Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Drafts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DRAFTS)

Draftify diagram

[edit]

Alalch E. has made a handy diagram that describes the 'gray zone' between deletion and mainspace where draftification comes into play. Would it be useful to add it or something similar to this page? @Alalch E.: Would it be possible to generate an SVG version so that others could edit it as this guideline evolves? – Joe (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Converted, thanks.—Alalch E. 16:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult for me to read. After staring at it for a few minutes, I guess it's mainly divided into 3 sections: red, gray, and green. I still don't understand DELREASON vs no DELREASON, A vs B vs B', or the subcircles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A and B are sets that do not intersect. A are all the articles that should be deleted, B are all the articles that should not be deleted, and B' is a subset of B comprising articles that should likewise not be deleted but are subject to unilateral draftification. B' being laid over a zone marked as draftspace indicates that they will end up in draftspace. There is a chance that they can be improved (just as there is a chance that any article in the remainder of A can be improved), but when hope is lost and it turns out that they can not be improved or have been effectively abandoned (equalling an assumption that they can't), they are deleted. When it turns out that an article that should not have been deleted initially, because it seemed like there is a chance of suitable improvement, can not, in fact, be suitably improved, and there was no specific reason to draftify, it should be deleted (not draftified).
Articles that should be deleted should be deleted, not draftified. The general reason to draftify is a need to keep the page out of view of general readership while it's given a chance, and for most articles with what we would call big problems, there's no such need because readers can see the problem themselves (and with the help of tags) or it does not affect them negatively. If someone wants to read an accurate directory-like page that could maybe be reshaped into an encyclopedia article, fine. If the final conclusion is that it can't, deletion ensues. Moving to draft doesn't do anything there. But there's no sense in tagging a page with "this page about an upcoming event about which few things can be verified is probably mostly misinformation, and facts will probably be significantly different when the event happens, so don't even read it"; but the event might happen and be notable, so there's no point in deleting either. —Alalch E. 17:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram, complicated as it already is, does not appreciate that not all deletion discussion result in deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that just has to be abstracted I think. It concerns idealized cases. An idealized case like: Topic has dubious notability (according to one editor who tags it with the notability tag; there's still a chance) -> a while later someone does a proper WP:BEFORE and determines that the topic is not notable (there's no chance; that editor is simply correct per his idealized WP:BEFORE) -> article is deleted using an appopriate process (other editors agree, so the process is also idealized). —Alalch E. 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Topic not notable after a BEFORE” does not mean “There is no chance”. Eg WP:TOOSOON, WP:NFF. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "COI creation" does not mean "not ready for mainspace". To the contrary, we encourage COI creators to create their content as drafts and apply for it to be moved to mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just shorthand for The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process (from WP:DRAFTREASON). There's an arrow to the right indicating that COI creations can become articles.—Alalch E. 23:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's intended to denote that at a given time (the time when the detemination is made) there is not a chance that the article should exist. A non-notable rapper or politician for whom there is "no chance" can become notable in the future, etc. I didn't mean it to say "never". —Alalch E. 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A diagram is not a useful teaching tool if it requires the viewer to infer the artist’s intentions. This diagram should never be used on a project page, but I encourage you to keep trying diagrams to develop and express your thinking.
    For teaching, the best diagrams are very simple. Diagrams are not so good for comprehensive purposes, and the intended meaning becomes lost in the details, and the amount of detail makes it difficult to refine the diagram. Detailed diagrams are great, but only for private use. Reveal only greatly simplified versions that illustrate only the intended point.
    I think File:Consensus Flowchart.svg is a great diagram.
    I think File:NPP flowchart.svg is a terrible diagram.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems with a diagram (such as overly complex or requiring inference) may be revealing problems with the process. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I've personally never been a big fan of the NPP flowchart either (because it flattens things out, failing to convey that some things are more important to check than others, and that not every article requires the same type of attention), I recently did a straw poll of NPPers and most found it useful: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Flowcharts. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, thanks.
    I agree especially with PamD in its Discussion section, I was going to say the same thing.
    I think comprehensively detailed flowcharts are off-putting to newcomers. But the detailed NPR flowchart would be excellent as a cheatsheet for experienced NPR-ers, or for them to check they are across all the details, or for them to collectively critique their process. The ability to map a process to a logical flowchart correlates with whether the process is logical. Increasing the visual simplicity of a comprehensively detailed flowchart should help with improving the efficiency of the process. Alalch’s chart might be similarly useful, but don’t put it on the WP:Drafts page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, exactly as Kvng wrote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from draftspace to the mainspace which are not the result of a move

[edit]

@Steel1943 and Tavix: Re: from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Draft:Joe Biden.

Drafts are sometimes redirected to an article or section of an article where the topic is already covered. Regardless of whether it should happen, it does. However, this seems completely reasonable in my mind. It leads anyone attempting to draft on the topic to where the information we may already have on it may reside. This avoids duplication and allows expansion if a standalone or different article is not appropriate.

