Template talk:Draft at

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Draft at template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 6 months

This template was considered for deletion on 2019 August 12. The result of the discussion was "Withdrawn".

What is it used on?[edit]

@MSGJ: If this template isn't used on "articles or redirects", then what is it used on? —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 06:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be added to any pages. This template is used by Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main and Template:No article text to create an editnotice when a draft version of the article exists. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double usage[edit]

Looking at non-existent pages that have drafts, such as D. Franklin Neal, it appears this template is currently appearing twice, once above MediaWiki:Newarticletext and once below it. Courtesy pinging MSGJ, as I know you work in this area—could we figure out what's happening and stop the duplication? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one is generated by Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. I'm not sure if it's the upper or lower one, or where the other one is coming from. I'll keep looking if I have time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping into to say I see this as well. Here is a screenshot example:

snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can figure out what's causing it. @Snood1205, I feel like this notice should also be a lot more prominent, since what it means 99% of the time is "don't create this page, you want to edit/move the draft instead". Would you have any objection to me making the design bolder (bold, larger text, colored background, etc.)? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my end. Thanks for hopping on this! snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm guessing this edit from Dinoguy1000 is the culprit. Looking further... {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That edit caused the second notice to be displayed, yes. I didn't realize it was already being displayed via an edit notice (it never even occurred to me to check for anything like that).

Not knowing any of the history or preferences surrounding this, I'd suggest that the "correct" fix here would be to remove it from the edit notice. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 00:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the anomaly earlier but didn't consider it worth fixing – exactly for the reason Sdkb mentions above, "this notice should also be a lot more prominent". Well, having it twice makes it prominent :D – SD0001 (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the design to make it much more noticeable. @Dinoguy1000, removing it from the editnotice would mean that it's no longer displayed on created articles that also have drafts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Which is why I only made a suggestion. In that case, the editnotice could be changed to only display the notice if the page does exist (thus the notice would be displayed by {{New page DYM}} if the page doesn't exist, and by the editnotice if it does). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoguy1000: Whatever method of restoring the correct behavior that you want to use is fine by me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just passing through this area, which means I'm not super-comfortable making these types of decisions for it, but if there are no complaints about the suggested fix, I can go ahead and do it if no one else does. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 23:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a few days without any further comment, I've made the suggested change to {{Draft at}}. Please let me know if I've somehow botched it. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 09:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign[edit]

@UnitedStatesian, you have manually reverted the design change, going against the prevailing consensus from myself, Snood1205, and SD0001 above that it ought to be made more prominent. In your edit summary, you state that you'd like further discussion, but you do not articulate your objections and you have not posted here on talk. Please do so. I'll notify WP:UX and you're welcome to post elsewhere if you think others ought to be involved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as I had not yet had a chance to open a discussion broader than would fit in an edit summary; my objection is based on my opinion that have very few edit views that have a typeface so large as the one upon which the three of you agreed. I will also let WP:AFC know about the discussion; it would be helpful if you could put the old view and proposed view here for users to compare. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't agree on the specifics of how it can be made more prominent – I think a 200% font-size is way too big. I edited to make the font color a shade of red, which IMO is a better way of attracting attention. Not sure if we need a "much broader discussion" as this notice is not that highly visible. – SD0001 (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I unbolded it, as I think red, plus bold is overkill. I am fine with it now if everyone else is. Thanks all, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, SD0001. I think it's better now, although unbolded red with an orange background may raise some accessibility issues due to insufficient contrast. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the coloring for now. Bold or not, it does not have sufficient contrast at this size. Please verify at least WCAG AA before restoring any color. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use the standard interface styling then (edited) – this style is shared by other notices such as the one saying "This page is protected so ...". – SD0001 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressing display when the draft is a redirect[edit]

@Tavix and Danbloch: Regarding what you've been saying at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15 § Draft:1200 (disambiguation), what do you think of the changes I've made in the sandbox (diff)? See Template:Draft at/testcases for the main difference in practice, at the 5th testcase (Redirect). This would also add a show_if_redirect param for if someone wants to explicitly call this regarding a redirect (at the moment there is only one page that explicitly calls this template, FWIW), and a switch to using {{-r}} in such cases.

Courtesy ping @Xaosflux since he's the one who recently changed "draft" to "draft or redirect" and perhaps knows some greater context that I'm missing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: that was follow up from this VPT discussion. It was to make it "technically" correct from a verbiage perspective, however that discussion also mentions use cases where it could still be useful from an editing perspective. `I don't really feel strongly about it either way. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This change would make me happy. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch: I've

merged the change, although I've made one tweak to accommodate the point that Xaosflux made at VPT: If the redirect's target is in draftspace, the message will still show up, as can be seen in the "Redirect to draftspace" testcase. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this worked as expected. I still see the warning when I try to edit.] Dan Bloch (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch: That's because Draft:1200 (disambiguation) is technically not a redirect at the moment, due to the RfD template. Try Aioli (disambiguation) (cf. Draft:Aioli (disambiguation)). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks! Dan Bloch (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]