Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Search capability

Regarding this edit: as I believe the Draft namespace itself is not yet available, is it necessary to have a footnote indicating that the search capability has not been implemented yet? isaacl (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, once it's launched you will be able to select Draft/Draft talk from the list of namespaces to search. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are not logged in

Resolved

The second sentence starts "Unless you are not logged in..." which is a double negative. Would it be better written as "If you are logged in...". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

English is a quirky language. In this context, "not logged in" is a specific state, so this isn't strictly speaking a double-negative even though it looks like one. Even though the existing text is grammatically correct, your proposed phrasing has the advantage of being shorter and slightly less awkward. Be bold and change it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What davidwr said. Be bold, my friends. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates notices, warnings, etc.

We should probably update our messages and other notices such as MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate once the draft namespace is implemented. 64.40.54.34 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox behaviour

Al lot of behaviour in Draft, expected or featured, has parallels with template:example/sandbox behaviour. Should and could these behavings be in the ns by system, or are we (newby article creators) expected to code exceptions? Possible .../sandbox features & options to be considered:

1. Do not publicise in content categories
2. Mirror source code into Draft code
3. Template:Main other works includes yes/no Draft space
4. Allow easy versioning (in a draft article, could that be any Mydraft/Version2 subpage? Nicely it allows only one version in Article space. AC/DC breaks this logic).

-DePiep (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC) -added #4 -DePiep (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Come to think of it:

1. Replace WP:Sandbox. (into Draft:Sandbox?) -DePiep (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey DePiep. Thanks for chiming in here. I have a few ideas...

1. I left an open question about categories above and on the technical specification. If we want, we can actually suppress categories on Drafts from appearing in the listings. This would allow new authors to avoid confusion by letting them use categories normally, would keep us from having to do work cleaning up categories before or after publication of drafts, and so on.
2. Not sure what you mean by "Mirror source code in to Draft code"? If you mean the source of "template:example/sandbox"... I don't see a template with that name?
3. I'm unfamiliar with Template:Main other. Can you talk a little bit about why it would be useful?
4. About versioning... why do you think we'd want separate draft pages for the same topics? Should we just use the regular page histories for individual drafts, and encourage people to work on new drafts together? Having separate subpages for drafts could create problems and/or extra work when it comes time to merge or abandon some subpages.

Thanks again, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

These sandboxes (e.g. Template:Cite web/sandbox) are used for improving an existing template. My current thoughts are that the Draft namespace should be focused on drafts of new articles, rather than improving existing articles or templates. Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

re. First of all the concept of Draft should be clear for development: it is a sandbox for (new only?) articles? Once clear, more detailed ns behaviour shall follow. I understand Draft is especially aimed at new or inexperienced editors, and works outside of content space.

Then, some first notes. mw:Draft_namespace opens saying "support Wikipedia article creation". This could be expanded with wording about page "development", to include both editing and talking. I guess we all understand it to be that, implicitly. Also a clear word on "experimenting is/not allowed" should be said, one of these days.

Draft namespace covers WP:SANDBOX in aspects. But once live, there should be no need to bother newbies with elaborate warnings & in-page guidelines as today's WP:sandbox has. For these users, as little mental obstacles as possible. To test one's thinking: today's WP:sandbox should go after Draft is live.

In template and module spaces, "/sandbox" subpages are used to develop & test new code before going putting it live into the parent page. A lot of coding time is spend to keep these two separated though within the family. My main note here is to advocate that such sandbox providings & behaviour, both WP:SANDBOX and Template:Cite web/sandbox forms, are build into the core of the namespace. They should not be added later on in templates (warnings, documentation, instructions). Draft should be one big sandbox by definition & design, not just by name. Having to trawl through instructions is not going to invite new or inexperienced users. The horror of horrors is a wp:template:sandbox, which I do not understand or use even today.

With mirror I mean the existing option in template space. It is a linkbutton in the documentation, that copies a live code page into a new /sandbox subpage (so one can start editing in sandbox). From then on, the button is labeled "edit" (to open the sandbox for edit). See bottom of a template documentation page. This would be equivalent to "copy article code into Draft to edit there" (this option not yet agreed, I now). This is just to illustrate workings of existing draft=sandbox options.

I am a bit disturbed by reading "versions are already in the history only, and let's force editors to cooperate in a single one draft version only" (my reading of Steven (WMF)'s reply here). This is setting a limit on future use by policy. All experienced editors know those long talkpage threads where versions are described, repeatredly, verbose. And worse, how is an new or inexperienced editor expected to provide diffs? To search in page history? To discuss about a historical version? I question. Why would any second or next draft version be available in history only, while by definition there is not decision about a preferred version? Every other ns but main has these subpages, created at will (Anything Draft ns wants to to, in other namespaces is obtained by subpages; not all new). Even today, in a prolonged or complicated discussion, I happily create variants, evolving variants, to focus on the topic ("compare A, B, C"). That is not against cooperation. Timeline is not the only way to talk variants. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

About template {{Main other}}. This template is used within templates. It has two options: "show A" or "show B", entered like {{main other|A|B}}. One can read it like this: "If this template is on a page in mainspace, then show "A", in all other namespaces, show "B". (e.g., on this WP talkpage it would show "B"). To be decided: should the "A" option be shown in Draft ns too?. (of course there are workarounds: we do not want). This would affect the visible outcome of a Draft page. If the "A" is not shown, the page will look less like its article would. I mention this not because of its individual details, but for the true-sandbox-behaviour of Draft space. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Namespace is live

See Draft:Example as a quick example page to play with. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Policies about the new namespace

I think I read somewhere that Wikipedia policies are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive of current consensus. The top of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines summarizes as such:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles.

Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages.

