Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:11, 31 July 2017

Articles for creation Project‑class

This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drafts page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

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

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

RfC: Draft classifier template

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Background: This RfC is about a possible implementation of some suggestions made in earlier RfCs and other threads. It has been suggested that it is desirable to have

• A way to indicate that someone looked at a draft and, although not ready to be moved to the mainspace, the content should be kept; i.e., should be exempted from G13, which essentially is an automatic deletion mechanism for old AfC drafts.
• A way to sort or rate the drafts by subject, notability or potential encyclopedic value.
• Some streamlined deletion mechanisms for non-AfC drafts.

Proposal: I propose we use a template that looks like the following to implement the above objectives:

Usage:

• The template is to be added at the top of a page in the draftspace (not drafts in user pages).
• "Main" is an automatic link to the page of the same name in the mainspace; the link is typically red but this allows a draft to show up in "what links here". If the link is blue, then that would indicate the draft is a fork.
• "Notability" can be either "unset", "unlikely", "likely" or "yes". The idea is that setting "notability" = "unlikely" is a diplomatic way to tell a draft is hopeless.
• "Subject" will be filled using a drop-down menu (apparently that's possible?), using the classification in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact. Its initial value will be "unset". The field will be used to create an automatic list of drafts by subject.
• "G13 applicable" is perhaps most controversial. By default, this field will be "yes" if the draft is an AfC draft and "no" otherwise. But we allow the editors to change that setting. In the spirit of "assuming good faith", we ask editors not to indiscriminately change the field to "yes" or "no". Note also that allowing this option represents an extension of G13 to non-AfC drafts.
• There may be further optional fields such as "merge target".

One might find some details about the deployment are missing. This is deliberate; please make suggestion if there is any. -- Taku (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support: even as a proposer, I have some reservation about this; that this might open up a path for abuse. If this were to be implemented, I think we need some policy mechanism to make sure that editors are not setting the G13 field to be yes en masse. -- Taku (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't think Taku needs to be so cautious, as this template does not compel deletion of any draft. It is just an indication that someone has looked at that draft and concluded that it is or is not worth saving. It will help us in evaluating the contents of Draft space and indicating those drafts that merit further examination. I also support the extension of G13 to non-AfC drafts where this field has been set to "yes" on the proposed template: why should drafts be exempt from this process just because they have never been before an AfC reviewer?: Noyster (talk), 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Because draft space contains pages that at some point were moved from article space, and were placed here for reasons other than being unfinished (dubious notability, changes in policy since the article was created...). It doesn't make sense to apply an unambiguous speedy deletion criterion meant for half-backed submissions, which is G13, to pages that are not abandoned submissions. Diego (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per discussions above. Great idea for dealing with a space that needs organizing but also some love. Panyd 17:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. However "Notability" and "G13 applicable" come pretty close to being redundant. There is something wrong if someone is tagging it as non-notable and G13 exempt. I also find it hard to picture when a yes-notable rating by an experienced editor should be differentiated from asserting a G13 exemption. In any case, I suggest the entire "G13 applicable: yes" should render as blank. This avoids confusing newbies with mysterious babble, and reduces the likelyhood that they'll mess with it. If someone wants to assert an anti-G13 claim on the draft, let them put ~~~~ into the field. Then render that as something like Patron: <expanded signature>. "Patron" is probably the wrong term. It was the first term I could think of, to indicate the person wanting to claim long-term retention for the draft. Putting the signature in there lets us know who to talk to, if someone else considers the draft to be non-viable. The signature's timestamp seems like a decent freebie. Alsee (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree about the two fields being closely related: "G13 applicable" could be autofilled depending on the contents of "Notability", able to be overwritten in some exceptional case. The G13 field has the function of making it immediately clear if someone did not want the draft deleted. Don't think we need this unusual "patron" thing: no-one owns articles; no analogue for similar actions like declining a PROD; not hard to see from page history who it was that filled the template: Noyster (talk), 07:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically what Noyster said. It's like if you are not married, you can leave some fields blank when filling a form. The template can be programed so that notability = yes results in G13 = no by default. I think it is important that the G13 field is not hidden; there have been too many instances of the use of G13 for non-AfC drafts. This must be an indication of the design flaw, which this template attempts to, well not solve but alleviate at least. The template is akin to a stub template; i.e., the main purpose is to sort pages so that the editors can zero in some specific instances. If there is any dispute on say notability, that has to be resolved independent of the template. -- Taku (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if "Note also that allowing this option represents an extension of G13 to non-AfC drafts" is implemented. Currently, G13 depends on whether a draft contains the {{AFC submission}} template, hence a draft could easily be non-notable and G13 exempt. — Godsy_CONT) 08:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll basically reiterate what I said in Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts#Draft classifier: It should be optional; I don't support a bot applying it to all drafts, and the creator and others drafting should be free to remove an application of the template if they so desire. Core content policy field(s) with options may be a good idea as well. — Godsy_CONT) 07:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose due to "Note also that allowing this option represents an extension of G13 to non-AfC drafts." That should be proposed on its own, not through the backdoor, lumped in with what seems at first like an innocuous new template. Would drafts be eligible six months after the G13 parameter was set to "yes"?; What if one editor deems it not eligible and another changes it later?— Godsy_CONT) 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The question of whether to extend G13 to non-AfC drafts is a policy question that should not be tucked within a discussion of templates. As for the notability setting, which draft creator would not set it to "likely" or "yes"? NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  About the second point: the standard response is "assume good faith". Wiki has continued to be a radical idea today; anyone can edit? Crazy? What if someone inserted false information? In Misplaced Pages, we use Wiki and I don't think the draftspace is any different (or maybe the draftspace shouldn't be wiki???). Less philosophically, I don't think every creator would automatically set the notability to be yes. Some newbies don't have good idea of notability. Even if the creator sets the notability to be yes, I think that's good; it means the creator is consciously making an assertion that they think the topic is notable. This is better than some instruction (AfC wizard) that asks to follow the notability rule.

