Wikipedia talk:Drafts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 18 December 2013

Search capability

Regarding this edit: as I believe the Draft namespace itself is not yet available, is it necessary to have a footnote indicating that the search capability has not been implemented yet? isaacl (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once it's launched you will be able to select Draft/Draft talk from the list of namespaces to search. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open questions

So the draft namespace is going to be enabled not too far from now, but that's really just the basics. If this is going to be something that is actually widely used and really useful, there are more open questions about the experience that we need to answer. I plan on listing as many as I can here, so we can talk about them. Some questions are really hypotheses that we can run controlled experiments to answer, but others really need community input to answer well.

Should we disallow or discourage creation of drafts if an article already exists? What about for redirects?
How do people want to be able to search for Drafts? Should we add it as an option on Search? (The thread above is probably the relevant place to talk about this one.)
Should we create a feed of drafts, e.g. Special:Drafts?
How should categories work on drafts? Do we want them to show up in article categories? Should we remove draft categories from the category page listings, so that we can use article categories on drafts without them showing up?
Should we encourage editors (particularly new page patrollers) to move some articles back to draft status rather than nominate them for deletion? If so, how?

I figure we could probably make sub-sections for each these, including with more explanation, but this is just to get us started. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My initial responses, subject to change based on good arguments, are:

1a) Discourage (but allow) drafts for existing articles, per UserDraft policy which permits such drafts.

1b) When creating a draft article where a redirect exists, we should provide a 'warning message' alerting them to the existence of the redirect and providing guidance about the nature of redirects. Again, allow creation after a warning, per UserspaceDrafts.

2) Definitely allow Drafts into advanced search; probably allow Drafts into default search so long as it's returns are ranked below corresponding articlespace results.

3) agnostic

4) Categories are a useful tool for preparing an article for creation and in recruiting experts who can help nurture articles. Definitely allow the inclusion of existing categories in Drafts. A later feature could include an option for editors to learn about new drafts based of "starred" categories, allowing newbies to quickly connect with subject matter experts.

5) Yes! Move to Draft should become a very common response. "Deletion" is a very negative thing, people feel like they got an "F" on their work. But "moving it back to draft" is far more encouraging: "B: Needs Improvement". --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reply:

5) There should be a limit on this, such as: Move to draft vs. nominating for deletion is only recommended if there is a reasonable chance that the article could be improved to the point that it would survive any deletion nomination, and it has not already been through a review process and it is less than a certain age in its current incarnation, e.g. less than 30 days old (if it was a a completely different article then changed to a redirect then re-written 29 days ago, it's "29 days old" in its current incarnation, despite the edit history being longer). "Move to draft" can also be an outcome of an AFD discussion, but mainly in cases where "delete with no prejudice to userfication" would be an outcome today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 5. above. Yes, page patrollers should have the option of moving new pages to the Draft: namespace. It would be nice if Special:NewPagesFeed had this option built in. 64.40.54.34 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re 5: First thought: Move to Draft as HectorMoffet says. Probably a speedy G-X too. Also less hurting that a true deletion; absolute CSDs resons should prevail (like copyvio). To be added: "Delete from Dreft" as a Speedy.

But wait, wait. Isn't this a Move? -DePiep (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are not logged in

Resolved

The second sentence starts "Unless you are not logged in..." which is a double negative. Would it be better written as "If you are logged in...". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is a quirky language. In this context, "not logged in" is a specific state, so this isn't strictly speaking a double-negative even though it looks like one. Even though the existing text is grammatically correct, your proposed phrasing has the advantage of being shorter and slightly less awkward. Be bold and change it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What davidwr said. Be bold, my friends. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updates notices, warnings, etc.

We should probably update our messages and other notices such as MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate once the draft namespace is implemented. 64.40.54.34 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox behaviour

Al lot of behaviour in Draft, expected or featured, has parallels with template:example/sandbox behaviour. Should and could these behavings be in the ns by system, or are we (newby article creators) expected to code exceptions? Possible .../sandbox features & options to be considered:

Do not publicise in content categories
Mirror source code into Draft code
Template:Main other works includes yes/no Draft space
Allow easy versioning (in a draft article, could that be any Mydraft/Version2 subpage? Nicely it allows only one version in Article space. AC/DC breaks this logic).

-DePiep (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC) -added #4 -DePiep (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Come to think of it:[reply]

Replace WP:Sandbox. (into Draft:Sandbox?) -DePiep (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DePiep. Thanks for chiming in here. I have a few ideas...

