow a link to popup text from inside a template? Can we collapse text in a template and include a "show" link? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. And collapsing text wouldn't save any space (line-by line, at least..., collectively, that might work), and just make it annoying to expand every time you wanted to use the tools. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: how about now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much nicer on my fullsize desktop monitor. How does it look on other displays? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty decent on mobile. TemplateStyles would likely be handy down the line, but it's not bad looking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Draft_article#Invite_others_to_join_in

Note: Moved from [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I like the idea of having this as an option, but that's essentially a more complicated way of doing what Template:Open draft does – given that it's nominated for deletion and the nomination has received a decent amount of support, I'd imagine this option might be seen as problematic: if people object to the idea of drafts being explicitly marked as open using one template, then presumably they would object to drafts being so marked using another. – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Sorry, my bad: I hadn't noticed that was the doc page, I thought this was a proposed new feature: if it's established and people are using it, then the issue is moot. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

On the button that states "Finished? Submit for review!", change to "Ready to publish? Submit for review!". This is because an article is never finished (as described in WP:NOTDONE), so when a draft is published, it is not "finished", so the term is misleading. TedEdwards 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: I think this is referring to Are you finished drafting? - not that it can never be edited again, maybe "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" ? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:Well, obviously it means what you says it means, but using the word "finished" implies the draft has to be perfect before it goes to the mainspace, which couldn't be further from the truth. But "Finished drafting?" would be a perfectally acceptable phase and one I personally would be happy with. TedEdwards 20:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done OK TedEdwards , went with "Finished drafting?" - thanks for the engagement here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

The clickable "Submit for review" button should pre-fill the edit window with an edit summary like "Submit for review" instead of a blank edit summary. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 01:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: The URL currently contains nosummary=1, and I don't know if consensus would be needed to change that. However, it is apparently impossible to set a custom summary when creating a new section (see mw:Manual:Creating pages with preloaded text), so I'm marking this as answered since it doesn't seem to be possible to implement what you propose. Jc86035 (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2019

To remove obsolete HTML lint error, please change

<center>{{Draft article check}}</center>

to

<div style="text-align: center;">{{Draft article check}}</div>

— Anomalocaris (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Primefac: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

I have created a new parameter |future-film= (a simple boolean/"yes" parameter) which will add an additional {{mbox}} below the main Draft article info. This box states: "Please note: This draft should not be moved to the mainspace until filming has begun, per WP:NFF." It is intended to be used on draft articles for upcoming feature films, to alert editors who may not be familiar with film notability guidelines about how and when said film draft should be moved into the mainspace. An example of this usage, hard coded, can currently be seen at Draft:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

The code for this edit can be found in the sandbox here. It has been tested in the the test cases subpage. Additionally, since we already have the parameter |join-in= that makes an mbox, should both parameters be used, this code will only create one mbox with both texts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. No reason to clutter the template with specific templates, there are multiple policies that state what must be an article and what must be not, impossible to accomodate all of them (unless consensus determines we should). qedk (t 桜 c) 10:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Please sync changes from Template:Draft article/sandbox.

When the first positional parameter is provided (the name of destination article), presently the check for whether the mainspace article already exists is still done for Draft article, not than name of article provided as first parameter. I have fixed this shortcoming.

This change has been tested. SD0001 (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor SD0001:  done. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Add a parameter to remove the AfC button

I could have sworn this template had this feature at one point, but I can't seem to find it looking through template and documentation history. Regardless, I believe a parameter should be added that can remove the "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" button. This would be particularly helpful to implement on future film drafts, where the guideline WP:NFF exists and is quite clear that shooting has to begin on a film before it can be a mainspace article. I've seen quite a few times where a draft is being compiled gearing up to this date, and then a user comes by and click the button to submit it to AfC, going against the guideline. If the button were not there, I feel that would prevent some of these inadvertent submissions. Future film drafts are a specific set of drafts I know this could be applied for, and it's possible it could be applied to others as well, should a guideline(s) be behind the reasoning for removal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I came here specifically to find a template or parameter to do just that. I often use draft space to work on the intial versions of articles where others can participate in improving them (as opposed to my own userspace), and I've had several of these "submitted for review". I generally just remove tne review, but having a parameter to disable the review, or a tag that states that no review is needed, would be helpful. BilCat (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Publish/move to mainspace button

I believe the template needs (and rather badly) an additional button, perhaps in green, under the blue "Finished Drafting? Submit for review" button, would say which would say something like: "Finished Drafting? Publish/move to mainspace". The current template is misleading since it omits this option, while the WP:Drafts#Publishing a draft editing policy describes this process as the main option for publishing a draft for autoconfirmed users. By comparison, submitting a draft for review is an entirely voluntury procedure that nobody should be forced to go through unless they chose to do so. The current situation with the template actively misleads many autoconfirmed users as lots and lots of them clearly have no idea that they don't need to submit a draft for review but can simply move it to mainspace themselves. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

Create a profile for the architect Vasco Vieira da Costa.