  As for the first point, the question is on both if and how to extend G13 to non-AfCs drafts. We had some early discussion before on if. So, I don't think asking if and how simultaneously is particularly problematic. -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  The proposed system is too complicated. Pages in the draftspace should either be eligible for deletion after a certain amount of time or not, without depending on a parameter that can fluctuate at a whim, which opens the door widely for gamesmanship and disputes. If consensus is gained for such pages to be eligible for deletion after a certain amount of time, something on the order of, but more limited than, {{G8-exempt}} could be considered for G13 (though that would share some of the same flaws). — Godsy_CONT) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Godsy: But that's not the current system; the current system distinguishes between AfC drafts and non-AfC ones. This is apparently confusing and thus is a source of errors (the design flaw mentioned above). I would argue that the template like this one clarifies the situation since it will tells whether G13 applies or not very explicitly. For me that seems an improvement. -- Taku (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand how the current system works. I supported its suspension. The system proposed here is more confusing, not less. — Godsy_CONT) 04:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose This RFC should be closed and replaced with three separate RFCs about each of the proposals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What 3 components? (I get the G13 part but what is the third?) If you prefer, you can think this RfC consists of several parts and support or oppose each component separately. -- Taku (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support Everyone above has presented good points regarding this and I too am concerned that the G13 bit could be possibly exploited and/or used en masse. With that said, I think it is a good idea as the draft space is full of drafts that do not have a hope and/or have not been edited for (in some cases) literal years. I have come across drafts not edited since 2015 or earlier that are clearly abandoned but not eligible under current guidelines/policy. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I still fail to see why there should be any action performed on pages that have not been edited in years. Again, what is exactly the problem that requires deletion of non-AfC drafts, and why can't it be solved with MfD? Diego (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem, Diego, is that these thousands of totally unsuitable drafts are part of Misplaced Pages, available to any reader, and as Anne Delong pointed out above: NOWIKI stops reputable search engines from including these pages, but not mirror sites or anyone else. Web pages can link to them to promote unsuitable subjects. Swamping the MfD discussion channel with large numbers of open-and-shut cases would not be a good response. So G13 needs to apply to non-AfC drafts, subject to action on the "significant support" already identified to allow any experienced editor to exempt a promising AFC draft from G13 deletion indefinitely. This proposal offers a compact way to achieve both, and instead of adding to the already extensive series of discussions on this page each concluding "this isn't quite it", it's time for this one to be approved I think: Noyster (talk), 17:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is it a problem that unsuitable drafts are available to readers? They are very obviously not Misplaced Pages articles, and will only be found by editors wanting to search content for expanding the description of a topic. They are not part of the encyclopedia any more than drafts and essays in user space. For the few examples that require deletion for being problematic, such as copyright and BLP violations, there are already ways to speedely delete them. I still fail to see any argument that would justify a massive deletion of pages in draft space that won't equally apply to the User:, WP: and Talk: spaces, and which we don't delete in the same way. Diego (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit digressive and hope the others don't mind. I have this theory: some people enjoy deleting stuff. There is this segment of the editors who are more interested in simply engaging in the activities in Misplaced Pages. What interests them isn't an encyclopedia-building. The end game is the deletion; that the content is of low quality gives them a cover. From the encyclopedia-building standpoint, there is not much gain by deleting stuff in the draftspace. Some might ask (and they have): what is of the use of having the content that will never go to the mainspace? The standard response is that it is useful to allow for some failures and mistakes for the content development. A novelist might not finish all of their drafts. That's perfectly ok since they can learn from what didn't work and often they can start new works based on the failed attempts. I thus tend to see the draftspace as a place, where one can try to develop the contents (duh?); others simply don't share that point of view. -- Taku (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: - I still fail to see why there should be any action performed on pages that have not been edited in years - I seem to be approaching this from the opposite end but the problem for me is that there is a veritable treasure trove of potential content that nobody is looking at, because there's no system where they are easily accessible. Reviewers are being swamped because they're a rare breed but image what content creators could do with a giant repository of potential subjects? Panyd 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Panyd: You're right, and I agree that there should be a repository of well classified drafts; I should have said "I don't see why there should be any deletion action" with them. My concern is that, once some pages have been classified as "poor quality / unlikely notability", some people will push for getting them deleted, which is a severe problem. Drafts should not be deleted after only one or two people have reviewed them, if they don't incur in any of the problems that merit speedy removal (BLP, copyvio, attack pages, etc).