Therefore, since this is a nascent project in a new namespace, I believe it best practice to wait until consensus has actually formed about what to do with the new namespace before writing down any sort of established wiki-bureaucratic policies and guidelines. For a good start though, deletion, or the hiding of pages from non-sysop accounts, is probably one of the more contentious and widely debated functions in Wikipedia, and there are certain things I would like to consider. While I think it's safe to assume general consensus would agree that the general criteria applies in the new namespace regardless (except G13), as noted above there are many other topics to touch on, such as the role of Draft pages in deletion discussions. If "move to draft" was decided to be a reasonable outcome in an Articles for [Consideration] discussion, and there were a lot of backlogged articles waiting to be moved following deletion outcomes, the consequences might be new demand for a separate userright category for the suppressredirect function. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. Other than perhaps pointing out whether G13 applies or not, there's really little policy that needs to be written before anyone actually starts using drafts. There is a lot we can work out in the future as we go along. There are some threads above about related issues, if you're interested. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Move to Draft: Deletion is extremely harmful to Wikipedia and loses us more good editors than we can count. Deleting for notability is the most abused process on the project. Case in point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I AM THE BEST ARTIST Rene. Not a single person !voted to keep the article, yet I had absolutely no problem finding reliable sources to establish notability. The editor who wrote the article is an excellent writer and has improved many articles since then. I hope my intervention played some small part in his staying. So moving an article to the Draft: namespace would be an excellent way to keep good writers that will help us improve our 2.4 million stubs. Best. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the first article created using the Draft method! A couple of important questions from just this:

Do we need some sort of review process like with AFC to confirm if a page is ready for articlespace, or can that be evaluated after the move is done?

Do we want to leave an XNR back at Draft:John Wainwright Evans or delete it, to make space for re-moving it back to draft if it doesn't pass and for the purposes of Special:WhatLinksHere? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For the first question: the closing statement at the RFC suggests to me that we are not required to implement AFC-style review. We also haven't worked out how the AFC toolkit (templates, categories, bots, and gadgets) should be adapted to drafts. Users may of course submit Drafts to AFC just like they submit userspace drafts, but there should be no policy that prevents a registered editor from being bold and publishing a good draft. The only thing that prevents new Wikipedians from self-publishing is that they technically cannot move pages. For the second question: I think it's a good idea to leave the original Draft redirect there. It shows the full history trail of where the article came from. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I would note that the G series of CSD is applicable everywhere. I seem to recall that the eventual goal is to deprecate AfC's current home in favor of the draft space and taking up residency there. I committed to start modifying my bot code so that it accepts Drafts as a legitimate location for the submissions to also live in. Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template?

It's still early days, but I started a Template:Draft cleanup to make our policy issues more tangible. I tagged Draft:Anonymous, Draft:Example, and Draft:Sandbox with it with the current category of "purpose"; I haven't yet created the category the template would put them in (you might have a better name for them). My "purpose" assumes, as I suggested above, that we'll want drafts to be narrowly intended to be future articles, i.e. that if you click on a redlink that you can have a draft suggested to you and you'll know in advance what you get will be a wannabe article, not a template, Wikipedia process page, etc. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Draft redirects

I was asked by Steven WMF to comment here. I deleted a redirect from Draft space after a draft had had the magic wand waved over it (it is panto season...) and it turned into an article. The move was by probably the main contributor Josh Parris, and the IP creator had edited after the move. This told me that both of them knew where it had gone. I'm wary of deleting redirects caused by moves if I think that any main participant might be running round in circles looking for their pride and joy. If everyone who needs to know actually knows, the redirect is, in my opinion, redundant. A G6 tidy-up. I personally can't see all that much point in the Draft space as we've only just got to grips with the junk in the attic at AfC. Keeping stuff 'in case' is all very well under the new G13 system for AfC. I haven't found out yet what the procedure is or is going to be for junk in Draft space, but I cannot see any point in keeping an unnecessary redirect. Steven comments that deleting it masks the Draft origins of the article. No, it doesn't, so far as I can see. There's an edit in the history with the summary "Josh Parris moved page Draft:John Wainwright Evans to John Wainwright Evans: Drafting finished". What more do you need? Comments, please. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the redirect. Now, if someone else comes along and wants to write a draft entitled "John Wainwright Evans", they won't be confusingly redirected into article space. If someone is looking for the article that was previously at Draft:John Wainwright Evans, the link that appears in the embedded move/deletion log ("12:52, 18 December 2013 Josh Parris (talk | contribs) moved page Draft:John Wainwright Evans to John Wainwright Evans (Drafting finished) (revert)") is probably enough to let them find their way.

What I think is ultimately needed here is tighter inter-linking between mainspace and Draft space. For example, if a user goes to create a draft "Draft:Barack Obama", they should see a prominent message telling them that we already have an article on Barack Obama. It could also advise: "You should only start drafting here if (a) the existing article is about a different topic from the one you had in mind, or (b) you want to help redraft the existing article (???)" or something like that. That would alleviate the need to maintain redirects from old drafts to their current location. Likewise, if a user attempts to create the article Demisexuality (by clicking a redlink, etc), they should be informed that a draft article exists at Draft:Demisexuality. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The message on red links is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Draft Namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The redirect issue was also brought up in Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Policies_about_the_new_namespace. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• As creator of the original article, I'm fine with the redirect being deleted. I will admit that I was saddened to see it go and I tend to agree with Steven. I'll also mention that redirects are cheap, but it's water under the bridge at this point. However, I would like to see more visiblity for the Draft: namespace. Perhaps, something similar to the way the AfC scripts write edit summaries when moving pages to mainspace. This article was created in the Draft: namespace. For more info see WP:DRAFTS or an edit summary similar when moving pages from Draft: to mainspace. But that's probably a question for a larger discussion. 64.40.54.146 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my feelings are along the lines of "redirects are cheap" as well. In any case, not a big deal. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles when a draft already exists