Vasco Vieira da Costa
Born	March 2, 1911 Portugal
Died	1982 Porto, Portugal
Nationality	Portugal
Education	School of Beaux-Arts of Porto Sorbonne University Paris
Occupation	Architect
Notable work	Market of Kinaxixe (1950-1952) Anangola Building (1950) Bloco da Mutamba (década de 1960) Institut Pio XII
Spouse	Barbara Gtaz-Carr Vieira da Costa
Children	2
Parent	"Francisco Vieira da Costa" "Violeta Vieira da Costa"

Vasco Vieira da Costa (Portugal, March 2, 1911 - Porto, 1982) was a prestigious Portuguese architect.

With a degree in Architecture from the School of Fine Arts of Porto, Vasco Vieira da Costa was the forerunner of the modern movement in Angola and Africa, and one of the most prestigious Portuguese architects, and also in Africa. Author of the famous Mercado do Kinaxixe (1950-1952), Edifício da Anangola (1950s) and Bloco da Mutamba (1960s), all in Luanda.

Vieira da Costa married Barbara Gratz-Carr, niece of Helen Gratz Rockefeller, whom he met while studying in Paris, at the Sorbonne, who was also a student at the Sobornne, studying History of Art.

His line was influenced by the Franco-Swiss master Le Corbusier (1887-1965), with whom he worked while studying at the Sorbonne in Paris. He operated in Angola for 30 years, being the creator of the Faculty of Architecture of Luanda.

Vasco Vieira da Costa was born in Portugal on March 2, 1911.

He studied architecture at the School of Fine Arts at the University of Porto (ESBAP) and then continued his studies at the Sorbonne Paris University.

Vieira da Costa married Barbara Gratz-Carr, niece of Helen Gratz Rockefeller, whom he met while studying in Paris at the Sorbonne University.

During his stay in Paris, while studying at the Sorbonne University in Paris he interned at the studio of the renowned Franco-Swiss architect Le Corbusier (1887-1965). He completed the course at the Sorbonne having presented as his final work the thesis entitled La Ville du Coton: avant-projet d'une ville satellite pour Luanda, supervised by André Gatton (1904-2002). Shortly afterwards, he presented that same dissertation (meanwhile renamed Satellite City No. 3), in the Competition to Obtain the Architect Diploma. As this is ESBAP's first thesis in the field of Urbanism, a formal request was sent to the General Directorate of Higher Education to make the respective defense viable. Influenced by the Modern Movement, it deserved the classification of 17 values out of 20.

After studying, Vieira da Costa returned to Angola and joined the Technical Services of the Luanda City Council. It was at this stage that it was necessary to order his first public work, the Quinaxixe Market, a retail and supply market in Luanda, opened in 1958 and which would be demolished in post-colonialism.

He was a promoter of the Architecture course in Angola. The process of creating this course started with the invitation from Ivo Ferreira Lopes, Rector of the University of Angola, through the Minister of Education, José Veiga Simão. Vieira da Costa was not, however, alone, and said with the constant collaboration of Manuel Correia Fernandes and with the occasional collaboration of Troufa Real and Júlio Saint-Maurice.

Vieira da Costa was a mandatory reference in the cultural itinerary of architects in Africa. Bearer of a load, markedly European cultural and animated by the modern movement, deeply knowledgeable of «his land» Angola. Demanding in professional practice, rigorous in the exercise of the project, scrupulous in professional ethics and uncompromising in the values and principles he defended, Vasco Vieira da Costa strained nervously to transmit to the younger generations who passed by his atelier in Luanda everything he had learned alerting all the precautions and precautions that an architect should meet in order to be able to act without risks in a land as difficult to exercise the profession as it was at that time.

Until 1982 he was director of the Architecture course officially inaugurated at the Faculty of Engineering of Angola in 1979. For the final completion of the project, he could again count on Manuel Correia Fernandes and, still, on Alexandre Alves Costa, Nuno Portas and Frank Svensson.

It is worthwhile to go to Luanda to see his work whose meaning and quality are undeniable. The Quinaxixe Market, the Angolan Engineering Laboratory, the Headquarters of the Angolan Naturals Association, the Sécil Building, the English School, the Building at Largo da Mutamba, now the Ministry of Public Works, Mutamba building, Hotel Turismo, among many others. He was one of the creators of the Angolan School of Architecture, of whom until his death he was the responsible and teacher. The Porto City Council awarded him, in 1947, the urbanistic prize, for the 1944-45 biennium.