Hiding those pages would be against having that large pool of potential valid content available for content creators. Even if many (or most!) of those pages is very low quality, a good classification system and/or some automatic data mining tools could help future editors find the gems of valuable data standing among the noise. This could never happen if the low quality drafts are removed, even if a mechanism exist to REFUND individual pages one by one. Diego (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Before the creation of Draft space, all of the "drafts" were in "Misplaced Pages talk" space. The problem with that is that when mirror sites copied the pages, they all started with the word "Misplaced Pages", which made it easy to mistake the text for a Misplaced Pages article. Now that the pages just say "Draft", it's less of a problem, because although the text may appear on the internet, it is not necessarily associated with Misplaced Pages. If the proposed draft classification happens, it's important that this benefit is not undone by introducing the word "Misplaced Pages" back onto the pages.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• But Anne, the word "Misplaced Pages" is on the pages. There it is, right under the title line: . If you ever want to know what a Link really is or How to grow body snatcher plants, Misplaced Pages has it all!: Noyster (talk), 10:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• That text is on our site, but typically won't appear on mirror sites. Diego (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support, with caveats. I agree to create a formal, unified mechanism for classifying drafts by subject. I concur with Roger that the inclusion of tags for "subject", "(estimated) notability" and "G13-applicable" should be decided separately. I would support the subject tag, and maybe the notability tag (with the caveat that unlikely notable drafts should not be deleted without a MfD, even if they become stalled).

