Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George David NH (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 25 June 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep . (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 02:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace

User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user essay should be deleted because it:

  1. Promotes an agenda of working alone and against the whole idea of collaberation
  2. Misleads the reader into thinking that userspace is "free" whatever that means, and substantially different than Draft space somehow.
  3. Misleads the reader by omiting facts like userspace drafts are also commonly deleted at MfD and by CSD for a variety of reasons.
  4. Misleads by omission by failing to note U5 exists specifically for Userspace while no CSD exists specifically for Draft space.
  5. Fails to highlight the value of AfC in getting feedback from experienced vetted users, including a number of Admins that work AfC.
  6. encourages development of hopeless, non-notable, often spammy pages with links built for WP:SEO purposes. Specifically advising to hide them from outside scrutiny by omitting the "userspace draft" template which at least places the page in a category that sees some limited patrolling.
  7. advocates directly against WP:NOTAWEBHOST by suggesting user space is a "free" hosting area
  8. says we should not be identifying user drafts for what they are, not a wikipedia article. This leads to pages that, placed under a carefully choosen username becomes a convincing WP:FAKEARTICLE
  9. encourages long term (over 6 months) maintaining of alternative (often unattributed) versions of mainspace pages. This is an invitation to policy violation under UP#COPIES
  10. fails to note that a properly titled draft will show up when someone tries to create the same title in mainspace. This leads to userspace drafts that become redundent to mainspace pages rather than allowing others to build on work already completed.
  11. encourages newbies especially to work alone, without feedback or collaberation which is really bad advice
  12. Tells new users to specifically skirt G13, which is a widely supported way of clearing junk
  13. promotes defeating WP:ACREQ by newbies who really should not start by writing up new topics of questionable notability

This essay offers such bad advice, much of it striking at key methods and policy developed to keep some order in how we handle drafts, it serves no good purpose on wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do if they suggest new users make policy violations ie UP#COPIES. Would you defend an essay explaining the benefits of creating sockpuppets? Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom has basically two arguments: that the essay gives bad advice and that the essay advocates policy violations. The first argument is not a reason to delete an essay, and is also a matter of opinion - I think the real bad advice is directing newbies to create "drafts" that you intend to delete as if they were articles, or alternatively simply if they are too old. The second argument is an enormous assumption of bad faith, and is frankly absurd (and perhaps revealing of the nom's view of drafts). The essay advocates nothing except drafting Wikipedia articles and moving the completed drafts to mainspace. It specifically notes "it is not okay to make user pages that are unrelated to work on Wikipedia", with a link to NOTWEBHOST! Last I checked, there was no policy requirement to draft in certain namespaces or using certain templates. Using these namespaces and/or templates are simply understood to be "best practices", but the whole point of this essay is that the way drafts are currently treated mean they are no longer "best practices" for many users. A2soup (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just a valid project opinion, it is substantially correct. The nominator is substantially wrong. In short, draftspace is a net negative. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that there are any WP:GAMES afoot. New comers should not use AfC because they should get mainspace experience first. Existing users should use their userspace. Notable topics should be written directly into mainspace. AfC is a long failing WikiProject, it’s costs and damage exceed its benefit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though I do not agree with all the motivation behind the essay, it is still a point of view, as indicated by the header. Most of the nomination points are extrapolations that are not actually in the essay. Some discussion could take place if the nominator believes the essay should change its content, but deletion is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've thought about writing something quite similar, and think this could probably be moved to projectspace (and anyone would be welcome to write a counter-essay). While I know that a few people, including the nominator, find draftspace to be better than it was a couple years ago, others (including me) find it to be almost entirely useless at this point. If I know there's more than 1 person working on something and I know it'll be ready for mainspace within a few hours, I tell newbies to use draftspace; for everything else, there's only a downside to using it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acceptable example of a userspace essay per policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Keep and firmly TROUT the nominator. The essay is perfectly acceptable, and we do not respond to essays that we disagree with by nominating them for deletion. Uanfala, SmokeyJoe, Graeme Bartlet, and Rhododendrites all gave good valid reasons to keep this. I don't agree with SmokeyJoe that draftspace is a net negative. I do agree that a wise newbie would now avoid AfC. Beyond that, most of the statements in the nomination are flatly incorrect, as I will demonstrate below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am happy to explain the net negative thing. Count the new articles, and assess how much help AfC provided as compared to if the author had written directly into mainspace. Weigh against that the time AfC has spent processing the junk, and more importantly, count the ignored genuine newcomers who come to Wikipedia, are sucked into AfC by the tempting links, and then get completely ignored by the entire community, before they give up and leave, this is the cost to failing to welcome newcomers and invite them into the community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the essay is correct. Lepricavark (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW I'd prefer to see an essay called "don't use draftspace" deal specifically with draftspace. AfC isn't specific to draftspace. Maybe a separate "don't use AfC" if you feel strongly about that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not using draftspace means not using AfC, because AfC reviewers move any AfC tagged page into draftspace as the preferred location of AfC pages.