If I decide to create an article via a redlink, let's say 2048 Summer Olympics, but there was already a perfectly serviceable, longer, better referenced article at Draft:2048 Summer Olympics, how would I know until it was too late? Is there no way to alert people creating an article to the existence of a draft with the same name? —Xezbeth (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the issues we definitely want to solve in the future. Ideally the solution is to notify editors when viewing the redlink. You can see concepts for this at our design documentation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I was thinking, if it is technologically feasible. You know how when you click on a free image in an article, where the image is actually on Commons, but there is a "page" here giving basic information? Maybe something like that - a redlink will still be a redlink, but when you click on it instead of asking if you want to create a page, it tells you there is already a page by that name in the Drafts space. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere there's an edit notice, and it could easily be set to look for the existence of an identically named page. However, I would also like to see the "search" link that comes up in a redlink include the Draft: namespace by default (i.e. making it an advanced search) and that will take developer effort. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Draft Namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The converse might be worth investigating, too. Drafts being created when articles exist. Happens at AfC too. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

While a MediaWiki solution to this issue could be very helpful, there is another, quicker, and probably more flexible (quickly modifiable) alternative: a bot that checks new pages in the Draft namespace against existing articles, and new pages in mainspace versus existing articles in the Draft namespace, and notifies editors (say, anyone who has edited the newly created page) of the duplication. The bot could also post notes on the two talk pages (article and draft). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A bot that annoys people after the fact with talk page messages seems less elegant than a very simple message up-front that you may be creating a duplicate page. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Handing over userspace drafts

While discussing this I remembered I'd had a page undeleted to my userpage to work on a very long time ago, and done little with it before putting it on the back burner over and over. So I moved it to Draft:Copyright Alliance. I don't think it should be controversial to do this, but I just want to check: can we declare it standard policy that people can hand over "userfied" deleted material to the Draft namespace? Wnt (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wnt: I can't think of any policy or guideline that currently says that an editor can't move a user page to become a draft page. So it's not clear, at all, that we need to declare this option as "standard policy". I have, however, added some information on the main page, Wikipedia:Drafts, that makes clear that this is an option. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. But the syllogism here is as follows: if a deleted article isn't completely nonsense or a pack of savage lies about somebody, some admin will probably allow you to get it as a userspace draft. If you can then move a userspace draft to Draft: on your own, it follows that any such article can be moved to Draft: instead of deleted. And if it can be moved to Draft: rather than a userspace, that is the preferable option, because there are more eyes on it and more chance of something happening. Which means: we should indeed have the default policy that AfD should now only delete articles in extraordinary cases, when there's really something to cover up by deletion, not just when there's a lack of notability or substance to the article. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Someone since promoted the somewhat improved draft to article - I hope it doesn't end up back at AfD, but it ought to be for the best. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Open questions

So the draft namespace is going to be enabled not too far from now, but that's really just the basics. If this is going to be something that is actually widely used and really useful, there are more open questions about the experience that we need to answer. I plan on listing as many as I can here, so we can talk about them. Some questions are really hypotheses that we can run controlled experiments to answer, but others really need community input to answer well.

1. Should we disallow or discourage creation of drafts if an article already exists? What about for redirects?
2. How do people want to be able to search for Drafts? Should we add it as an option on Search? (The thread above is probably the relevant place to talk about this one.)
3. Should we create a feed of drafts, e.g. Special:Drafts?
4. How should categories work on drafts? Do we want them to show up in article categories? Should we remove draft categories from the category page listings, so that we can use article categories on drafts without them showing up?
5. Should we encourage editors (particularly new page patrollers) to move some articles back to draft status rather than nominate them for deletion? If so, how?

I figure we could probably make sub-sections for each these, including with more explanation, but this is just to get us started. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My initial responses, subject to change based on good arguments, are:

1a) Discourage (but allow) drafts for existing articles, per UserDraft policy which permits such drafts.

1b) When creating a draft article where a redirect exists, we should provide a 'warning message' alerting them to the existence of the redirect and providing guidance about the nature of redirects. Again, allow creation after a warning, per UserspaceDrafts.

2) Definitely allow Drafts into advanced search; probably allow Drafts into default search so long as it's returns are ranked below corresponding articlespace results.

3) agnostic

4) Categories are a useful tool for preparing an article for creation and in recruiting experts who can help nurture articles. Definitely allow the inclusion of existing categories in Drafts. A later feature could include an option for editors to learn about new drafts based of "starred" categories, allowing newbies to quickly connect with subject matter experts.

5) Yes! Move to Draft should become a very common response. "Deletion" is a very negative thing, people feel like they got an "F" on their work. But "moving it back to draft" is far more encouraging: "B: Needs Improvement". --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply:

5) There should be a limit on this, such as: Move to draft vs. nominating for deletion is only recommended if there is a reasonable chance that the article could be improved to the point that it would survive any deletion nomination, and it has not already been through a review process and it is less than a certain age in its current incarnation, e.g. less than 30 days old (if it was a a completely different article then changed to a redirect then re-written 29 days ago, it's "29 days old" in its current incarnation, despite the edit history being longer). "Move to draft" can also be an outcome of an AFD discussion, but mainly in cases where "delete with no prejudice to userfication" would be an outcome today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re: 5. above. Yes, page patrollers should have the option of moving new pages to the Draft: namespace. It would be nice if Special:NewPagesFeed had this option built in. 64.40.54.34 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Re 5: First thought: Move to Draft as HectorMoffet says. Probably a speedy G-X too. Also less hurting that a true deletion; absolute CSDs resons should prevail (like copyvio). To be added: "Delete from Dreft" as a Speedy.

But wait, wait. Isn't this a Move? -DePiep (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• 3) yes! Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 21:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to put an arbitrary time limit on it, nor to speculate on how many sources might turn up. I find that editors base such estimates almost entirely on their ideology most of the time. We downgrade to draft, let the article sit a while (currently there is the G13 thing, though I'd be happier to see that go away) and then we see what happened. Wnt (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• 5. I think move to draft would be a great option. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 03:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting mainspace redirects

If a not ready mainspace article was moved to the draft namespace, then once it is ready for the mainspace, it cannot be moved back without an admin (moving over redirect). Would it ever be a good idea to move new mainspace articles created by new users to the draft namespace? Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 19:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, and generally it seems people are suggesting that yes, moving a new article that's promising but not ready to draft status would be okay. However, I'd personally suggest that we not leave a redirect from mainspace back to the draft. Otherwise, all readers are going to find the draft, which kind of defeats the purpose of moving it to draft status. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

NB: technically, any autoconfirmed user can over a redirect if the only entry in page history is a record of the move itself. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we're not eager to leave redirects automatically between mainspace and draft space or vice versa! Is there a way to shut off this default? Wnt (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this possibility must be explored. My personal choice is a default of no redirect left, but a checkbox to allow it if the editor wants so. This would be augmented by the other notices that are to appear when one creates a draft article that already exists in mainspace (and vice versa) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I will note that at WP:RFD, cross-namespace-redirects (XNR) are frequently deleted as a problem redirect. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What is our primary purpose here?

