User talk:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft

Copied drafts

The script does not know if the article and the draft are identical or if one is better than the other, so it doesn't overwrite the existing draft if you tell it to override the warning. Instead, it creates Draft:Draft:title, which is a mess that needs to be manually cleaned up. Should the override option just be removed in this case there any scenario where we should allow that? MB 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to a new sub-section since it is a somewhat different situation. In this case, it is the content of draft was probably copied to mainspace. What is one supposed to do in this case? Ask an admin to merge revisions of the two pages (article and draft), maybe? If we can figure out some instructions to show the user, we can do that, and then close the draft window in the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion and a bug

I only just became aware of this updated script, thanks for taking it on and making improvements! There are two things that seem like they should be quick fixes:

• The COI-option needs more text pointing editors to the WP:COI and WP:UPE
• I can't seem to edit the text field to make any further changes beyond selecting from the presets. Could this be fixed?

Thanks agin! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill,

1. Adding links to WP:COI: Kudpung and MB knowingly designed the user talk page message, to avoid a sea of blue links. There is a link to Help:Unreviewed new page in the message. You can collaborate with them and make changes to that page maybe.
2. Editing the text field: This too was designed to be un-editable. The intention was for any shortcoming not covered by one the 6 hard-coded reasons, should be added to the 'Other' field. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, the interface was deliberately designed after much discussion within the best precepts of UX without an editable text window, and MPGuy2824 did an excellent job of writing the js to make it work.. If it were, it would defeat the entre purpose of having selectable reasons plus a field for additional comments or reasons. What you are probably not aware of is that the message carries a link to a brand new, friendly attractive information page in language that new users will understand instead of blasting them with alphabet soup and walls of text in pseudo Wiki legal jargon. The only bug still in the UI that I designed is that the text window has still not been relabelled 'Preview', but I am not a js coder and I don't know how to do it myself. Apart from that, this script and its info page for the draft creator are such a vast improvement already that any further tinkering is probably superfluous. More important is to insist that people who vote on any RfA fully understand that 'Move to Draft' is in no way governed by any existing policy and reviewers are free to interpret it in the best way in each situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• The new selectable reasons are great, but the text window should still be editable. The message is clearly attributed to the reviewer so we should have the ability to tweak the wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude it was deliberately designed to avoid patrollers making up their own messages. This was due to the many complaints that the old script was biting newbies. The patrollers have the option to address any other issues in the additional comments field that is there for that purpose. Research into Internet user experience (not specifically Wikipedia related) has demonstrated that if you give people an opportunity to tinker with something, they will. If you don't want your freely selected criteria attributed to you (because they are if you select them, thus they come from you and not the software), just use the free text field. If you belive a system of canned message is inappropriate system, you may wish to contact Novem Linguae, the steward of Twinkle, so that he can make similar changes to the 100s of canned messages(especially warnings and CSD) there, and the coordinator of AfC and its helper script so that they can do likewise. I won't stand in your way because for one thing, I'm retiring very soon from Wikipedia for good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the reason, but it's going to cause me to never use the notify author option so that I can just leave my own customized message instead. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor editors being notified of draftification

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T345125

Do either of these mistargeted user talk messages [1][2] indicate a bug or setting we need to adjust? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The script detects (and skips) minor edits, anon edits, and edits having particular change tags (e.g. awb, twinkle, mw-reverted, pagetriage, etc). In the case of Grupo Senda, one of your edits didn't meet any of the above checks. Also, many of the editors got the message, so i think this is working as intended.

It's not obvious at first glance why only OneL got the message for Fireaway. I'll investigate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a different template or message should be used for non-page creators. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess that should make it a bit more obvious. Feel free to tweak the wording of the two proposed messages on the ticket. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

problems installing

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T354588
Resolved

Hey, MPGuy! I removed the old script, added this one, bypassed cache, and when I click on Move to Draft, I get a blank gray box? Any idea what I may be doing wrong? Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, I would guess that some other script that you've installed is interfering with the working of this script. I'm happy to debug, but can you help me by (temporarily) commenting out all the other scripts in your common.js and trying this script again? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I had the same problem, and sat down and disabled scripts one by one. In my case it was User:SD0001/find-archived-section.js that caused a conflict. Seeing you have that script running in your common.js I thought you’d like to know. Best, Sam Sailor 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for this. Should help to find the problem and fix it faster. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I was able to replicate the problem by adding that script to my common.js. I've made some changes to my script's files and the problem doesn't occur now. I'll close the ticket after one of you tests this and confirms that it works. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm it works now, thank you. Sam Sailor 11:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I've been a bit busy IRL, but I'll check when I get a chance! Valereee (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Code suggestions

I like to wrap the entire script in $(function() {, and any config variables coming from the user I like to do via window.userScriptNameVarName. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've sorta done the second part of your suggestion (window.mtd.varName instead of window.varName) now. I'll take a look at some of your scripts for how you implemented the first part. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lately I've been using classes to not pollute the global namespace, like in User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple.js. But in some older scripts I haven't gotten around to upgrading yet I am still using the function wrapper technique, like User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserRightsDiff.js. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wording

If I try to draft an article edited less than 60 minutes ago, I see a message saying Draftifying isn't appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, as this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago. It may be better to say Draftifying may not be appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, as this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago. since many times those edits that were less than 60 minutes ago were simply maintenance tagging, categories, User:Citation bot, etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is better to be more conservative while deciding to count an edit or not while counting last edit time. In any case, the script ignores edits by some tools (like Twinkle, AWB, and pageTriage) and a few situations (like undo, rollback, revert) for this check. I can look into ignoring all bot edits during this check too. That said, your suggestion is a small change, and if it gets more support on this thread, I'm happy to make the change. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Page move script on mobile