Vasco Vieira da Costa was married to Barbara Gratz-Carr, an American student of Art History at the Sorbonne, whom he fell in love with when he lived in Paris.

He died in Porto on March 19, 1982.

He was posthumously honored, on October 3, 2006, by the Department of Architecture of Universidade Lusíada de Angola (ULA), during the celebrations of World Architecture Day. WWAAAWW (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Draft article}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Please add a parameter enabling the removal of the Submit for review button, but otherwise keeping the template the same, for non-AfC drafts. ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I advocated for this in this section above, so I would support this and hope a template editor can implement this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done You can now suppress the "submit" button by passing |noafc=yes. firefly ( t · c ) 10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

Ajayi Marvelous (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be able to edit please

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. If you have a specific change in mind. Make the change on the templates sandbox and then reopen the request and explain why the change should be made. Terasail^[✉️] 02:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Template not reacting to "name" parameter appropriately

Hi, I noticed that this template is not using the "name" parameter in accordance with the template documentation. The documentation recommends that we use it in the form of {{Draft article|name=foo}}, but it only works if you use the name as the first positional argument like this: {{Draft article|foo}}. I believe this is because the relevant part of the template code only calls out {{{1|}}} instead of {{{name|}}}. I attempted to make a change to resolve the problem but it didn't quite work, probably because it's been years since I've edited templates and I've forgotten the syntax. Could someone else take a look at it?

The documentation doesn't list a |name= parameter, so I don't see what needs fixing. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. My brain must have inserted that in there. Re-reading it more carefully, I'm clearly wrong. Thanks, disregard this request. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've adjusted the documentation to help prevent that confusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Been doing that a lot lately myself. Always glad when it's a simple solution. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

Change

Line 25:	Line 25:
|social sciences|society|social sciences and society=Drafts about social sciences and society	|social sciences|society|social sciences and society=Drafts about social sciences and society
|sports|recreation|sports and recreation=Drafts about sports and recreation	|sports|recreation|sports and recreation=Drafts about sports and recreation
|video games=Drafts about video games	|video games=Drafts on video games
|warfare=Drafts about warfare	|warfare=Drafts about warfare
|#default=Draft articles}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}{{NOINDEX}}</includeonly>}}}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}	|#default=Draft articles}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}{{NOINDEX}}</includeonly>}}}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}

per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Category:Drafts about video games. - Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the naming convention of all the other draft categories for the other subjects, shouldn't this technically reverse merge Category:Drafts on video games to Category Drafts about video games, not the other way around? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, There's a mix at Category:Draft articles on media. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, except I changed it to the existing category “Draft articles on video games” Zsinj^Talk 17:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Implementation of the changes in this edit of the sandbox that adds additional switch parameters to auto-populate the categories Category:Draft articles on films and Category:Draft articles on television with this template. Both subjects have a large amount of drafts that it is worth diffusing the encompassing "media" category they are generally put in at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Do the examples on the [testcases page] look okay to you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Fixed. It was a curly bracket issue when I restored the positioning of the includeonly tags. The relevant code to add to the category switch cases are |film|films=Draft articles on films and |television|tv=Draft articles on television. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Add publish now button