I have seen in reviewing older AfCs a very disturbing pattern: most of the AfCs that are marked for improvement are never improved--especially if it takes more than a single round of improvement) whereas many of the AfCs that are patently impossible are repeatedly submitted. Is the purpose of article creation and screening processes primarily to get articles improved if possible, or primarily to instruct new editors? Are these two actually compatible? If we are concerned primarily with getting new articles improved so they will a least minimally satisfactory, the best course for a borderline article is to have it improved by an experienced editor who can actually do it effectively and efficiently. If on the other hand we are mainly concerned with educating newcomers, we need a process for actually working with them and following up what they are doing, rather than saying what we think needed and ignoring them unless the respond further.

More and more as I work with the potential G13 AfCs I am simply doing this, rather than hoping for the editor to come back and improve it. This is a little different than I do with new afcs, because most of the editors are long gone, and will not come back to be rescued. Obviously, we should orient the new process around the newcomers, DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is obvious no? As with any feature on the project, the end goal is always to improve articles. That's why we're all here. Now, I do think that building software tools that educate new editors can save us some work (for example, guided tours of how to add references), but the goal is still better drafts that can be published in to good articles. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the stuff created can only be improved with an axe. Secateurs can often be used, and training. However, by the third time that someone has been told that his one man computer repairs shop article was pure PR speak (wrongly used, to boot). and the thing is non-notable even on a local basis, and his only hope is leafletting the streets around the workshop (OK, we're never actually that rude, but you get the idea...), how are you going to improve the thing? I give a lot of advice to young (and older) musicians and writers on how to improve their non-existent notability so that they can grow into an articleworthy state - but there's nothing anyone could do at that time to improve the article. I'm not a deletionist - I'm always happy when someone rescues something out of my evil clutches - and do detag things for either rescue by me or some friends here who enjoy rescuing things. But I do believe that junk should go. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there is some stuff that is just going to get deleted. I've done enough CAT:CSD patrolling to know we're always going to get some amount of pure junk. But the number one CSD criterion is A7... lack of apparent notability is not the same thing as saying most new user articles are vandalism and spam. There are many that are lingering in AfC limbo unfairly I think, which are totally notable and simply lack help. Farmstead cheese is a good example from my personal editing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There could be an option on the Wikipedia sidebar "Help improve a draft to article status" which links to a [RANDOM] button for any page in draft space, and a [LIST] button that goes to an alphabetic index of draft articles. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

When is an article ready?

Experienced editors who have moved user space drafts to draft space may known when it is ready. But inexperienced users may not know this. AFC has a review from an experienced user as part of its process. The Article Incubator also allows for a request to be made for an evaluation to be moved back to article space. Do we have or are we going to have a process with draft space articles for someone to come along and look at them to assess if they are ready? It might be sufficient to have a template to place on the article which is removed by the reviewer. BOZ (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Both WP:Article Incubator and WP:Articles for Creation have guidelines on that regard (and WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts). Wouldn't following those guides be the proper recommendation? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but is that going to become a part of the process here? BOZ (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced negative material on living people

The BLP policy, which applies to all Wikipedia namespaces, states that all unreferenced negative material (and not simply material identified as libelous) must be rigorously removed. I've updated this page to reflect policy.--Scott Mac 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding of the policy is that it applies everywhere without exception, just the same as we don't tolerate copyvio anywhere. I tried to note this previously, but just didn't link to the actual policy page. Fixed now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that Steven's edit provided a rather stable version for this page, but you took your administrative authority to put in your personal bias towards interpreting a hardline BLP policy through this edit. You've also committed your second revert today, just to emphasize the BLP issue onto every page. Why can't you just be satisfied with "unsourced attacks on living persons will be removed" instead of bringing the ultrazealous BLP-deletionist view you're so fond of onto this page?

BLP states that "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." But this refers only to contentious material, and I don't see most material about living person as anything inherently contentious. It should only be made as clear as possible to the new editors, how BLP applies and why their drafts might be deleted, not that they'll be blocked on sight because they forgot to put in their source in time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get in a big argument. Remember that this is just an information page, and as the page header clearly states, nothing in it will ever supersede actual policy. If there's a dispute over what should be deleted in a draft, editors should always refer to the relevant policy, not this page. This is just a very basic introduction to drafts. With that in mind, I've simplified the language somewhat. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. I just wanted to head of an argument for later. Obviously, in most areas there's going to be more tolerance for the shortcomings of a draft as compared to a real article - in general we don't want them speedied when they may simply be incomplete. However, we cannot relax the BLP policy here - because (although not indexed) the material is still published and accessible. It is better to have that clearly stated on the draft policy page to avoid someone making the argument later than "it's only a draft, so ... lalala ...". A clear statement that BLP is not relaxed for drafts saves that discussion later.--Scott Mac 14:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

New page patrol

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T14363

My understanding is that now pages in the Draft namespace do not show up in the queue for NPP. However, once they get moved to the mainspace (even if it occurs after five years) they should, and preferrably as new articles (i.e. they should show up according to their move date, not according to their creation date). Is this set up or is it being set up? If it is too difficult, let them appear according to their creation date, but they should not bypass NPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