I don't like the G13 part as is - anyone nominating for G13 should already know to look for the presence of the AfC template and understand that it can't be applied without it. Maybe the tag should be "Speedy deletion applicable? (Yes/no)", and in case of "Yes", the parameter should say what speedy criterion can by applied (so it could be either G13 if it really is an abandoned AfC, G12, G3, etc). Diego (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - there's a proposal below for classifying drafts through specific categories, rather than with templates. Any one else supports it? This would largely solve the issue, IMHO. Diego (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I too am aware of that proposal. But thr proposal is about classifying drafts having the draft template and so it will not apply to the vast majority of pages in the draftspace. Also, the use of categories is inappropriate in my opinion; categories provide the navigation system for readers; drafts have no readers. -- Taku (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't think editors should also benefit from having a proper navigation system, to find promising drafts? Diego (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't treat drafts like regular articles; setting up the categories, etc, can make the draftspace that is just like a part of Misplaced Pages. I agree that we need to setup some system to list drafts by subject. I think this should be like the lists of requested articles. In fact, as I mentioned before, I think it makes sense to have the system of lists of requested articles merged with the draftspaces. "Makes sense" since the end game is the same, to prepare mainspace articles. -- Taku (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Image use in drafts

Is there any guidance provided on WP:DRAFTS regarding image use? I looked, but did not see anything. The reason I'm bringing this up is because there seem to be many editors adding non-free images to their drafts, which is something not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Some editors just add the file, but others try and add a non-free use rationale even though a valid one cannot be written. These images are usually flagged as NFCC#9 violations and may be subsequently removed when noticed. If the image is being used in another article, then usually this is not a problem; some users, however, have uploaded the file specifically for use in the draft they are working on, which means the file will be an orphan when removed and eventually deleted per WP:F5. It might be helpful if there was something mentioned about this on this page, so that editors are made aware that it is best to upload a new non-free image after the draft has been moved to the article namespace. Of course, it won't completely eliminate the problem, but it may help mitigate it a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Added some text regarding this with this edit. Adjust as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Favre1fan93. I tweaked what you did just a tad because I've come across some editors who mistakenly feel that images already uploaded to Misplaced Pages mean they can be added anywhere regardless of WP:NFCCP. I personally don't like the "and/or" construction, but I couldn't think of a better way to say such a thing without getting too wordy. If the consensus is that such a tweak is not needed, please revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I solved the "and/or" use, by simply removing "uploaded". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

poor visibility of drafts

Take Kursk (film) as an example. There is a draft: Draft:Kursk (film) and the mainspace article redirects to the director's article.

But the only way I found that out was an off-hand comment in the edit history!

What is needed is either or both of two things:

1. that we create a redirect template that essentially says the opposite of the Draft article template: that this is a draft placeholder redirect pending some event that makes the draft go live.
2. whenever I start editing an article, the system checks if there's a Draft and informs me. (Not just at article creation that is; we're in the scenario when someone tries to edit the redirect in good faith)

There must be a big hint: "don't bother reinventing the wheel" - there's already a draft HERE, go look at that instead of writing an article from "scratch" where scratch means a placeholder redirect.

It's just a waste of effort when people redo articles from scratch - not to mention the "ownership" issues when a draft is mostly created by a single editor that vigilantly shoots down any attempts (in mainspace) to do what he or she has already done. CapnZapp (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the old id of the effort that was repeatedly shot down: There have been at least one other attempt at a Kursk (film) article, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kursk_%28film%29&oldid=770388296

I maintain that one effort is not inherently superior to the other. Why should one live on as a draft and presumably in mainspace, while the other is reverted debris?

