Wikipedia talk:Drafts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drafts page.

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 90 days

	This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Footnote 8 on deletion of redirects

Does this also apply to Draft_talk redirects? Have just (boldly) deleted a bunch before trying to look up if there is a rule on this. Shyamal (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If instead of deleting, you had only tagged them as G6, they would probably have been declined as pointless deletions. If the talk page of a draft page never existed, it is fine, but for an existing page whose talk page is deleted, readers may wonder what did it have. Jay 💬 13:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that are being actively worked on should not be moved to draft

@WikiWikiWayne: That's the message here. Allowing a whole hour to pass while retaining an assumption that the page is actively being worked on is extremely generous actually. I contest your removal done here, and have reverted it; I'm interested to see if maybe you misunderstood what these words are supposed to mean in practice. Regards—Alalch E. 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example Template:In use is also about an article being "actively" worked on, but this template should be removed no later than just a few minutes after you've finished actively editing (making consecutive changes in real time). "Actively" commonly denotes a very short interval in this context. —Alalch E. 14:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E. – I'm reverting you, but feel free to edit that one-hour tidbit of nonsense to make sense in context. Editors have to sleep, work, relax, do chores. Hourly edits or it goes to Drafts is draconian and absurd.

See {{Under construction}} which is the toggle template for {{in use}}.

Please discuss more, before reverting again. We can work this out. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 14:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiWikiWayne: Wait please, don't revert. Give me some more time to explain. —Alalch E. 14:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review addresses a certain scenario pertaining to New Page Review. The part you're disputing deals with the following question: "When a new page patroller encounters a page about a topic which has some potential merit, but the page does not meet the required standards for mainspace retention—however, someone is actively working on the page, meaning that it may be continuously approaching those required standards: How long to wait to see if it is really being actively worked on, or if the work has paused?" That's what it's about. It has nothing to do with someone staying awake 24/7 to make an edit every hour. —Alalch E. 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text which you dispute was added on 27 November 2022, in this edit by User:MB -- his rationale was clarify "active improvement" per latest NPP minimum deletion/tagging time. —Alalch E. 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E. – Requiring an edit in the past hour is absurd as ammo to draftify. Please do not re-add that terminology again. This essay started 10 years ago, without that snippet. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 15:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWikiWayne It is the opposite of ammo to draftify. It isn't an argument to draftify, it's an argument NOT to draftify. It's something PROTECTING an article from draftification in order to preserve the continuous effort someone is putting in the article, while it's ongoing (no point in doing so when it's no longer ongoing). If you remove the "one hour" text, the meaning thus produced will paradoxically be the opposite of what you intend, it will mean that it's fine to draftify MINUTES, not an hour after the last constructive edit. It's a safeguard against overzealous draftification. Cheers —Alalch E. 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! Pinging you for a third opinion as one of the page's recent editors who appears to be currently active. —Alalch E. 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Alalch E. As written, it discouraged draftification if the article had been edited within the last hour, and an hour seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure where "24/7" has come from. (Note that I don't generally get involved in mainspace deletion/draftification.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid draftification after one hour's inactivity you need to edit it at least once an hour. No? Otherwise, after you have been asleep for an hour (any hour, 24/7) the article may be moved to draft. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're making constructive edits for hours at an end, one would think that the obstacles to mainspace retention have been or are somewhere in the middle of being removed -- conversely, if you've been making nominally constructive edits for hours at an end (for example, fixing grammar of an initial version that was entirely written in bad English or translating an article created in another language), but the content is, for example, not verifiable—so a core reason why the page should not remain in mainspace is not being actively addressed, that doesn't mean that you're incentivized to stay awake and edit Wikipedia 24/7: it means that the article should be draftified, as there is no evidence of active improvement in the relevant sense of "improvement" (active removal of the concrete obstacles to mainspace retention). —Alalch E. 18:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't addressing the merits or demerits of moving to draft. I was remarking on the consequences of being able to wait as little as one hour before moving to draft. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a consequence if someone is both: (1) incentivized to work 24/7 on an article; (2) is then let to operate based on such an incentive. I argue: no one is realistically incentivized in the described sense; even if someone had been incentivized and would have made nominally constructive edits for hours at an end, the article would still be draftified if it doesn't look like it's close to being ready for mainspace. So it isn't a consequence. Edit: in other words, not a realistic practical implication of the used language. —Alalch E. 19:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring aside, the relevant distinction is the purpose of this page vs. the purpose of a NPP manual. This page is about draftspace, not where NPPers should go for specifics of how to do NPP. As far as this page is concerned, I don't think we should set a time limit. I appreciate that NPP may find it useful to set up some guidelines for things like timing for practical purposes, but that doesn't need to be reflected here. Personally, I don't agree with an hour being long enough to assume someone's not actively editing (it's not true for me, and it's not true for newbies, whom we also expect to research all the relevant policies/guidelines/styles/templates at the same time), but isn't this the wrong place to make that point? You'd have to convince the NPP folks to change their practice, not edit war over a site of secondary documentation. It should be removed here because it's not necessary here IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every word of that. I recently actively edited a mainspace article making about 100 edits over 10 days. To avoid interference I copied the entire article to my sandbox (it's still in the history) and pasted it back when I'd finished. Fortunately no one had edited the main article in the mean time. I wish I didn't feel I needed to take that sort of evasive action. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity around Draftification