I left an open question about categories above and on the technical specification. If we want, we can actually suppress categories on Drafts from appearing in the listings. This would allow new authors to avoid confusion by letting them use categories normally, would keep us from having to do work cleaning up categories before or after publication of drafts, and so on.
Not sure what you mean by "Mirror source code in to Draft code"? If you mean the source of "template:example/sandbox"... I don't see a template with that name?
I'm unfamiliar with Template:Main other. Can you talk a little bit about why it would be useful?
About versioning... why do you think we'd want separate draft pages for the same topics? Should we just use the regular page histories for individual drafts, and encourage people to work on new drafts together? Having separate subpages for drafts could create problems and/or extra work when it comes time to merge or abandon some subpages.

Thanks again, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sandboxes (e.g. Template:Cite web/sandbox) are used for improving an existing template. My current thoughts are that the Draft namespace should be focused on drafts of new articles, rather than improving existing articles or templates. Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re. First of all the concept of Draft should be clear for development: it is a sandbox for (new only?) articles? Once clear, more detailed ns behaviour shall follow. I understand Draft is especially aimed at new or inexperienced editors, and works outside of content space.

Then, some first notes. mw:Draft_namespace opens saying "support Wikipedia article creation". This could be expanded with wording about page "development", to include both editing and talking. I guess we all understand it to be that, implicitly. Also a clear word on "experimenting is/not allowed" should be said, one of these days.

Draft namespace covers WP:SANDBOX in aspects. But once live, there should be no need to bother newbies with elaborate warnings & in-page guidelines as today's WP:sandbox has. For these users, as little mental obstacles as possible. To test one's thinking: today's WP:sandbox should go after Draft is live.

In template and module spaces, "/sandbox" subpages are used to develop & test new code before going putting it live into the parent page. A lot of coding time is spend to keep these two separated though within the family. My main note here is to advocate that such sandbox providings & behaviour, both WP:SANDBOX and Template:Cite web/sandbox forms, are build into the core of the namespace. They should not be added later on in templates (warnings, documentation, instructions). Draft should be one big sandbox by definition & design, not just by name. Having to trawl through instructions is not going to invite new or inexperienced users. The horror of horrors is a wp:template:sandbox, which I do not understand or use even today.

With mirror I mean the existing option in template space. It is a linkbutton in the documentation, that copies a live code page into a new /sandbox subpage (so one can start editing in sandbox). From then on, the button is labeled "edit" (to open the sandbox for edit). See bottom of a template documentation page. This would be equivalent to "copy article code into Draft to edit there" (this option not yet agreed, I now). This is just to illustrate workings of existing draft=sandbox options.

I am a bit disturbed by reading "versions are already in the history only, and let's force editors to cooperate in a single one draft version only" (my reading of Steven (WMF)'s reply here). This is setting a limit on future use by policy. All experienced editors know those long talkpage threads where versions are described, repeatredly, verbose. And worse, how is an new or inexperienced editor expected to provide diffs? To search in page history? To discuss about a historical version? I question. Why would any second or next draft version be available in history only, while by definition there is not decision about a preferred version? Every other ns but main has these subpages, created at will (Anything Draft ns wants to to, in other namespaces is obtained by subpages; not all new). Even today, in a prolonged or complicated discussion, I happily create variants, evolving variants, to focus on the topic ("compare A, B, C"). That is not against cooperation. Timeline is not the only way to talk variants. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About template {{Main other}}. This template is used within templates. It has two options: "show A" or "show B", entered like {{main other|A|B}}. One can read it like this: "If this template is on a page in mainspace, then show "A", in all other namespaces, show "B". (e.g., on this WP talkpage it would show "B"). To be decided: should the "A" option be shown in Draft ns too?. (of course there are workarounds: we do not want). This would affect the visible outcome of a Draft page. If the "A" is not shown, the page will look less like its article would. I mention this not because of its individual details, but for the true-sandbox-behaviour of Draft space. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and Draft:

Consider, if you will, articles that are currently deleted on sight. A great proportion of those should enter the Draft: namespace rather than be deleted. Then their creators can work on them in relative peace until they are ready for main name space.

As an example, AfD could be retitled Articles for Draft Namespace, Deletion only if Necessary.

Let the discussions begin: Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think, instead of the usual rafts of opposes and supports, we might have a discussion based on advantages and disadvantages, and actually consider it seriously, too, before leaping in to support or oppose. Maybe we can get back to making the Wisdom of Crowds work, or even work again?