    • True that one also should not use draftspace for non AfC purposes. Bad examples including POVFORKing mainspace topics to draftspace, where the POVFORK can be developed out of sight of topic-interested editors. Another is collecting esoteric finely focused maths topics, ostensibly not in userspace because they author *wants* others to work on them. This goes badly because of G13 autodeletion, and a far better place for wikipedians to draft collaboratively is within a WikiProject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the first part of this, but not with the second. I and a good many other experienced editors, now always start new articles in draft space, but not with an AfC template. Nothing requires pages in draft space to use AfC, no0r for new editors to do so. A hypothetical Wikipedia:Don't use AfC could advise new users to use draft space, but not AfC. That is my current advice, in fact, and I might write such an essay. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You May understand the G13 autodeletion hazard of draftspace, but few newcomers will, and few newcomers understand that no existing Wikipedian will help them in draftspace with an unsubmitted draft. It is easier to understand in userspace, that it is you alone playing with the draft. There is no advantage to drafting in draftspace over userspace, and these disadvantages, and so I will continue to advise newcomers, and potential newcomers, to stay out of both AfC and draftspace. In fact, I will continue to advise them to edit mainspace and gain experience before even thinking of adding a new page. I also recommend shutting down AfC and Draftspace as a net negative, my opinion, even if not shared by you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are of course entitled to your opinion, SmokeyJoe, and there is some basis for it. It is not, however, correct that no existing Wikipedian will help them in draftspace with an unsubmitted draft I will, on occasion. I point to the history of Holocaust Wall Hangings, which was largely perfected in draft space, with myself as an active and frequent editor, and an even more frequent commentator on the creator's edits. It was never placed under AfC. It was eventually moved to mainspace, and shortly after that I nominated it for DYK, and it has since appeared on the main page. I will grant that this sort of thing is not as common as it might be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not know it was standard practice for every AfC submission to be moved to draft. I've definitely seen some in userspace, though I can't say definitively that they were post-review. Hm. At any rate, the essay is advice to the article writer. If a reviewer moves a userspace draft into draftspace, that doesn't change that the user made a decision to use userspace. I suppose the uniting theme here isn't as much "don't use draftspace" as "there's a difference in the way you can create articles, and some of those ways make it easy to delete it down the road". Regarding the second point, yes, when I first learned about draftspace I thought it was a great idea to allow for collaborative editing before an article goes live, putting it in a place that other people can see when they go to start the same topic. Sounds great, right? Alas, no. There is no place for that. There could be, but the policy changes/RfCs over the last couple years have ensured draftspace is, as far as I can tell, no different from userspace except that it's more easily deleted. Come to think of it, has anyone proposed just killing off draftspace in recentish memory? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most userspace based AfC submissions get moved to an appropriate Draft title, but not all. Really crappy pages are declined in place. In Draft the tools help us see if the title already exists or has been deleted in mainspace amd why, where we can't see that easily on a page called JoeUser/mydraft. No point reviewing something that already exists or was just found not notable at AfD last week. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhododendrites asks “has anyone proposed just killing off draftspace in recentish memory“? Only me that I am aware of, and only as a ambit claim at this stage. A more likely, probably better thing to do is to extend WP:ACTRIAL/WP:ACPERM to draftspace. The vast majority of the costs and damages of AfC come from complete new accounts, whether UPE throwaway socks, or genuine newcomers, going straight to AfC/DraftSpace. I feel much of the damage comes from newcomers not knowing that they are allowed to edit mainspace right now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Detailed comment. The nominator made 13 numbered points. Here are responses to them:
  1. Promotes an agenda of working alone and against the whole idea of collaberation
    False. Nothing in the essay advises editors to work alone. In practice, most drafts are now edited by a single editor with limited feedback from reviewers, often limited to a templated reason with no additional detail. Some reviewers give detailed feedback, but few actually edit drafts to try to improve them. Nothing precludes editors from working cooperatively on a draft in userspace, and I have done so in the past. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Misleads the reader into thinking that userspace is "free" whatever that means, and substantially different than Draft space somehow.
    False. "Free" should be better defined in the essay, but current policy and guideline pages do treat draftspace differently than userspace. G13 does not apply to pages in userspace, unless they are tagged for AfC. Deletion for multiple submisisons to AfC also does not apply to userspace drafts not tagged for AfC. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Misleads the reader by omiting facts like userspace drafts are also commonly deleted at MfD and by CSD for a variety of reasons.
    It is true that userspace drafts can be and sometimes are deleted at MfD, and that the G-series and U-series CSDs apply to them. Perhaps the essay should make that clear. It could surely be mentioned on the essay's talk page. But that is in no way a reason to delete, and an essay cannot mention all possibly relevant facts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Misleads by omission by failing to note U5 exists specifically for Userspace while no CSD exists specifically for Draft space.