This leads to the question, what should be done with such redirects. G13, very correctly in my opinion, does not apply to redirects. Thus, the only way to seek their removal (the crusade to "cleanup" draftspace is relentless, but I will not editorialize on that aside from this short parenthetical) is through redirects for discussion. At the end of the day, they are really just harmless navigational aids pointing somewhere likely helpful to any potential draftees.

Are such redirects, bar exceptional circumstances, something we want to regularly handle and delete at RfD? Or, are they something we want to discourage nominations of at RfD and leave well enough alone? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also ping Robert McClenon as not to leave anyone from the aforementioned discussion unaware. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SRE. Draft namespace pages are often speedily redirected to the mainspace if they do not obviously meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion and [are] an exact match of a topic already covered within mainspace when listed at miscellany for deletion. Thus, allowing the deletion of such redirects at RfD, allows a potential merry-go-round of deletion seeking if one desires it. Or, further even, redirecting a draft and then nominating it for backdoor deletion at RfD (instead of letting it go naturally through G13). I suppose one could make the opposite argument in regard to 'saving' drafts, but again, relatively harmless. In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote that deletion guideline based on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 14#Speedy redirect approximately five years ago. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Redirect has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following are all examples of redirects out of draftspace that should generally be kept:
    • From drafts moved to mainspace
    • From drafts merged with a mainspace article
    • From drafts merged with another draft that was later moved or merged to mainspace
    • From drafts that duplicate an existing mainspace article
    • From the title of a draft that was moved within draftspace before being merged or moved to mainspace
    • From titles that were never drafts but at which a draft that duplicates an existing mainspace article might reasonably be created.
    The only reason we should be deleting a redirect in any namespace is because it is harmful, and Godsy presents good examples of ones that are not harmful, indeed it is harder for a redirect in draftspace to be harmful than it is one in mainspace (and draftspace does not need to be "cleaned up"). Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF draftspace does not need to be cleaned up, G13 should be repealed. At present there is a very real disconnect between WP:SRE and WP:G13. I editorialized this further at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26#Draft:Giannis Antetokounmpo. -- Tavix (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: For what it's worth, when I reverted your edits which resulted in you opening this discussion, I just didn't agree with your somewhat WP:BOLD addition to the WP:RDRAFT guideline since ... what will happen is that editors who have never been involved in the process before will start citing it as a reason to "keep" or "delete" without understanding it ... since I have done that before. I get it, you added to the guideline since you considered it precedence, but adding it without discussion would "de facto" mean the addition is uncontroversial, which isn't the case since I disagree with it. Other than my disagreement which resulted in the reversion of your edit, I don't have any other effort to add to this discussion, will probably abide by and implement whatever is discussed here, and I thank you for opening this discussion to get this settled. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: No worries -- many of the discussions that made me feel comfortable in expanding the scope of RDRAFT are quite dated now. Revisiting a topic and allowing fresh perspectives that have developed over time is often beneficial. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Godsy and Thryduulf. There's no harm in keeping these redirects, and some benefit from having the page history in draftspace for editors to draw on. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Draft:Taylor Swift and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Draft:Donald trump. --MikutoH talk! 23:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New draft created

[edit]

Hi everyone, I made this Draft:Choi Yu-ju yesterday, I hope someone can review it. Thanks - Jjpachano (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjpachano They would not have seen it because you had not submitted it. I have done this for you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying splits

[edit]

The List of kidnappings, previously one of our longest pages, was recently split by century/date. One of them was moved to the Draft: space over alleged BLP violations (i.e., naming the perpetrator). There is a question at Talk:List of kidnappings about whether long-standing article content, placed on a brand-new page, can/should be treated like a new article or like an old one, wrt "The article was not created within the last 90 days" in WP:DRAFTNO. I don't know if this has ever been discussed before, so I hope that one of you will know the answer and reply over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTOBJECT is all that you need to do if you see someone is using draft space in a questionable way like this. You don't even need to provide a justification. There's always a better process available for controversial material once the content is back in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace BLP drafts

[edit]

I encountered a BLP draft at User:Fsekoech. I was tempted to slap a {{BLP}} on it, but then realized that these go on talk pages, which doesn't work in this case. So my question is: How to tag? Paradoctor (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edits to the draft (Draft:Sultan al-Malki) and on the creator's talk page. —Alalch E. 08:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there is a misunderstanding here. I wasn't asking merely about that particular page, but the general case:
How to tag a BLP draft in userspace?
Assume wlog that the draft has no issues other than being incomplete. No missing sources, no COI, just a work in progress. Paradoctor (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it'd be OK to not apply the tag for that particular edge case. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say edge case, I say cn. 🤷
More to the point, I was hoping someone could point out prior art here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I don't intend to do draft reviews. I encounter these in the course of maintenance. Tagging is a service for those better equipped than me for reviews. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Drafts&oldid=1250797703"