They won't bypass my old stamping ground (what IS a stamping ground?) of Edits by New Accounts. I don't know if anyone is monitoring that now. Page Curation (last time I looked at it) didn't even seem to monitor user space - and there's a heck of a lot of stuff there that needs patrolling. User space and Drafts need some sort of monitoring for copyvio and attack at the very least. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, page curation does not monitor user space.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it monitor Drafts? Peridon (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it does not (see my opening question), but I do not know for sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A newly-created Draft does not (yet) appear in any NPP queue, to my knowledge. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bug that's longstanding, which prevents any page moved from one namespace to another from appearing in the NPP queues. It's T14363, and once fixed, it should make sure that articles incubated in both userspace and draft namespace should be more visible for patrollers once they're moved to mainspace. cc: DGarry (WMF) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steven for clarifications, I hope it gets fixed soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it was ever the intention for Drafts (at least those submitted to AfC through the Wizrd) to show up in NPP. NPP has been suffering for years from its own problembs in spite of the creation of the new feed and its curation tool - which didn't address the core issues that led to their development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's right. In this case, I'm talking about making sure drafts moved to mainspace are patrolled. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Future of Article Incubator

Hi,

There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator to close down the Article Incubator. Please join the discussion there.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia drafts

Can someone create a holding category for all the pages concerned with the maintenance of [[DRAFT:]] ? (ie. this page, WP:Drafts, Template:DraftChecker, Template:Draft cleanup, etc) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, it seems reasonable to me.—John Cline (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Data about draft creation/publication/deletion available

Hey all. Thanks to Halfak (WMF) we now have a comprehensive dashboard which includes the following recent data...

• created - Count of the number of pages created in the draft namespace
• moved - Count of the number of pages moved into the draft namespace from elsewhere
• published - Count of the number of pages moved from draft namespace to main
• deleted - Count of the number of pages deleted from the draft namespace.

As you can see it's quite small right now. I expect that once we are ready and publicize drafts on Search and red links, then this number will grow to naturally surpass/replace the articles currently drafted in Wikipedia talk namespace via AFC. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good work to Halfak (WMF) and Steven Walling (WMF) for their great work on this. Drafts is the next generation of Wikipedia that can rejuvenate Wikipedia in the same way Wikipedia 'rejuvenated' NuPedia.

I've been here a long time, and you two are working on the vanguard of the solution to our new user retention problem. Good work! Huzzah's all round. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Technical To-Do

Bugishy things that need solving:

• Newarticletext needs to be updated to check for corresponding drafts or articles.
• Help:User-specific drafts provides information on the creation of user-space drafts which are actually stored in draftspace. The automation is not functional.
• Article Creation Wizard will need to be updated to include draftspace options.

Pls add others as you note them: --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If Draft:ArticleName exists, alert some users when viewing Main:ArticleName

You're a veteran editor who likes to help out newbies. You go to read an article. It turns out that a draft exists with the same title as the article you are currently viewing. A non-intrusive link should point you to any drafts on the same subject, so you can help with incorporating the draft into the main article.

Conversely, a non-logged-in reader comes to the same article. Perhaps they shouldn't see a link to Drafts, for the same reason that Drafts is NOINDEX.

But as a veteran, if I read an article and there's a draft version, I definitely want to know that fact so I can rehabilitate good drafts. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly difficult to implement there's a challenge.... How do you define a veteran editor, and can a bot work it? How many years you've edited doesn't count - there editors who still pop up who started in 2006 and still haven't passed 200 edits. An editor working mainly in NPP won't have as high an edit count as a gnome - because many of their edits have been deleted (being tagging...). Another problem is minute variations in title and other similar snarlups. Is BloggsCo the same as Bloggsco and Bloggs Co? Is the Draft called Hypertension about Hypertension or about a Milwaukee punk rock band (who have their first gig booked for January 23rd)? Peridon (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken you up on your challenge! See below.

I think all non-readers/editors should see links to relevant drafts. So, we'd show links to anyone who is logged-in, of course. And I would also say we'd show links to anyone viewing a talk page. We just don't want to advertise drafts to our anonymous ip readers who aren't familiar with editing wikipedia. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We can make a template that could be posted as an editnotice for the entire Draft namespace, which checks whether Foo exists when Draft:Foo is edited (using "magic words" or Lua). If it determines both do exist it can put the article into a category Category:Drafts for which an article of the same name exists, and veteran editors can browse the category to see if it's OK. Optionally, you could have another template that goes in the article itself (not the editnotice) allowing an editor to tag an article as "Supplemental data", and the editnotice template can be set to leave those articles out of the category; instead the supplemental data template would put them in a different category. (we might eventually want lots of supplemental data type draft articles to hold extra text that was cut by someone as not important enough, though I lean a little toward the view it should be given a new article name and composed as a new standalone article immediately upon hitting Draft space)

We should also have a template that you can put on any mainspace article saying something like "Help expand Wikipedia. Editors have begun the following draft articles and you can help" pointing to an user-defined list of related drafts. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If a tag for the articlespace page is made, it should be a talk page template, and not a mainpage template. Talk pages already have supplementary data templates (in the form of history attribution templates). The only link between a draft article and a main article should be a merge tag, if someone thinks the draft article has content worthy of merging. (bearing in mind, the two articles cover the same topic, not just the same article name) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but I'd tweak it -- logged-in editors should be presented with a link from article to draft, so we can help improve/merge the drafts into the article. I agree wholeheartedly that our non-logged-in readers should not see any link to drafts until there's a proposed merge. We can accomplish this by adding two lines of code into the site's javascript (though there may be even better ways to do it). --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in and say yes this is a feature we're strongly considering for the future. You can see our early designs in the PDF included in "future enhancements" here. Feedback welcome, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree to create this link to drafts from the main space, but I disagree that draft pages should be shown to logged-in editors only, as it runs counter to the basic principle that content is created in the open, available for anyone to review. Why should draft pages have more stringent requisites for reading than either talk pages or drafts in user space? We don't hide those from readers, and the content is no different in principle to anything that you can find anywhere on WP.