And please don't answer "editors that don't know about Draft mainspace deserve getting deleted". We really can't allow people to revert efforts just because they have something lined up already. It's far too invisible! But mostly: yes, editors do revert cases like this without being friendly and inviting and explaining the existence of Drafts. So the system should do it automatically. CapnZapp (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental tension is that, by design, the drafts are not too visible. Since the drafts likely have some issues (else they should be in the mainspace), we don't want to make it too easy for the readers to find out about them. So, that's why it is, for example, not appropriate to have a redirect to a draft article. I do agree they should be more visible to the interested editors, although I don't know the best way to achieve that. (One option is to use the classifier template that I proposed early.) -- Taku (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's OK that drafts are not too visible to readers, but we should find ways to make them visible to editors. I agree that the system should make it easy to know when a draft exists for an article, whenever the topic title leads to an empty page or a redirect. Diego (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreement on the reader vs editor issue. In this particular case, the article is about an upcoming film. Per policy WP:NFF it is correct for no article to exist at this particular time, but that doesn't stop drafts from existing. The problem here is that the draft author deletes attempts at article creation. While this is technically correct (per aforementioned policy) it would be much preferred (and just) to incorporate those attempts in the existing draft. There are two issues:

1. 1. that the editor might not even know the draft exists. Remember, he doesn't create a new page (that previously was deleted), he merely upgrades a redirect into a real article.
   2. the editor with the draft should not have some kind of precedence. But this is exactly what the current situation will lead to! When the article can be published (in this case, that principal photography have commenced) one editor's efforts will become visible (the editor of the draft) while another editor's efforts will go in the garbage bin (=exist as reverted in page history) or even not exist at all (if page is deleted entirely and then draft is used to recreate article). NOTE: I realize having a draft will always have precedence since that is the proper way of doing things, but then it is an absolute must that other editors are invited into the draft work rather than having their efforts (in mainspace) merely reverted or deleted.

As a final note, I'm sure you all are already aware that drafts can exist not only in the parallell Draft namespace, but at users own pages too. How to ensure that editors are made aware of such drafts, I leave up to you. One option would be to have Draft namespace be automatically alerted, and to prohibit uninformative deletions when you sit on a "secret" draft. Also; whenever an article is moved from Draft to mainspace, it should be mandatory to look through page history for useful efforts of people unaware of that their edits were made in the "wrong" place. CapnZapp (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that if this were done as an WP:EDITNOTICE, it would allow editors to find the draft without advertising it to readers. However, since editnotices on articles can only be edited by administrators or template editors, this would either have to be done by placing a group notice on all of article space that automatically detects if a draft exists (but checking for page existence is expensive from a server-time standpoint, so we probably don't want to do it for every page edit) or having a bot with the appropriate permissions that creates the mainspace edit notice when it detects draft creation (which means we would also want to update our admin procedures for deleting drafts to include deleting the editnotice, and set up the bot to flag them with {{Db-g8}} if an administrator misses it). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My previous comment somehow snuck in before yours, Ahecht. It was not intentional. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I concur that a WP:EDITNOTICE is the best way to do this. The edit notice would be populated through {{draft}} and {{Userspace draft}}. To ensure this works properly, bots should regularly check and add this to every page in the Draft namespace that doesn't already have it. Should we submit this in Phabricator as a feature request? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: {{Draft article}} is already much farther use than {{draft}}.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts/Archive 2#Announcing Template:DraftChecker helpful? Thincat (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: FYI, that template is embedded in the one I mentioned above.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not ideal, as even though it's hidden for logged-out users, it would still run for them, which would mean that we would be performing an expensive operation (checking for page existence) on every single page edit. There's no advantage over just using {{#ifexist:Draft:{{FULLPAGENAME}}, which would actually be as simple as removing a conditional from {{Editnotices/Namespace/Main}} (since it already does that check if the article doesn't exist). I think it would be easier on the servers to have a bot add {{There is a draft for this article}} to the editnotices of pages with drafts. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to add a template to every page in the Draft namespace. A bot could search for either a page in the draft namespace or a page with one of the three draft templates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The consensus on the "draft article" template

This is somehow related to the early RfCs and the discussion on the categories for drafts.

