Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

goal

I tried to adjust the "goal" from zero, but it seems to break the template.

The problem is that not all stale drafts listed should be deleted. Not all are necessarily abandoned. The goal of a hard zero creates, or appears to assert, a zero tolerance.

The real problem is NOTWEBHOST and NOTPROMOTION and other WP:NOT violations that represent most of the list. The goal should be the removal of WP:NOT violations, or at least that would be a much more respectable goal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mostly agree with you. I don't read a zero goal as a goal to delete all the pages but rather a goal of looking at them all. Most pages benefit from some action (blank, CSD, MfD, promote to draft or main, redirect, and sometimes merge & redirect) but we just remove pages (with no action taken) from the list that exist in the userspace of an active user. Sometimes we bring the pages to the attention of the active user for their optional action. Perhaps you want to add a note to the page rather then trying to change the "goal" as that seems to mess up the page. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire template and table. You are correct. We should tryign to get the tables to zero not necessarily the category. - Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebooting project

@Legacypac: and @Ricky81682:,

We should start this drive back up again. The backlog of stale drafts are clogging up monthly categories and are just taking up space in Wikipedia. This drive was a hit pre 2016 and I propose we reboot it up and advertise it. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, @Northamerica1000:, and @Ricky81682:

You are the main people associated with this project. The backlog of stale drafts are clogging up monthly categories and are just taking up space in Wikipedia. This drive was a hit pre 2016 and I propose we reboot it up and advertise it. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: @Legacypac: @Ricky81682: I've draftified many stale drafts that were in user space, there are many left, and it is time consuming. The steps that need to be taken include:

First checking for potential copyright infringement. I use Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and other methods, such as copying content into google to look for potential copyvio. If it's copyvio, then it can be deleted. Other qualifications for deletion are sometimes present, particularly as per WP:G11 and WP:NOTWEBHOST.
Checking if an article already exists in main namespace. If so, sometimes redirection is fine, particularly when the userspace draft is of inferior quality compared to the mainspace draft.
If userspace drafts have not been edited for a fair amount of time, say six months or more, and no main namespace article exists, then I use the Draftify gadget to move the content to draft namespace.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: About the "not been edited" part. When could it qualify for G13 or G6? Not every user space should be moved to draft. There are some users who have not edited in years and the draft has been stale for years. Any insight as to when CSD is appropriate for abandoned drafts? AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 only applies to content in draft namespace and userspace content that has the {{AFC submission}} template which has not been edited in six months or more. It does not apply to userspace content without the AfC template, but G13 is applicable to Draft namespace content without the template. G6 varies, so I recommend you read it, as I don't really want to explain it all here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I read up on the different CSDs. A question I have is why should we "draftify" Userspace content that has not been edited in years? If the user is inactive on it, what does drafting it do? AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creates the potential for a new article about a topic, as long as it is a notable topic. After all, Wikipedia is about expanding access to the world's knowledge, rather than limiting it. Someone could come along and improve the draft, making it worthy of main namespace. Conversely, sending to draft also creates an opportunity for a page to be deleted after six months, as per G13. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Good answer. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is why I draftify potentially useful stuff. Move it forward and give it a chance but if no one uses it let it be cleaned up. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, @Northamerica1000:, and @Ricky81682: Section 2 is complete! Thanks for the reboot NorthA. Always can count on you.AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long this project has been linked from the Community Portal (just shows how often I actually read the page, rather than use it as a shortcut) but I've added to the note to say that abandoned userspace drafts can also just be moved to mainspace. I'd urge participants always to bear this radical option in mind, at least where the user's previous history suggests no problematic behaviour. The other thing that might be worthwhile is notifying Wikiprojects, who can sometimes be encouraged to take ownership of promising material in their purview. Moving to draftspace in the absence of any advertising is nearly always just a 6-month-delayed speedy. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to mainspace has always been listed as a posibility with several variations even listed (AfC, Direct move, merge and redirect). Finding good content for mainspace is a key reason to work on this list. Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete finished sections?

@Legacyac:, Should we delete the finished sections? They are empty and have been for a while. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Within the 46 list pages you mean? Yes delete the headings of empty sections. Hope I understand the question. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: I'm hoping that the bot will be able to soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I meant to say the sections like drafts/1, etc. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started deleting the section headings like here [1] to make the count easier. We don't need to open sections and delete a few pages at a time now, just work down the list. Blanked pages are still an issue but the pain of counting by section is worse. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: feel free to leave the section headings in - the bot removes empty sections automatically now --DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: All headers of the sections have been deleted. Count should be improved now. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot clerking

Due to a bot requested, I opened a brfa (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 18) to clerk the subpages of this project. The trial for it has started, and comments are welcome. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are a wonderful person. This will advance the project greatly. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Also, the table (apart from the total and the progress bar) is now completely automated using Lua! --DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Thank-you. Some real progress on this project now. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Yeah. Anything else you need? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion misunderstanding

Hi all! I'm new so bear with me, up to this point I've focused on creating new articles and adding to existing ones. I noticed this project and thought it looked interesting so I had a look through the list last night and tagged some articles for speedy deletion in the belief that I was being helpful. I made a few mistakes:

I started by replacing the content of pages with the Db-g13 tag; for some reason I assumed that this tag was used in the same way as Db-g7 (author request). Obviously this is not true, and I understand that now.
I was also not notifying users of the tags I was placing on their userspace drafts. Again, an admin explained this to me and I activated Twinkle to automate the process.
Some of the drafts I tagged did not contain the AFC template. However, they were still deleted by admins not reinstated. I think this is the source of my confusion (totally not blaming admins, this is on me).

I tagged a few more userspace drafts using Twinkle, but having re-read the CSD I wasn't sure if the drafts were elegible so I removed the tags. My understanding of the CSD is that the drafts have to have been submitted as AFC AND not edited in the previous 6 months by a human, but some that I tagged and subsequently were deleted did not contain the AFC template. I was wondering if someone could explain the criteria for speedy deletion in the context of this WikiProject? What happens to stale userspace drafts that do not contain the AFC tag? I guess they are left alone? I honestly just want to be helpful, I think this is a perfect example of someone knowing just enough to be dangerous! Ballpointbiro (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]