    The essay already says it is not okay to make user pages that are unrelated to work on Wikipedia. Anyone following it will not encounter a valid U5 speedy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fails to highlight the value of AfC in getting feedback from experienced vetted users, including a number of Admins that work AfC.
    The value of such feedback is a matter of opinion. The essay writer is not obliged to argue points s/he does not agree with. Failing to include points that soemoen else things relevant is not a re3ason for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. encourages development of hopeless, non-notable, often spammy pages with links built for WP:SEO purposes. Specifically advising to hide them from outside scrutiny by omitting the "userspace draft" template which at least places the page in a category that sees some limited patrolling.
    Nothing in the essay advises people to create hopeless or spammy pages. If I had been writing it, i would have advised using {{userspace draft}}, but that is optional also, and currently has at best limited benefit to the new editor. If it is thought so vital to traffic control, make it mandatory. In any case, advising people not to use an optional tempalte is neither a policy violation nor a reason for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. advocates directly against WP:NOTAWEBHOST by suggesting user space is a "free" hosting area
    False. As noted above the draft says it is not okay to make user pages that are unrelated to work on Wikipedia.. That is the essence of NOTAWEBHOST, and probably put better.
  8. says we should not be identifying user drafts for what they are, not a wikipedia article. This leads to pages that, placed under a carefully choosen username becomes a convincing WP:FAKEARTICLE
    False. Nothing in the essay advocates creating "fake articles" nor does it preclude other editors from adding {{userspace draft}} or even ask them not to do so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. encourages long term (over 6 months) maintaining of alternative (often unattributed) versions of mainspace pages. This is an invitation to policy violation under UP#COPIES
    False. Nothing in the essay advocates making copies of articles, in any namespace. It coulds specifically advise against this, but an essay is not required to reepat every posisbly releavt policy, nor to try to head off every possible way for an editor to abuse its advice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. fails to note that a properly titled draft will show up when someone tries to create the same title in mainspace. This leads to userspace drafts that become redundent to mainspace pages rather than allowing others to build on work already completed.
    It is true that a draftspace draft does this and a userspace draft does not. That is an argument agaisnt the advice in the essay, but not a reason to delete it. And even minor variation in the naming of a draftspace page cause the same issue, and these happen all the time. I was involved in one just today. Not much of an argument. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. encourages newbies especially to work alone, without feedback or collaberation which is really bad advice
    False. As noted above, nothing in the essay advises working alone or without feedback. There are other, possibly better, ways to get feedback than AfC.DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tells new users to specifically skirt G13, which is a widely supported way of clearing junk
    G13 is specifically limited to draftspace, or pages templated for AfC. It was recognized when G13 was created that an editor had the option of avoiding it by not using draftspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. promotes defeating WP:ACREQ by newbies who really should not start by writing up new topics of questionable notability
    False. WP:ACREQ specifically permits new and unregistered (IP) editors to create pages in draft space, for which it does NOT require an AfC template, and permits not auto-confirmed users to create pages in user space. Any editor following the advice of this essay will at least register a user name, because userspace pages are not available without one. If the true intent of WP:ACREQ, was to prevent newbies from writing up new topics, then the RfCs leading to it were massive frauds, because the promoters denied any such intent or effect. Personally, I don't see any such intent in ACREQ DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is my point-by-point response to the nomination statement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "I disagree with it" is not a valid reason to delete a userspace essay. Personally I think it makes plenty of valid points. There are vastly more restrictions on developing content in draft space than in user space. Hut 8.5 18:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the essay expresses a perfectly reasonable point of view. I suggest the nomination is withdrawn. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have said in several recent discussions that a good editor is occasionally entitled to a terrible idea. This is a terrible idea by a good editor. The argument has been made, persuasively, that this is a terrible idea. The argument hasn't been made that it needs to be squelched. Therefore:
  • Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, the essay isn't the only terrible idea by a good editor here. The nomination itself is a terrible idea by User:Legacypac. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad faith nomination. Any idiot can see that this doesn't talk about copying mainspace content into userspace. Even were there a violation of WP:UP#COPIES here, this wouldn't be a problem, unlike telling people how to engage in sockpuppetry. The nominator's equation of a nonexistent minor problem with sockpuppetry demonstrates his bad faith: you make up reasons to delete a user essay, you make up reasons to reject solid opposition, and you whine about an obviously correct close. The proper response to such action is Special:Block/Legacypac. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nyttend you should read the essay which talks about deletion because "they duplicate a existing article, even if they are intended for drafting improvements to that article" together with avoiding G13 evidently is an invitation to UP#COPIES. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:A2soup/Don%27t_use_draftspace&oldid=847523079"