My question is what is the consensus of the use of the "draft article" template? Should the use of the template be encouraged or discouraged? Right now, most of the pages in the draft namespace do not have this template. What is the purpose of the template? (for the pages in the draft namespace) -- Taku (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose is to make the page eligible for G13. No one ever has any incentive to put it on their page. Neither do they have any good reason to use draft space. Draft Space is just a place we send newcomers so that they don't make much bother. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Concensus was established in the early days of the draft namespace and its purpose is to clearly identify the page as a draft as not to confuse it with an actual article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC pointer: CSD G13 to include all draft-space drafts

Watchers of this page may be interested in WT:CSD#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That proposal has been opposed at this page for years and now it gets discussed at a different page? How quaint. Diego (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to past discussions here? New CSD criteria get proposed at WT:CSD. It is driven, for me, by the state of MfD, see WT:MfD. Do you have alternative suggestions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Best idea I've seen in a long time for dealing properly with the mountain of crap so we can find the notable Drafts Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft classifier template revisited

In light of SmokeyJoe's proposal on the expansion of G13 to all drafts, which seems to be going to pass, I would like to propose the modified version of the draft classifier template (#RFC: The draft classifier template.) It's the same template but without the G13 column. That is, the template is something like

Draft classifier	Main: Misplaced Pages. Notability: yes. Subject: Culture.

Since we have already run a RfC and there was a broad support (except on the G13 part), I want to see if there is any strong objection to the template. In practice, the notability column should be used in conjunction with G13: use G13 somehow judiciously if the notability column is yes. That is, since G13 is essentially applied without reviews (many good AfC-drafts get deleted just because they are 6 months old), we require that G13 be applied with "some review" if the notability column is yes. Since I'm not familiar with the minutiae of the deletion process, maybe someone can elaborate on "some review" here. -- Taku (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest the classifier include an optional, non-default, G13-exempt, for pages that an experienced editor claims to have promise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle. We probably need some mechanism to prevent abuse, though. -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• See Stale Abstract mathematic Draft pages. The policy WP:NOTWEBHOST must prevail over an assertion that a topic is notable—if something is notable, a new article can be developed when someone is available to properly present the material. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The policy is really applicable to off-topic content (off-topic from the encyclopedic point of view); follow the link. The policy pages lists: 1. Personal web pages. 2. file storage, etc. So that policy doesn't really apply to drafts like math drafts cited above. -- Taku (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a page which might become an article is good, but keeping it indefinitely is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Consider a different topic. Would you support keeping forever a hundred drafts where each was a trivial mention of a character from pop culture? Misplaced Pages does not provide a web hosting service, so a draft must be developed or face deletion. Your reading of NOTWEBHOST is merely pointing out that clearly off-topic pages are deleted faster. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No I don't support hubdreads of such drafts; but I actually now see why you invoked the policy. You wrote "a draft must be developed or face deletion". This is just wrong (or I'm very temped to say fake!). No there is no such consensus and this draftspace page doesn't say a draft will be deleted unless it keeps developing steady. I believe what you wanted to say is that one should not abuse the draftspace. I see a genuine difference between drafts on tens of notable encyclopedia topics and hundreds of drafts on non-notable topics. Note a number here is important; if for example one editor had hundreds of drafts in the draftspace for no good reason, that might indicate. It's better to ask if which leads to more content in the end: having some tens of drafts on math topics or simply deleting them. -- Taku (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion in #RfC: the clarification on the purpose of the draftspace below since we are getting off-topic. -- Taku (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a pointer that, unless there is a strong objection to the template for the next 2/3 days, I'm implementing the template. -- Taku (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as an attempt for TakuyaMurata to legitimize their walled garden of micro-stub math articles remaining in Draft space in perpituity. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per Hasteur and see below. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as totally out of process. If the community decides on a speedy deletion criterion at a wide community venue, only a similarly wide discussion can create exceptions to that. A tiny discussion on this page without an RfC banner or wide advertisements doesn't qualify. ~ Rob₁₃ 16:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually we already have a RfC: running the same RfC seems a bit redundant. -- Taku (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So you acknowledge you're forum shopping by creating another discussion on the same topic. Glad that's clear. Can we get a speedy close on this one? ~ Rob₁₃ 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the background of this thread was that the circumstance is different: this time there is no G13 column because of the recent proposed expansion of G13. Since this was most controversial part of the RfC and it's now missing, I assumed there is not much opposition (except the above off-topic oppositions). I'm still waiting for legitimate oppositions. -- Taku (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just hopeless but this (and the below) are not really about my drafts; I wanted to have some general discussion and work with the general mechanism. Apparently it's not working... -- Taku (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another pointer: since the above opposes do not address the merits of the template per se, they will be discounted. -- Taku (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: the clarification on the purpose of the draftspace