WP:DRAFTMOVE says that creators have two options when they're finished drafting: move it to mainspace directly (if they can and are allowed to), but this and related templates present only the second option. I believe adding a "publish now" button to bring this template in line with existing policy should be uncontroversial, and have sandboxed the changes here. The only thing I couldn't figure out is using wpNewTitleNs=0 to auto-select the article namespace; any help with that would be appreciated. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the sandbox to use wpNewTitle={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}} instead of wpNewTitleNs=0, since PAGENAME doesn't include the namespace prefix unlike FULLPAGENAME. That should work. SilverLocust 💬 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Since moving requires (auto)confirmed, do you think this button should appear to users who aren't autoconfirmed? It can be surrounded with {{If autoconfirmed|_}} to avoid that, but that would also hide the button from the relatively few users who are manually confirmed. SilverLocust 💬 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust: Yes that would be a good idea. And thanks for fixing the namespace thing. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If someone wanted to move a draft into the mainspace, they would go to the dropdown menu and hit "move" just as they would normally do for a regular page. The AfC button is only there to assist inexperienced users who don't know how to move a page, let alone judge whether a draft meets our quality and notability standards. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing how to move a page ≠ not allowed to create articles directly. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is just going to encourage inexperienced users to circumvent the AfC process and move half-baked articles to the mainspace. Yes, we have page reviewers patrolling new pages, but this just adds to their (already huge) backlog. AfC reviewers are here for this reason, to offset new page patrollers' workload. And I don't think it was appropriate for a substantial edit request to be implemented when there has been valid opposition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the request itself but since it has been contested I have reverted the recent change. Please discuss further. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: What are we supposed to discuss? @InfiniteNexus: If you object to the current consensus that AfC is optional for editors without a COI (and thus can't be meaningfully "circumvented"), you should do so at a suitable policy forum, not on a template take page. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't object to the wording of WP:DRAFTMOVE, I objected to discouraging inexperienced users from using AfC by prominently displaying a button to Special:MovePage that can be already reached by clicking on another button if you know where to find it. As for what we are "supposed to discuss", surely you are familiar with the concept of WP:BRD? (Yes, it's optional, but it's still good advice.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Showing both options doesn't discourage one of them from being used. On the contrary, having a button in the template highlighting only one of the options implies that the other one should not be used (or might even be considered circumventing some procedural requirement). Even a pretty experienced editor who is familiar with page moving may nonetheless think that the draft should not be published without submitting it to AfC based on the template's instructions. SilverLocust 💬 18:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's really very simple: the current wording of this template presents users with one option (Finished drafting? Submit for review!). But according to WP:DRAFTMOVE, they have two (use the page move function or optionally, [submit] for review). Templates and interface messages should reflect the consensus in written guidelines, not the other way around, and in this case that means both options should be there, or neither should (you can also make an AfC submission by clicking on another button if you know where to find it). You are perfectly welcome to make the argument that inexperienced users ought to be guided towards AfC, but that is not the current consensus and therefore I see nothing to discuss here, and no reason that your non-policy-based objection should be blocking this change nearly two weeks after it was proposed. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with adding the option to publish. If I am following this correctly, the Publish button will only show up for autoconfirmed accounts who have gained the Move function which is one the main purposes of the autoconfirmed right. I do have a question though, @Joe Roe. When someone clicks Publish, where does it take you? Is it like this? If so, it might be a good idea to add a little note underneath or above 'Publish now' to instruct them to select (Article) so they don't select Wikipedia or another namespace. S0091 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The button pre-selects the Article space; see for example at the sandbox version. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. That takes care of my concern. I've seen many new editors understandably select Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

How about restricting the button to extended confirmed users only? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What purpose would this serve? Primefac (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't makes sense. An autoconfirmed editor can create an article directly in mainspace so why would not we not offer a button so they, or extended confirmed editors for that matter, can more easily move a draft to mainspace? I think you disagreement is more so with criteria for the autoconfirmed right but that's a different discussion. 19:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors seem to be in agreement that inexperienced users should be encouraged to go through AfC rather than moving unilaterally. I'm trying to find middle ground here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is non-autoconfirmed editors need to go through AfC. Autoconfirmed editors are able and free to do almost everything an extended confirmed can. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An acceptable compromise might be adding some additional guidance to the template for newer editors. Think about it. I have a couple ideas but it's a separate discussion from the button. S0091 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors – Joe (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that discussion has continued and no significant argument has been raised as to why the second button should be kept off, so I have reinstated the original edit. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suppress only one button

With the addition of the "Publish now" button, the "noafc" option suppresses both buttons. Can we add options to suppress each one individually, or at least to suppress the new one and leave the "Submit for review" button. The use case for this is when a restored PROD or soft delete is immediately draftified, the draft should optimally be reviewed to ensure the issues raised in the PROD/AFD were addressed before it is brought back into main article space. Suppressing the "publish now" button would help ensure that happens. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I going crazy, or do the buttons not appear at all? Primefac (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I see them on Draft:Amberstudent. Where are you looking? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Everywhere else. Must be misreading the namespace detection, but I thought the buttons showed up in all namespaces except article. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG In the interim, you can use {{AfC submission|T}} which is the AfC banner. Primefac, double check me, but the buttons do not show at all in User space. However, I don't know if it was like that before. See User:S0091/sandbox. S0091 (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw them in the user space before the last update... however I reinstated the old version into the sandbox and I'm not seeing it on your sandbox. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

UtherSRG, my understanding of the |noafc= is for pages like Draft:Wilson Fisk (Marvel Cinematic Universe) where people don't want to submit to AFC, it removes that option. In other words, adding the new button didn't change any of the functionality that previously existed (i.e. your use case works with either version old/new of this template). I'm not sure if it makes sense to remove the "drafting" option but leaving the "move" button (while I disagree with the "requirement" part of InfiniteNexus' opinions above, I do agree that inadvertently removing the AFC route while promoting a move from this template is not ideal). Primefac (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What about adding an option to suppress the Publish now button, so three button options: both (default), none (noafc), Submit for review (afc)? S0091 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. Will wait for other opinions. Disabling TPER in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This falls within the parameters of what I asked for, so I support this notion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree. (afc) should be used for creations by editors with a COI, for example. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Template updated; |nomove=yes will hide the second button. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)