We need to clarify the guidelines around draftification. The only relevant guideline that has been formalized (that I know of) is the 90-day limit. The thing that absolutely needs consensus one way or the other is whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not. There is simply too much disagreement which has led to too much drama (I have diffs, but rather than dredge up old drama I am not including them at the present moment. If people want to see them, I can provide them). It may also be useful to identify the circumstances in which an article can be unilaterally draftified. The core reasons that seem to have WP:SILENT consensus for are the article contains no sources at all, needs translation into English, or is too promotional (but presumably not G11-eligible). So: can things be double-draftified? And when can things be draftified in the first place? House Blaster^talk 00:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the default reasons in the MoveToDraft script sum up the "de facto" most common draftification reasons nicely. Click here to see the default reasons. With the caveat that "It needs more sources to establish notability" should probably only be used if the WP:BEFORE is ambiguous, for example, only finding one GNG-passing source.

I think the instructions located at Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review are complex and verbose to the point that they are probably impractical. I count 18 bullets.

As the person that created the redirect WP:DRAFTOBJECT, I do think it is a good idea to take any pushback against a draftification to AFD in most cases. Although perhaps there is some wiggle room in some cases, such as double-draftifying suspected UPE.

Is it worth creating RFCs and drawing red lines for some of these things? I have no idea. Could be a lot of effort expended to just end up with another 50/50 RFC like the 90 day draftification RFC. I get the sense that the community is deeply divided on the issue of drafts/draftification/AFC.

There is also the issue that WP:DRAFT is just an essay. How much time should we spend on RFCs to make modifications to an essay?

These are all tough questions. Which is perhaps why we're in our current situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review is too complex should not be draftifying. There are multiple different things to consider, but none of them are hard.

I don’t get the sense of any deep division over draftification. Instead, I get the sense that new page patrollers are responsible and trustworthy.

If in doubt about draftification of something, take it to AfD to request draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen inconsistent application of WP:DRAFTIFY and plenty of drama. Working on rules might help. But before going to that trouble, have we considered whether this is a net useful process? Do we have examples of material that was saved from the jaws of AfD by this process? How often do the desired improvements occur in draft space? How many draftified articles make it out of draft space? How many times is it just a longer and quieter road to deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are somewhat rhetorical questions as far as I'm concerned. I just have anecdotes (or lack thereof) in support of this position but I don't see anything good coming of it unless you think the best way to delete marginal material is through G13. ~Kvng (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseBlaster, can things be double-draftified? Unilaterally, by someone other than the author, no. Simple answer is “no”. Take it to AfD instead, request consensus to Draftify at AfD. Draftification is an efficient tool for things that would be a waste of time at AfD, mainly abandoned substandard recent creations. If there is a history of multiple namespace moves, it is surely worth a week to help someone learn something. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand “whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not”.

DRAFTOBJECT is an author’s right to not have it sent to draftspace, and to insist on an AfD if the article is challenged (or if there is a COI challenge). If there’s an active disagreement about whether an article belongs in mainspace, the proper forum is AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "whether WP:DRAFTOBJECT is 'required' or not" I mean "is it a best practice or is it a guideline". For example, WP:PROD strongly recommends that you notify the author of the article when you propose it for deletion, but it does not require you do so. On the other hand, administrators are bound by WP:ADMINACCT to be accountable for their actions – it is a hard-and-fast requirement.

Personally, I agree with you: any objections should lead to a discussion at AfD (assuming the draftifier still believes the article belongs in draftspace). But there is evidently disagreement on this point, and I believe we should seek a formal, definitive answer. House Blaster^talk 00:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice and consensus for that

Hi folks, I'm seeing articles about places that we used to consider "automatically notable" (villages for example) being moved to draft immediately by someone other than the creator. I'm wondering if someone could help me out with

Where we decided that moving things to draft as part of new page patrolling was a good idea.
The current status of notability of villages seems to be found in WP:GEOLAND and would make all villages "typically presumed to be notable". Is it appropriate for an article that meets WP:V about a village to be moved to draft space by a NPP?
How exactly a user would contest such a move and if the standard text used by NPP should include that information.

