User talk:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft

Notification to more users?

The user notification goes only to the author, which may be ineffective. For example:

• Siwi Boora was created by Prakash Choudhary Pareu on Nov. 5 in Draftspace. That was their last edit.
• It was cleaned up some by RajEditor1999 who moved it to mainspace on Nov. 8
• It was draftified by Onel5969 about three hours later, so the message went to the "wrong" person.

In this case, it probably didn't make any difference as the Draft was moved right back by Mahipal1234. It's tagged with UPE and these may all be the same person.

But in the more abstract case, maybe the script can look at the page history and notify the top 2 or 3 contributors and/or look for recent moves, or something else. MB 15:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I used the Evad script, and the editor to be notified is a field, which you can change to a different editor. I should have changed it to one of the other socks, probably Rajeditor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This script is the newer version, so you can do that too. But I suspect many people (myself included) don't bother to look at who should be notified and just let it default to the first editor. MB 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps we're looking at creating an alert that should show in the article's feed entry such as: This article was previousy draftified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

One option is to create a screen like the wikilove screen of PageTriage. Let the reviewer choose the contributors that need to be sent the draftification message. Then move on to the normal MoveToDraft screen with the various issue checkboxes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Copied drafts

The script does not know if the article and the draft are identical or if one is better than the other, so it doesn't overwrite the existing draft if you tell it to override the warning. Instead, it creates Draft:Draft:title, which is a mess that needs to be manually cleaned up. Should the override option just be removed in this case there any scenario where we should allow that? MB 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to a new sub-section since it is a somewhat different situation. In this case, it is the content of draft was probably copied to mainspace. What is one supposed to do in this case? Ask an admin to merge revisions of the two pages (article and draft), maybe? If we can figure out some instructions to show the user, we can do that, and then close the draft window in the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion and a bug

I only just became aware of this updated script, thanks for taking it on and making improvements! There are two things that seem like they should be quick fixes:

• The COI-option needs more text pointing editors to the WP:COI and WP:UPE
• I can't seem to edit the text field to make any further changes beyond selecting from the presets. Could this be fixed?

Thanks agin! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill,

1. Adding links to WP:COI: Kudpung and MB knowingly designed the user talk page message, to avoid a sea of blue links. There is a link to Help:Unreviewed new page in the message. You can collaborate with them and make changes to that page maybe.
2. Editing the text field: This too was designed to be un-editable. The intention was for any shortcoming not covered by one the 6 hard-coded reasons, should be added to the 'Other' field. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, the interface was deliberately designed after much discussion within the best precepts of UX without an editable text window, and MPGuy2824 did an excellent job of writing the js to make it work.. If it were, it would defeat the entre purpose of having selectable reasons plus a field for additional comments or reasons. What you are probably not aware of is that the message carries a link to a brand new, friendly attractive information page in language that new users will understand instead of blasting them with alphabet soup and walls of text in pseudo Wiki legal jargon. The only bug still in the UI that I designed is that the text window has still not been relabelled 'Preview', but I am not a js coder and I don't know how to do it myself. Apart from that, this script and its info page for the draft creator are such a vast improvement already that any further tinkering is probably superfluous. More important is to insist that people who vote on any RfA fully understand that 'Move to Draft' is in no way governed by any existing policy and reviewers are free to interpret it in the best way in each situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Kudpung, I've figured out how to show an actual preview of the notification message. The new script is at the test wiki. Please test it out there. The only problem is that the draft link remains red since the page hasn't yet been moved. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to import nearly 1,500 lines of code into my TestWiki js page. It doesn't work and I can't read computer code. All we really need to do is replace the words 'Notification message:' with 'Preview' The preview works perfectly, exactly as it is supposed to do. The link doesn't need to be in red because it's not clickable anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Kudpung, there is no need to import the contents of the script to your common.js file (just the line saying importScript('User:MPGuy2824/nullEdit.js' );importScript('User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js'); should do). Anyway, i've added a screenshot of what it looks like. I've also changed the words "Notification message:" to "Notification preview:". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Did that in my common.js page and cleared my cache and reloaded my browser and the page. In the 'More' tab on a random page I get 'Nul Edit' but it doesn't do anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My fault entirely. I should have said importScript('User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js'); Sorry about that. I copied the wrong line from my own common.js file. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• The new selectable reasons are great, but the text window should still be editable. The message is clearly attributed to the reviewer so we should have the ability to tweak the wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude it was deliberately designed to avoid patrollers making up their own messages. This was due to the many complaints that the old script was biting newbies. The patrollers have the option to address any other issues in the additional comments field that is there for that purpose. Research into Internet user experience (not specifically Wikipedia related) has demonstrated that if you give people an opportunity to tinker with something, they will. If you don't want your freely selected criteria attributed to you (because they are if you select them, thus they come from you and not the software), just use the free text field. If you belive a system of canned message is inappropriate system, you may wish to contact Novem Linguae, the steward of Twinkle, so that he can make similar changes to the 100s of canned messages(especially warnings and CSD) there, and the coordinator of AfC and its helper script so that they can do likewise. I won't stand in your way because for one thing, I'm retiring very soon from Wikipedia for good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lovely job.

I have just updated it in my common.js and I must say I prefer this compared to the old one. A lot of more options especially reasons for moving to draft which sometimes takes me a while if I have to write it myself.

Thanks. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)