I myself consider drafts as a form of talk page, an space where editors collaborate and which provides accountability for article development; we don't hide Talk pages only because they have NOINDEX; that's for bots, not humans. If you hide drafts, you'd be creating a hidden space where only a subset of users (those editors with an account) can discuss changes to the article, without anyone outside the project being able to review what's going on. That's contrary to the spirit of the third pillar, IMHO. Diego (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Then a link between a mainspace article and a draftspace page should be done through the talk page, as a talkpage noticebox instead of a mainspacebox ? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Talk page is linked from the main article, so the Draft page could be too. What would work best is a new tab at the top - there could be tabs for Article, Talk and Draft. Diego (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be great, but what of Draft Talk? I will note that Wiktionary works that way right now "[Main][Talk][Citations]" If that is the way it is done, then Draft will work as the scratchpage/workpage for live articles. If we do go that route, then a "Draft Template:" space would also be good, moving all template sandboxes to a third tab. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Up at the top of an article in mainspace, I see the article-tab (blue & selected), the talk-tab (blue if there is an article-talkpage), and then a separate tab-group for read/edit/hist. Methinks there should be a new tab added, called "draft" which is a bluelink when a draft exists, and a redlink otherwise. Once you've clicked on the draft-tab, you see the rendered version of the draft-content in the main portion of the window, and up top you see links to the *draft-talkpage* and the draft-edit-button and the draft-edit-history, plus a link to get you back to mainspace. This way, folks don't need to be logged in to realize there is a draft in progress (or nothing yet in progress iff "draft" is a redlink). My only question is whether we'd position the "draft" tab to the left of the article-tab, or to the right of the article-talkpage-tab. Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree a tab is a good place to put a link. I just worry that if we advertise drafts too prominently to all our readers, it will create a duty to 'police' the drafts for quality. Regular readers don't need to be directed into drafts until they indicate a desire to edit. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Keeping track

Is there something in place, or a plan to do so, to keep track of all the pages in draftspace? As in, a new user creates a draft page, how does someone not specifically searching for it know the page exists? Will someone be able to find the page immediately, a few days or weeks or months later? Will there be categories, lists, transclusions, etc? Will this be done automatically since we can't expect new users to do this? For example, I know that Draft:Example exists because you posted about it, but otherwise how would I discover its existence? This would be useful for someone looking for drafts to improve upon, or move to namespace. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Recent changes" in draft namespace can be tracked via this. Solomon7968 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's one way, thanks! :) Anything else? BOZ (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There's also Special:AllPages. In my open questions section above, I think I asked a question about how people want to find drafts. It's not a small feature, but in the future we could create a feed of drafts similar to Special:NewPagesFeed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I undeleted a test case and did a bit of work on it; want to see if anyone happens to find it and pick it up. The question I am asking of course is, can anyone just happen across a draft say, a month from now, and go "Oh, I'll work on that!" BOZ (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: I just moved an article (and its talkpage) to drafts but is not showing up in here? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects

WikiProjects should provide a place for editors to list draft pages. Hopefully their bots should learn to check past AfD notices for their list of present drafts also. More controversially, but I think appropriately, we should create a "Help Expand Wikipedia! Draft articles under development" template banner to post at the bottoms of related articles in mainspace. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand a little further. Maybe we could have an automatically-generated hidden category or something for everything in draft space? Without a category, list, or transclusion of any kind, it will be easy for draft pages to get lost fairly quickly. Right now, if I have only the narrowed-down recent changes list to go by, I can see that (as of the moment), we have the following drafts (aside from the obvious test pages): Draft:Evans Solar Facility, Draft:Shiro Nakamura, Draft:List of presidential trips made by Horst Köhler, Draft:Bambi winners, Draft:Demisexuality, Draft:Cart Life, Draft:Jess Heinig, Draft:Squeaky hinge, and Draft:Erika Sunnegårdh. I see that a few have already been moved back out of draft space. One problem I already see with this method of tracking draft pages is that, if someone moves a page to draft space but does not edit it, it will not show up on the recent changes. Also, you will only be able to track individual pages that way for a limited amount of time. So, in my opinion, we need more. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am just now realizing what Steven said above; there is this, which lists all draft space pages. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, I do agree with you that there could/should be a way to alert WikiProjects of draft space pages. One problem with that is the fact that a lot of new users do not put any WikiProject banners on the talk pages of their articles - I see it all the time. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea of pinging WikiProjects about drafts is a good one. I've talked with some folks at WMF about what kind of notifications we might want to build for drafts. One of them is the ability to subscribe to all requests for help from new or anonymous editors regarding drafts. Another is some kind of topical feed, so you could subscribe to say, only medical-related drafts. We're not 100% sure about how to do this, though it's not impossible at all. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bamyers99 operates InceptionBot, which maintains lists of new articles that could be appropriate for various WikiProjects; perhaps we need something like that for Draft: pages also? BOZ (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

InceptionBot now scans new/moved Draft: articles. The configured WikiProjects are listed at User:AlexNewArtBot. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion and Draft:

Consider, if you will, articles that are currently deleted on sight. A great proportion of those should enter the Draft: namespace rather than be deleted. Then their creators can work on them in relative peace until they are ready for main name space.

As an example, AfD could be retitled Articles for Draft Namespace, Deletion only if Necessary.

Let the discussions begin: Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think, instead of the usual rafts of opposes and supports, we might have a discussion based on advantages and disadvantages, and actually consider it seriously, too, before leaping in to support or oppose. Maybe we can get back to making the Wisdom of Crowds work, or even work again?