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing, consider listing some examples. Each page's notability situation could have its own nuances. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have some individual NPPers who lean this direction. Doesn't sound right. I would suggest starting a dialog on their user talk page to understand their thinking then politely use WP:DRAFTOBJECT if you're unsatisfied and suggest they then use WP:AFD if they're unsatisfied. WP:AFD is ultimately, the best place to work this out. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns of @Hobit. In particular, the repeated actions of @Onel5969 have raised a number of questions around improper article moves to Draft space instead of tagging them appropriately and improving them in main space, or letting our consensus driven processes play out. Pinging others who have encountered issues with the editor and have tried to discuss it with them in the past: @Liz, @BeanieFan11, @Tigraan, @Etoile, @Jayron32, @Ianmacm, @Tamzin.

For examples of discussions, please see:

I don't doubt there have been useful contributions by this editor, but this has become a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii seems to be largely ignored in these considerations; if something would likely survive AFD, then it shouldn't be draftified. WP:GEOLAND seems to be one of those areas that consensus still holds allows for WP:GNG exceptions, I'm not sure whether I personally agree or not that it should, but AFAIK, there has been no AFD-based test showing that consensus exists to delete such villages in the mainspace if they pass WP:GEOLAND, which says to me that 2a-ii is not met, the article would survive AFD, and as such, should not be draftified. --Jayron 32 18:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2a-ii is just one of a number of examples of a 'page is obviously unready for mainspace', which is why the line begins with or. It is not an absolute requirement of WP:DRAFTIFY. Your conclusion of 'if something would likely survive AFD, then it shouldn't be draftified' is therefore flawed. --John B123 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Use of the draft space is optional, and draftifying someone else's work against their will has been, is, and always will be bullshit. If the article is appropriate for the mainspace, then it shouldn't be draftified. If it isn't appropriate for the mainspace, WP:AFD exists for a reason. --Jayron 32 11:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken issue with Onel's draftifications in the past, but I'm not sure if that's because he's inappropriately draftifying more often than others, or because he draftifies a lot and a large percentage of draftifications are inappropriate. I've said before that we need an actual, proper, enforced, obeyed policy or guideline on who can draftify and when, and I think that's the real solution here, more than focusing on one user. Pings to @John Cline, Cullen328, and Joe Roe, who agreed with me in that thread. To quote Joe: The situation we've come to in the last few years, where solo new page patrollers can arbitrarily decide an article is "not ready for mainspace", leaving the creator with only a canned edit summary and jargon-filled template message to try and decipher why, is untenable, and I dread to think how many potential editors it has driven away. Just brainstorming, I think the best approach would be to limit draftification to: articles that meet A-series CSDs but not any G-series ones; anything that would fall within the discretionary range of WP:BLPDELETE; author's request; and technical draftifications (e.g. clearly published prematurely). I'd also support restricting the first two to new page reviewers and sysops. The use of draftification as a backdoor form of deletion should end. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asked about this, but personally, I think the whole "forced draftification" thing was wrongheaded to begin with. If I had my druthers, I'd entirely end the practice, and ONLY allow article creators to draftify something; if someone creates something in the main space, it's CSD, PROD, or AFD and that's it. If you want to drop a note on someone's talk page politely asking them to draftify the article they created, fine. If someone wants to use the draft space themselves to work on their own article, that's fine too. But if it would likely be deleted, do that. If it wouldn't, the main space is fine. The whole "send it to the Draft space" is misguided. --Jayron 32 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 this is a constructive proposal but allowing the creator to draftify is going to be hard to administer as soon as more than one editor has contributed to an article.

