Wikipedia talk:Managing drafts
Created following Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#We_do_need_a_policy_statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but instead of defining drafts (is that really a problem here?), I think the issue should be on when to allow for drafts (I think quite many pages that fail at AFD could stand to be userified or draftified and given a second chance) and when to thus keep drafts. We have semi-concrete criteria for when a page can go to mainspace from being a draft but no criteria for the reverse. I think if we formulate something for that ("a plausible chance to discuss a notable topic" or even something much less like "a plausible chance to have information from reliable sources that could be made into a separate article or merged into a current article"), it would move things along. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think I agree. I saved this page about the same time as Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring appeared, and that RfC seems to be doing very well. I think we should give it air, until it's conclusion. However, I am getting itchy about drafting the D* criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:VPI and just throw it out there. Be prepared as most of it will be "why should these be deleted" arguments or people mixing up user and draftspace for some odd reason. I think the better proposal is a draftprod option where there's a weeklong proposed deletion sitting there that anyone can remove. It's basically the same as sitting in MFD for a week but rather than having "blank" votes, just remove the prod and blank it and if the person cares enough to delete it, then they can go to MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, it needs to pass the WT:CSD crowd first. I noticed that the biggest reason the A* criteria can't apply to drafts is that the wording doesn't exactly match. Pump discussions are sources of noise and obfuscation if the proposal is not well defined, and for six months now progress has been hamstrung by discussions being at too many locations.
- I will oppose DraftProd in favour of slow CSD deletions, for the same reason UserSpace Prod was firmly rejected. Prod assumes a set of watchers. DraftSpace and UserSpace pages very rarely have watchers. I think a week wait for some issues, such as someone saying "obviously no potential" is too short, while others, an inferior redundant version of an existing mainspace article, with no new information or sources, is a fair call to make immediately.
- I really don't get why redirection of harmless things is so unacceptable to so many people, including you, but I get that it is. I don't get why you don't see that feeding the stuff into MfD has effectively killed MfD as a functioning process. CSD#D criteria appears to be the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't find irrelevant redirects to be helpful. As a preliminary matter, I don't support a policy that advocates for anyone to redirect other people's userspace contents without further discussion, especially since no one is ever really going to know the rampant unnounced blanking being done. Frankly, I find unannounced blanking of someone's content without discussion more off-putting than a standardized notice on their talk page that their contents are being discussed, a link to the discussion and then a resolution there, even if it is deletion. Even the newest of new editors are able to either post a comment on the notifying editor's or the admin's talk page. In contrast, like having vandalism reverted, having your page blanked (even with a notice about it) is more likely to result in the editor leaving and never returning. Most people say the same thing: they came to Wikipedia but they put up an edit and someone else without discussion reverted it as "vandalism." Secondarily, I don't get the point. They aren't related so I don't know what adding more and more redirects accomplishes. If the editor comes back and is fine, they can follow the discussion and learn where to go. If they are the problematic type, we won't know unless someone watches to see if the redirect is reverted and we're chasing the person down again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand what you say. Blanking/redirection, if done clumsily, could be taken as more rude than MfD-ing or CSD-ing. CSD-ing has an advantage of automation with polite and useful explanations given. Consequently, I believe that new CSD#D* criteria is the path forward.
- Blanking/Redirection can be done appropriately, with the use of the right blanking templates or redirection edit summary. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} works very well for pages of inactive users. {{Userpage blanked}} is good for something where a degree of confrontation over an inappropriate page is wanted. Redirection is appropriate if the message is obvious, such as redirecting a very old draft stub to a subsequently created mainspace article, it means "hey, look over there".
- I don't mind seeing problematic pages at MfD. That is the purpose of MfD. I object to completely non-problematic pages being listed. Mildly problematic pages, including an old unedited copy, if these are blanked with reference to the mainspace article, I don't think there is any realistic concern of an old user who never did anything bad coing back and suddenly doing what with an old userpage.
- Again, I think the way forward is new CSD criteria for drafts, and possibly a CSD criterion for WP:UP#COPIES, as long as you understand that accidental unrelated drafts on the same topic are not WP:UP#COPIES cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see them as different. It's not intentional but the primary solution is still the same: namely if there's content worth merging into the mainspace one, that should be the focus and then a redirect for attribution purposes. The issue is whether to redirect it otherwise. Again, I don't see the purpose of that. As to the CSD criteria, what were you thinking? Extending G13 won't fly and I'm not sure anything based on the passage of time will fly either so it's basically 'can we apply A1 to draftspace' to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't find irrelevant redirects to be helpful. As a preliminary matter, I don't support a policy that advocates for anyone to redirect other people's userspace contents without further discussion, especially since no one is ever really going to know the rampant unnounced blanking being done. Frankly, I find unannounced blanking of someone's content without discussion more off-putting than a standardized notice on their talk page that their contents are being discussed, a link to the discussion and then a resolution there, even if it is deletion. Even the newest of new editors are able to either post a comment on the notifying editor's or the admin's talk page. In contrast, like having vandalism reverted, having your page blanked (even with a notice about it) is more likely to result in the editor leaving and never returning. Most people say the same thing: they came to Wikipedia but they put up an edit and someone else without discussion reverted it as "vandalism." Secondarily, I don't get the point. They aren't related so I don't know what adding more and more redirects accomplishes. If the editor comes back and is fine, they can follow the discussion and learn where to go. If they are the problematic type, we won't know unless someone watches to see if the redirect is reverted and we're chasing the person down again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)