We ought to set aside whether things are practical. We have a glorious new namespace coming, and we get to decide how to make it work for the benefit of Wikipedia. This is a new paradigm. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so you can see I'm taking my own medicine, I am going to set up an advantages section and start the ball rolling there. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This is very helpful so far. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Advantages

For fun and to keep a sort of tally, let's number each advantage, please:

1. Editors who are new to Wikipedia often get their first attempts summarily deleted, or discussed for deletion. They feel slapped in the face when we ought to be fostering their membership and skills. If we migrate the articles that are below out stringent threshold to the Draft: namespace we stand a greater chance of retaining both the editor and having an improved new article rather than an empty place where it might have been. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Articles subject to current deletion discussions are often heavily defended (or heavily !voted down). The option of migration to Draft: ought to mean less vitriol, and less time spent seeking to ensure our rules are not broken. As a by product editors who once became heated might understand that heat and passion is not required, and less offence would be taken. Editors might be retained where today;s upsets lose them. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
3. An article where the topic is at the borderline of notability can safely be placed in a working zone. This allows time beyond the AfD or PROD period for an editor to work unrushed by an ever approaching deadline. Apart from getting a better article at the end (surely our main goal?) we get a better editor who has had a pleasant and enriching experience (our secondary goal because they are likely to produce more and better articles). Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
4. We will need to rewrite a whole slew of processes, and to create new ones. This should be a matter for great joy. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
5. We get better press and our reputation is improved as new editors have a better experience at Wikipedia. They spread the word saying Wikipedia is freindly and nice as opposed to mean and nasty as Slashdot and most others see us.64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
6. We can reuse previous attempts to document the topic, instead of loosing it to a delete. If we archive previous drafts as we do with talk pages, the draft archive can be a good starting point to find information (prose, lists, sources...) that other editors added to the project in a way that was not ready for the main space. Diego (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Drafts could be found through the AfD notice in the mainspace page of a deleted article. I.e. an interested editor could still found the desired information, and even work to fix the incomplete content. This could alleviate the main shortcoming of the Article Incubator, where articles were hard to find. Diego (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Just userfy deleted entries more often. Problem solved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated to the deletion process

The following appear to be general advantages of using the Draft namespace; as such, they aren't related to how we should treat AfD candidates. (If this reclassification is wrong, please add or change wording to clarify BEFORE moving back into the section above. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1. We get more editors If everything works well, we could end up with more editors that can help us turn our 2.4 million stubs in to C class (or better) articles. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
2. We get more editors to help with maintenance, such as helping at WP:CCI, which has a HUGE backlog. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
3. We join up obscure mechanisms like "Article incubator" and "Articles for Creation" into a single namespace with an obvious location which should easily be searched with a single checkbox item on the advanced search, without having to remember the even more obscure prefix search syntax. Wnt (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
4. We put a clear disclaimer -- "Draft:" -- in front of every draft article in a way that is impossible to miss. Wnt (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
5. 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)

Disdvantages

For fun and to keep a sort of tally, let's number each disadvantage, please:

1. Articles may be sent to Draft: more than once, which seems to be a load of procedure and process and not a lot of encyclopaedia building. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

   Yeah it seems like sending the same article text back to draft mode multiple times would be a bad idea. Common sense tells me most editors wouldn't suggest this though, and would look at something that has already been through draft phase before as having had ample time to develop. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

   I think we would have to rely on the good sense of editors rather than legislate against playing namespace tennis with an article. I believe that the more one treats people like adults the more they act as adults. Not legislating is kind of WP:IAR before formulating and adopting a rule. Fiddle Faddle 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

   Another facet of this is that editors who don't know a draft already exists (say, creating it with an alternate title) could create a page with different info, which could result in two drafts on the same thing. Of course, this could happen already with AfC, but still something to keep in mind. Ansh666 22:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   This already happens with main space articles, too. The procedure to correct that is a merge - I don't think merging drafts would suppose any problem. Or as I suggest above, we could create archives for draft pages as a sort of version system, keeping the latest revision alive and the previous versions accessible. Diego (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

   @Fiddle. We could put a requirement in place, that drafted articles can't be moved back to the main space without consensus, as we do with repeated moves or re-creation of deleted articles. Diego (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2. It may appear to a novice editor that the only mechanism for the creation of new articles is via Draft: While this is patently not so, this impression will need to be addressed and corrected. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

   Struck - this disadvantage isn't related to the deletion process. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

3. We will need to rewrite a whole slew of processes. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Unless managed correctly, the Draft: namespace may become a warehouse full of wannabe articles which are genuinely trash and have no future as main namespace articles. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

   I'm concerned about this too, but I think we currently have the community sense in place to make it work better. We have long allowed "userify" and "send to article incubator" outcomes at AfD, but these outcomes generally aren't appropriate for patently non-notable bands and other disguised promotional content. Things like these should go on being deleted, with the "draftify" outcome being reserved for, e.g., cases where finding sources establishing notability has failed but there's good reason to believe there are sources out there (i.e., not digitized or in a foreign language), or content that's just shy of a WP:NOT delete. But, this leads me to another concern that I'll get into below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

   There is currently, in AfC, a quick deletion (CSD) that can be invoked for any AfC article that hasn't been edited in the past six months. There isn't any reason why this won't also apply to drafts that were created via the AfD process. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

5. All newbies are evil. I don't believe this, but playing Devil's advocate... I see this sentiment often repeated around the project, that all newbies are evil and only want to contribute WP:Vanispamcruftisement and they need to get the smackdown as soon as they show up on our doorstep. The Draft: namespace will only bring in more undesirables. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Your advocacy is appreciated, but is this really relevant to the concept of moving some deletion candidates to Draft:? It seems to be more generic devil's advocacy. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Struck per comment immediately above. This is a discussion of the deletion process. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

   @John Broughton: I must admit I'm surprised that you, of all people, would move and strike other peoples comments in a general discussion like this. It seems out of character for you. 64.40.54.20 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

6. Often, articles sent to the draft namespace would just sit there for years, cf. WP:STALEDRAFT. --Jakob (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   But that is a matter of process. Process we can handle. I see why you state it to be a disadvantage, and yet how much of a true disadvantage might it be? Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Struck. This is a duplicate of #4. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