I was wondering if the page move script could be used in the mobile version of Wikipedia. Maliner (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never tried it since I don't use the mobile version. Can you try it and see if you are facing issues? After that we can figure out if the issues are easily fixable or not. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I usually use my mobile phone to edit Wikipedia, and it is not available on mobile devices. For this reason, I am not using this script, as every time I need to open the desktop version to use the page move script, contrary to a simple page move option that is available on mobile devices. I will be happy if this script is available to mobile users too. Maliner (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maliner: (pinging, since I moved the discussion) Let me do some research and get back to you on this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I always provide valid move summaries while moving pages to draft space, which I think is enough to explain why their page has been moved to draft space as this script is not available to mobile users at the moment (if I am not missing anything). And as far as notification to the page creator is concerned, I think they always see a green notice showing their draft's location while revisiting their moved page; for example, see Burhan-ul-Haq Jabalpuri. I know this is not enough for someone like you. But this is the only option available to mobile users at the moment, unless you want me to type manually the move summary again at the creator's talk. Maliner (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Template added to drafts

I'd suggest adding {{Draft article}} to newly-draftified articles instead of {{AfC draft}}. It still includes a "submit for review" button but does not assume the creator has opted-in to AfC (which they are of course not required to use) or knows what it is. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the status quo (Template:AfC draft) is fine. Happy to hear other opinions though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Any thoughts on this? – Joe (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I've submitted a merge request with this change: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/mpg/moveToDraft/-/merge_requests/1 – Joe (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Joe, I've never done a merge on gitlab before, so I'm holding on that until I figure out the right way to do it. Don't change anything related to the merge request till then, please. Your changes looked ok, so I've applied them to the enwiki version of the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I object to the shortsighted and poorly thought out change. It's not helpful and it'll lead to people not even reading or understanding what's wrong with the page that was moved to draft space. We don't want to push people off Wikipedia, and this change WILL because more garbage will get sent to AfD instead of being given the chance to be improved and worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way Joe, I appreciate your efforts lately. You've helped to remind me why moving to draft space is so important and I actually have increased the rate at which I move to draft space as a result. It's important to normalize the helpful and useful habit so that editors aren't chased off the site by their work being sent to AfD or deleted because they couldn't figure out our guidelines within seven days. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Josh, this page doesn't have a lot of watchers. Since you feel strongly about this change, consider starting a thread at a more watched discussion page (WT:AFC or WT:NPPR). I'm happy to comply with any consensus reached. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why this was missed. A change like this is fairly significant and I'd think Joe should require consensus before such an implementation. Based on the issues, and the strong feelings I have about it, would you be opposed to a fork if this is implemented? As mentioned, I do believe the change Joe is proposing is damaging to the encyclopedic efforts, which is why I'm very opposed to using it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

if this is implemented Josh, this was live on the enwiki version of the script a day before your oppose message. If I get a 3rd oppose (after yours and NL's), i.e. a 75% supermajority, I will be undoing the change. I asked for a discussion (in a place where editors frequent) so that there is a consensus (either way) that I can point to, instead of repeatedly doing/undoing changes to the script depending on when supporters/opposers come here to vote their opinion.

would you be opposed to a fork Legally, I cannot, due to the license that is used for any edit on Wikipedia. My advice would be to hold off on this for a week at least. I say a week because I'm hoping that the Village Pump (Idea lab) discussion will either peter out or gain some sort of consensus by then. Also, presenting a choice of two scripts that basically do the same thing would just be confusing to reviewers, especially if the functionalities diverge a lot over time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Which is why this was missed. A change like this is fairly significant and I'd think Joe should require consensus before such an implementation – ??? I proposed this for discussion four months ago and nobody except Novem commented until yesterday, after the change was made. Proposing changes on the talk page of the page to be changed is the 100% normal way to do things and, given that the original choice of template was the product of zero discussion, I had no reason to expect that changing it to the 'default' template for drafts would be seen either significant or controversial.

Anyway, I think that since AfC is explicitly optional for most editors, you would need to demonstrate a positive consensus that creators of draftified articles should be pushed (or forced?) to use it. Your indignation here really puts lie to your contention that this is about helping new editors to improve articles. If this was about that, i.e. empowering them to recognise themselves as editors of the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", on a par with the rest of us, then you would be want to be transparent about the options available to them: AfC or direct move. But it's not, it's about ensuring that the reviewer cadre retains control over what gets to be in mainspace and that newbies know their place. The reviewer's judgement of "what's wrong with the page" is not a subjective opinion that they can choose to disagree with, it's a requirement they must accept and satisfy. And your plan to respond to a high-profile community discussion about whether draftification is a good idea by deliberately draftifying more articles sounds a lot like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Are you sure you want to go down this road? – Joe (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Custom reason

While it is a great tool, but unfortunately, it doesn't shows provided custom reason. It just displays 'custom reason' text than showing actual edit summary. I draftified this with this reason "Please refer to WP:NMUSIC for future reference". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2024

This is not a malfunction, but was done on purpose. The actual custom reason provided can be very long (even a few sentences) and only needs to be seen by contributors to the draftified page. There is no need to clutter up edit and log summaries. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Since {{AfC draft}} is no longer used by this script, the part reading "please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button" is now out of date. Please replace it with "please click on the 'Submit for review' button", as that is the button that appears when {{draft article}} is used. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)