As I have stated previously, I would prefer to just eliminate the process. I haven't yet seen a case where an article is improved by using it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've jotted down a rough draft of my desired guideline at User:Tamzin/Draftification draft. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the most common use cases for draftification are suspected COI/UPE, poor/machine translations, zero citations, unintelligible grammar, and borderline notability (e.g. only 1 GNG passing source found via WP:BEFORE, but seems promising enough to not send to AFD, just need some sources added to the article). Before proposing to eliminate draftification, please be sure that there's a plan as to what we should do in each of these cases. For example, do we just let COI/UPE sit in mainspace? Do we need to take machine translations to AFD? etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, Novem Linguae, basically all of those seem contrary to community consensus. I could see draftifying verified UPE, but beyond that, there is no strict rule against COI creations, nor against bad/machine translations, nor uncited nor poorly written articles; meanwhile an article either is notable and should be kept, and isn't and should be deleted. We have processes for all of these things: CSD, PROD, AfD, and the placement of maintenance tags. If there is a perceived need to expand any of those processes to accommodate the scenarios you're discussing, then changes should be proposed to the relevant policies (e.g. a CSD for machine translations [currently explicitly excluded from WP:G1], or expanding WP:BLPPROD's "zero sources" rule to all articles). But what you're saying sounds like an acknowledgment that draftification is being used as an end-run around the established deletion policy. I don't mean that as a slight against you. I think you're just repeating what has become the status quo among many new page reviewers. But that itself is a problem. A group of new page reviewers deciding that they're going to do something is not a consensus that overrides the heavily-vetted deletion policies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think those could be reasonably interpreted as fulfilling criteria 1-4 of the "During new page review" section of WP:DRAFTS. Overall my impression is that about half the community dislikes draftspace and draftification, and the other half supports it, so I think reasonable editors can have reasonable disagreements about it. WP:DRAFT is not a policy or guideline, so there is a lack of clear direction on the topic. Anyway, I'm not married to any particular side on this issue. For example I am the one that created the redirect WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I do encourage discussion of this issue and crystallization of consensus, if that is possible on such a 50/50 issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put no stock in the current text of WP:DRAFTS because it is, as you say, not a policy or guideline. It's just some editors' ideas of a good way to do things, and I think those editors are, frankly, wrong. I'm a big fan of draftspace. Most of my articles have been written in draftspace. But the specific practice of adverse draftification perverts the very purpose of draftspace. It's a place where people can work on potential articles together, not somewhere to exile content one can't bother to put through the deletion process. DRAFTOBJECT would halfway solve that problem if anyone adhered to it, but let's be honest, it's constantly ignored... and is, after all, no more a policy or guideline than the rest of this essay. The only real solution is to prohibit adverse draftification except as an alternative to deletion, and ideally to also restrict it to new page reviewers and sysops (i.e., if you can't review a page, you shouldn't be able to remove it from the encyclopedia). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think restricting draftification to NPPs and sysops has potential. I think folks would support that if we want to explore it further. We could enforce it to some degree by programming it into the WP:MOVETODRAFT script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin, it is disruptive of you to post here “ there is no strict rule against COI creations”.

If you want a debate on nuance of the words “strict” versus “should” with regard to the fourth bullet point of WP:COIEDIT, you should take it to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest.

As is stands, there is a rule against COI article creation, and it is a justification for draftification or AFD. The rule is not absolute. Rules are preferred to not be written in absolutes unless there is a very good reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no strict rule against COI creations. COIEDIT is a "best practices" section of a guideline. It's not just a non-absolute rule, as you imply: It's not a rule at all. Perhaps it should be—I see the case either way—but it currently is not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no strict rule, but there is a rule, a rule that should be followed. Does it work? Will it work by beefing the wording to “must”? Probably not. Not with anonymous editing and page creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idea that sending stuff to AFD is less WP:BITEy than draftifying seems incorrect to me. I think draftifying is either less bitey or equally bitey compared to sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD: A discussion ensues for a week and then it's over.

Draft: You think you've figured out how to submit your draft but then you have to wait for months waiting for anyone to respond. If you stick around long enough in limbo, eventually you start getting endless petty requests for more and more sources, and the more sources you add the less notable the reviewers think your draft is (because without a lot of experience you won't know that fewer high-quality sources are better than more low-quality ones or even how to judge source quality, and the review comments provide little guidance in this respect) and the more unhelpful the review comments become. Eventually you give up and figure out that you can move it to article space yourself. But then someone draftifies it again, against policy. After more rounds of unhelpful AfC comments, or more move-warring, someone takes it to AfD, a discussion ensues for a week and then it's over.

Which of those two processes do you think is more discouraging to newbies, really? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spirit of draftification is to give authors a chance to fix up the article, which should in theory be less bitey than deletion. Deletion stings quite a bit. The AFC process, via its decline reasons and commenting, communicates to the author exactly what needs fixing, which is good.