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear disagreement on the proper use of the draftspace. For example, one edtior in the just above section wrote "a draft must be developed or face deletion". This is a very clear indication that, in his view, there exists a deadline of sort on the pages in the draftspace; the user is not alone in thinking that way (develop or die!). My understanding is that the draftspace was created to host drafts that are previously hosted in the user pages; so to improve discoverability or avoid duplicate efforts. This meant no deadline for example. Anyway, I just wonder what the other editors think and I want it to be on the record that the claim like "a draft must be developed or face deletion" is as fake as (put your favorite example). -- Taku (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Because TakuyaMurata is not telling the full truth, I will. TakuyaMurata wants to legitimize their argument that Draft space is the perfect place to store micro-stubs that barely have enough content such as Draft:Cotensor product forever without any improvement. That Math wikiproject has suggested that they take their content back to userspace (which has been rejected), that MFDs have endorsed the delete, that I and others have suggested to him that instead of creating new content, he finish cleaning up what messes he's already made. In short, Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. They help facilitate new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Misplaced Pages's mainspace. nowhere in the policy page does it indicate that drafts that appear to have a chance at becoming articles ergo why WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• This pseudo RfC is nonsense. One editor wants to indefinitely store fragments on a website, and they have chosen Misplaced Pages. The problem is that mounting piles of stuff means it becomes impossible for anyone to find useful content in the drafts—content that might be developed to an article. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to develop an encyclopedia, and indefinitely storing passing thoughts about topics related to science or pop-culture or anything is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• See User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts for a list of about 50 such pages. If Taku spent half the time on developing his microstub drafts as he does defending their existence we would have several dozen useful articles instead of silly drama. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest Speedy close as this RFC is clearly improper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest Speedy close as this RFC is clearly improper, and as per Legacypac. Also suggesting that TakuyaMurata withdraw this RfC themself or face a lot of complaints for wasting the community's time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: on the proper use of the draftspace

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There does exist a need for some broad discussion about the proper use of the draftspace, as opposed to having local fights in MfDs and such. As I wrote above, the draftspace was created to hold draft pages that were previously kept in the user pages. The idea was this would reduce, for example, the duplicate efforts or allow a new editor to pick up when old drafts are left abandoned. This is why imposing a deadline or deleting abandoned drafts does not make sense. It is important to codify this fact somehow. (Moving the draft pages to the user pages also make no sense for the same reason.) The RfC is the best method for that. Can we just cool down and have actual discussion? (Obviously having discussion should not be opposed for the sake of opposition.) -- Taku (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the view that the draftspace is a failed attempt or not heading in the right direction. We may need to revisit that view; i.e., maybe we should just dump the draftspace. Please comment on that too. -- Taku (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Experience from participating in RfCs shows that they are pointless unless framed in terms of an actionable question to be resolved. Is the proposal that WP:NOTWEBHOST should be repealed and people should be able to store drafts indefinitely? Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the third discussion Taku has started along these lines, presumably to support his use of draftspace as a webhost for a bunch of stubs. If a fourth discussion goes up before the week is out, the proposal will be to topic ban Taku from discussions related to the use of draftspace. ~ Rob₁₃ 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I would be inclined to support such a topic ban already, no need to wait for a fourth "discussion". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Project-Class AfC project pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment