Category talk:Stale userspace drafts
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stale userspace drafts category. |
|
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Recent changes
[edit]I disagree with some of the changes to the lead of this page that have occurred today:
- diff: Removal of MfD linkage, an important resource, while also advising to blank pages instead, but this does not take WP:NOTWEBHOST and elements of WP:STALEDRAFT into consideration. MfD remains a valid option for some stale userspace drafts; readers should be aware of this option.
- diff: Removal of the advisement and option to add the Submit template to articles. More options are a good thing, less options provide just that, less options.
- – I have restored this content. Please discuss here, per WP:BRD. North America1000 01:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks North America. Fair points. I see some redundancy with the advice here: Wikipedia:User_pages#Old_unfinished_draft_articles, but unifying the advice, if a good idea, will require some care. Too many options, too many lines advice, decreases the likelihood of the text actually being read, that was a large part of my motivation. The answer might be better formatting. It also might belong better on a project page, such as Wikipedia talk:Managing drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- North America, you removed Not every notable topic needs a stand alone article? This is not so much an opinion, but an truism inherent in WP:N, and a point missed by nearly every editor seeking to delete a draft on notability grounds. It belongs somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- The lead in WP:N states, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", which is true, WP:N does not guarantee this. However, the notion of "not every notable topic needs a stand alone article" in my view comes across as an opinion being stated as fact. WP:N does not state specifically that "not every notable topic needs a stand alone article." North America1000 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Do you question the fact? Or is it a question of wording. How about "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article". Or do you disagree with leaving redirects over accidental content forks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- The lead in WP:N states, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", which is true, WP:N does not guarantee this. However, the notion of "not every notable topic needs a stand alone article" in my view comes across as an opinion being stated as fact. WP:N does not state specifically that "not every notable topic needs a stand alone article." North America1000 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
redirects
[edit]I've long thought that creating redirects to mainspace are not always a good idea. They create redirect clutter, which I learned all about in the Neelix cleanup
- Someone copies a mainspace article here. May or may not modify it. May or may not incorporate those changes into mainspace. If they do incorporate the attribibution is already with their mainspace edit. If there are no changes there is no attribution issue. It's an UP#COPIES anyway.
- Someone drafts here then copies to mainspace. They get the mainspace attribution already. What happened here is irrelevent unless rarely, multiple users edited in userspace. I've never seen the logic of point 5 at WP:STALE. History merge for what purpose?
- redirects to help the user find the topic in mainspace are pointless. Anyone with a brain will not look in their old userspace for current info on topic X.
- a good use for a redirect would be if you copy content to mainspace from userspace and want to attribute. I've done that a few times.
- redirects due to page move are required and fine. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. Neelix was pretty extreme and shouldn't be used as justification. That said, some fair points. Often they are a good idea, but not always. They are often an easy way to tidy up, better than blanking. If the cleanup decision is subjective, the reversibility of redirection/blanking is an advantage. If you can objectively CSD it, great. If you have to call a meeting to discuss it, your solution is generating new costs for others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Redirects can be useful. For example, when an inferior, skeleton outline page in draft namespace exists about a topic that already has an article in main namespace, redirection can 1) encourage users to work on the main article, and 2) prevent unnecessary draft pages from being developed or recreated when a main namespace article already exists. North America1000 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. I see pages where the infobox or first section of a popular page is copied in. It's for building something else on the frame, not because they even intend to work on the copied topic.
- your point 2 is very true for draft space but not user space. Draft:Donald Trump would prevent draft creation but User:OneDayWonder/New Article title here not so much. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC).
- Yes. I see pages where the infobox or first section of a popular page is copied in. It's for building something else on the frame, not because they even intend to work on the copied topic.