7. Articles that are never going to meet WP:N are going to end up in the draft namespace where new editors spend hours improving a hopeless article thinking that it still might have a chance. It might be far less cruel to just yank the band-aid off and delete, rather than give false hope. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   That is a matter for our consensus in migrating them there. We are allowed to delete instead. And we can expire them if we create a process to do so. Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   You can still tell people you don't think they'll find notability. But there isn't and can't be any a priori way to tell if sufficient sources for notability will be found in advance of substantial work on the article. Furthermore, the Draft: article can be used as a source of text for a more general article that is notable, so there is no guarantee the work would be wasted anyway. Nor is there any genuine need to expire content. "No deadline", etc. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

   If something is not notable, one of the main deletion reasons at AfD, it can't magically become notable when moved to the Drafts namespace Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   But it can become notable when it gets popular and reliable sources start writing about it some months later. As the draft space is not subject to WP:GNG, it can be a good place to park those WP:TOOSOON articles that might or might not become famous in the mid term. Diego (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

8. The Userfy process works fine and should be applied instead, maybe changing userfy to moved to Drafts. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   This is not to take over from any other valid destination. Userfication remains an option as does deletion. We rely on what people want to happen at the time. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

9. This proposal has the real potential of turning Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion, and otherwise abrogate WP:CLEANUP. I'm actually on the fence for whether I consider this necessarily bad, because the AfD process could effectively be used to get horrific articles out of mainspace when no "clean" version exists to which we can revert, but I'm not sure about this myself, and I know there are a great many members of the community who would oppose this sort of move. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

   Personally, I do use Articles for Deletion as Articles for Discussion at times. I get told off sometimes, but if someone has their attention drawn to an article they wouldn't have seen otherwise, and we get references dug out of the depths that save the thing, it benefits the project. I'd be happy to see a change in the D-word at AfD. (Save people telling me off, at least...) Peridon (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

10. This is not an either/or situation. The possibilities are: article both suitable and ready for inclusion (not a problem), article never suitable (my neighbor's pet dog), article not suitable but ready (provides verified information, but belongs as part of an existing article rather than its own article at least at this time), article suitable but not ready (the excellect Namespace idea as suggested). My concern is that all but the first type will be thrown into Namespace. I would put the second on the creator's user page with a message, the third on the Talk page of the relevant article with a message on the creator's Talk page, and the fourth in Namespace with a message on the creator's Talk page. Important distinction: a Stub article is a very short article which can be reasonably expected to grow. Other "very short articles" are not likely to grow, but may well be suitable for inclusion in an article with greater scope, existing or not. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

    I think we have to rely on the good offices of those who propose the destination and those who reach the consensus for it. Your point is valid, of course it is, but it is down, surely, to the eventual discussions on the articles themselves? Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

    Based on past history, we most certainly cannot rely on their good offices. If all the options aren't specifically addressed, we will remain stuck with the usual wikilawyering by the usual deletionists. They must have to address why the option they recommend is the most suitable. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    I would handle your third case (ready content not suitable for a stand-alone article) by placing the in the Draft space of the target article. Your suggestion (placing the content in the Talk page) is something that is not done now; and, if the content is long, it messes with the talk page and with the content's history. Plus, renaming the draft with a move would be easier than a copy-paste of the content to the talk plus deleting the old draft. There's no law saying that a developed article can't have some content in its Draft space. I'd find putting any "article-like" content in the draft space cleaner than in the talk page for anything longer than two paragraphs. Diego (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on Future Design Enhancements for Draft

I'm very excited to see the work by User:Pginer (and many others) on design enhancements! I'm so happy to see how much thought and planning has already been put into this! One piece of feedback:

The design seems to have an unstated assumption that there will be, at most, one draft per subject. (see [1]). I want to question that assumption.

The RFC on the Drafts Namespace showed us all that Wiikipedia LOVES User-space drafts. And whether users prefer to store drafts in Userspace (as is traditional) or in Draftspace (as is logical), we should accommodate either choice.

We should create tools that anticipate multiple drafts of the same article title, creating sub-drafts for the cases where there are naming conflict.

Only one draft per article was proposed at the start of the RFC, and it was strongly rejected. Let's encourage collaborative drafts, especially for new users, but let's remember to allow user space drafts to live in draft space too, where drafts rightfully belong. --HectorMoffet (talk)

Couple Points

1. I think the point that the draft needs that "Black to Red age indicator" is at 4 months un-edited. I know of no deadline for allowing a user to continue to make improvements on the article as long as they're making improvements. The 4 months I consider a compromise between the currrent "Total Age of the Draft" and using CSD:G13's stick to keep the namespace clean of obviously abandoned attempts.
2. I'd really prefer that if you created the page in Draftspace (either because you couldn't in mainspace, or you wanted the protections of draftspace) that you be required to submit it for review (probably by AFC) so that a independent set of eyes/brain is looking over the proposed page as an opportunity to minimize any possible COI.
3. I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that Drafts is the default target for articles that are being voted for delete. I suggest that Drafts be offered as an option in the case where the consensus is just a hair on the delete side and there's potential to fix it, but not in the case where there is significant (or better) consensus that the article is not appropriate. Again I endorse the G13 cleanup process coming along and cleaning any of the drafts that meet the criteria.

   G13 does not preclude a a petition by a new interested editor via the guidelines laid down in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 to occur, so any new editor can get access to the entirety of the previous attempt.

Beyond that, it seems like Drafts is coming along quite nicely. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment about whether or not it could be useful to send or tag certain newly created articles directly into draft space where the likely new editor can be either assisted in improving the page for proper placement in article space or conversely exposed to deletion criteria, particularly for lack of significant secondary sourcing, in a manner less "bite-like" as CSD generally engenders. I mentioned this above and feel it is worth vetting the pros and cons.—John Cline (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If the user can create in mainspace, they are assumed to know the rules of the road. WP:REFUND is already available, so I don't think we really need a new rule for the process. We can probably notify the page that the Draft space is the preferred location for those types of pages to be restored. CSD is applicable everywhere. I'd much prefer the efforts be restored in the draft namespace because we can keep an eye on it. Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, your position is reasonable, and fair; it does miss the point of action in advance of deletion, but from a reasonable premise. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)