We ought to set aside whether things are practical. We have a glorious new namespace coming, and we get to decide how to make it work for the benefit of Wikipedia. This is a new paradigm. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you can see I'm taking my own medicine, I am going to set up an advantages section and start the ball rolling there. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is very helpful so far. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages

For fun and to keep a sort of tally, let's number each advantage, please:

Editors who are new to Wikipedia often get their first attempts summarily deleted, or discussed for deletion. They feel slapped in the face when we ought to be fostering their membership and skills. If we migrate the articles that are below out stringent threshold to the Draft: namespace we stand a greater chance of retaining both the editor and having an improved new article rather than an empty place where it might have been. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles subject to current deletion discussions are often heavily defended (or heavily !voted down). The option of migration to Draft: ought to mean less vitriol, and less time spent seeking to ensure our rules are not broken. As a by product editors who once became heated might understand that heat and passion is not required, and less offence would be taken. Editors might be retained where today;s upsets lose them. Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article where the topic is at the borderline of notability can safely be placed in a working zone. This allows time beyond the AfD or PROD period for an editor to work unrushed by an ever approaching deadline. Apart from getting a better article at the end (surely our main goal?) we get a better editor who has had a pleasant and enriching experience (our secondary goal because they are likely to produce more and better articles). Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to rewrite a whole slew of processes, and to create new ones. This should be a matter for great joy. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We get more editors If everything works well, we could end up with more editors that can help us turn our 2.4 million stubs in to C class (or better) articles. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We get more editors to help with maintenance, such as helping at WP:CCI, which has a HUGE backlog. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We get better press and our reputation is improved as new editors have a better experience at Wikipedia. They spread the word saying Wikipedia is freindly and nice as opposed to mean and nasty as Slashdot and most others see us.64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disdvantages

For fun and to keep a sort of tally, let's number each disadvantage, please:

Articles may be sent to Draft: more than once, which seems to be a load of procedure and process and not a lot of encyclopaedia building. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it seems like sending the same article text back to draft mode multiple times would be a bad idea. Common sense tells me most editors wouldn't suggest this though, and would look at something that has already been through draft phase before as having had ample time to develop. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would have to rely on the good sense of editors rather than legislate against playing namespace tennis with an article. I believe that the more one treats people like adults the more they act as adults. Not legislating is kind of WP:IAR before formulating and adopting a rule. Fiddle Faddle 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear to a novice editor that the only mechanism for the creation of new articles is via Draft: While this is patently not so, this impression will need to be addressed and corrected. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to rewrite a whole slew of processes. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless managed correctly, the Draft: namespace may become a warehouse full of wannabe articles which are genuinely trash and have no future as main namespace articles. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All newbies are evil. I don't believe this, but playing Devil's advocate... I see this sentiment often repeated around the project, that all newbies are evil and only want to contribute WP:Vanispamcruftisement and they need to get the smackdown as soon as they show up on our doorstep. The Draft: namespace will only bring in more undesirables. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace is live

See Draft:Example as a quick example page to play with. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policies about the new namespace

I think I read somewhere that Wikipedia policies are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive of current consensus. The top of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines summarizes as such:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles.
Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.
This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages.

Therefore, since this is a nascent project in a new namespace, I believe it best practice to wait until consensus has actually formed about what to do with the new namespace before writing down any sort of established wiki-bureaucratic policies and guidelines. For a good start though, deletion, or the hiding of pages from non-sysop accounts, is probably one of the more contentious and widely debated functions in Wikipedia, and there are certain things I would like to consider. While I think it's safe to assume general consensus would agree that the general criteria applies in the new namespace regardless (except G13), as noted above there are many other topics to touch on, such as the role of Draft pages in deletion discussions. If "move to draft" was decided to be a reasonable outcome in an Articles for [Consideration] discussion, and there were a lot of backlogged articles waiting to be moved following deletion outcomes, the consequences might be new demand for a separate userright category for the suppressredirect function. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you're right. Other than perhaps pointing out whether G13 applies or not, there's really little policy that needs to be written before anyone actually starts using drafts. There is a lot we can work out in the future as we go along. There are some threads above about related issues, if you're interested. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 #We will need to rewrite a whole slew of processes. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 #Unless managed correctly, the Draft: namespace may become a warehouse full of wannabe articles which are genuinely trash and have no future as main namespace articles. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
+#'''All newbies are evil.''' I don't believe this, but playing Devil's advocate... I see this sentiment often repeated around the project, that all newbies are evil and only want to contribute [[WP:Vanispamcruftisement]] and they need to get the smackdown as soon as they show up on our doorstep. The Draft: namespace will only bring in more undesirables. [[Special:Contributions/64.40.54.104|64.40.54.104]] ([[User talk:64.40.54.104|talk]]) 04:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 == Namespace is live ==