Fundamentally, article writing for new editors sucks. And the core problem isn't AFD or draftification, it's that our notability guidelines are indecipherable to newer editors. The notability guidelines have too many undocumented nuances, and in many cases are out of alignment with actual practice at AFD. GNG is too short, and the SNGs are too long. So it is basically impossible for a new editor to determine if what they are spending a bunch of time writing about is notable or not, until they've already written it and it is going through a deletion process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space and draftification are advertized as giving authors a chance to fix up the article, but they do not. Instead, they actually function as a process for gatekeeping. The cognitive dissonance between the advertized purpose of drafts and their actual purpose is what makes them bitey. Spammers get gatekept, as they should, but good-faith new contributors who take the advertisements at face value get bitten. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fewer high-quality sources are better than more low-quality ones

How can we get that into the newcomer advice? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I more meant that the draft space should really only be used to create articles in. But really, I'm behind your sentiment 100%. The entire AFC process is fraught with giving people the false hope that the article they wrote about their buddy the garage EDM DJ is going to be acceptable if they only did a better job of writing it. The world was better around here when we just deleted the bullshit and got on our way. Or, overly aggressive AFC reviewers refuse to move articles to the main space for reasons unrelated to deletability, and expect unnecessary changes before moving it. Either way, it's not a useful system. It was much better when we just used AFD. --Jayron 32 11:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to contribute here, as this is the first time I have encountered this process. Onel5959 notability tagged an article I wrote, but when I made improvements and then asked for feedback, the article was instead draftified. This was demoralizing, and while others brought the article back to main space upon my request, I worry that articles worthy of mainspace will end up abandoned because not everyone understands that they can object to an inappropriate draftification. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to do something about the draftifications, as I'm seeing a lot of them (the majority by Onel5969) which do not meet the criteria set out (specifically the part that says only do it when its likely to fail AFD and only when it does not meet the quality standard) - as an example of the many problematic moves, see Camerun Peoples - created with decent prose, fully sourced, arguably has a decent shot at notability (a National Football League player), and sources are arguably enough for notability - despite all that, it was draftified. It was then reverted, and taken to AFD, and now there's a clear consensus to keep. There's been many cases like that; however, not all of them have gone contested and so this acts often as a backdoor to deletion (something draftification is not) and only drives the new creators away. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have hit Onel5969 with WP:DRAFTOBJECT on a few occasions and they have been responsive to these requests. I don't get much when I've asked about what they intend to accomplish by draftifying or what "not ready for mainspace" means in specific instances. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camerun Peoples was tagged for notability and after no improvement moved to draft. It was moved back to mainspace, again without improvement, and then sent to AfD. I would note that whilst at AfD references were added to the article to establish notability. Many of the KEEP !votes were made after the references were added to the article. It seems to me that if these refs were added when the article was tagged, the subsequent draftification and AfD would have been unnecessary and multiple editors' time and effort would have been saved. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is it was arguably notable and was clearly of good enough quality when it was moved to draftspace - WP:DRAFTIFY says it should not be done when it has a decent shot at notability and is good enough quality for mainspace, both of which Peoples' article passed. Draftifications like this seem to happen often and in many cases it just acts as a backdoor to deletion for notable topics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geoland is an automatic pass as reviewed. However none of the draftifications pass GEOLAND, as there is no sourcing which shows that it is a legally recognized place. The articles were tagged for improvement, and the editors were given a week to make improvements. Many times those improvements are made, other times they are not. If they are not, they get moved to draft as they meet all the qualifications for draft: promising, does not meet the standard (no sourcing showing they meet the GEOLAND qualification), there was no active improvement, and they did not contain copyvios.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to draft should not be an end-run around AfD or CSD. I feel you are using it that way. Secondly, GEOLAND doesn't require that sources exist in the article for GEOLAND to apply. I think you are misusing this process and my sense is that others largely feel the same. Ideally I'd like you to undo all of that. At the least I think you need to stop doing so until we get this settled out. Are you willing to send articles to AfD or use the speedy process if you think the articles don't belong in mainspace for now? Hobit (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Shouldn't WP:BURDEN apply here? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  GEOLAND also doesn't require geographic articles to be written in English, but that doesn't justify writing them in Chinese. If notability doesn't need to be demonstrated on the page, why do the various notability tags, including geo, invite editors to do just that and warn that the article may be merged, redirected or deleted if they are not added? Demonstrating notability on the page is such a fundamental principle that in our advice to new editors creating their first article it is stated twice: we also ask that you demonstrate that notability of the topic, by citing these reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail and later You must cite such sources as part of the process of creating (or expanding) the Wikipedia article as evidence of notability for evaluation by other editors. --John B123 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to jump in here because my comments don't have anything to do with GEOLAND. I look over the list of draftifications every night and it's a familiar story. We have a couple of power page movers who draftify quite a few articles every day, sometimes for questionable reasons, and then a larger number of editors who do occasional draftifications (a couple a day or a few every week). I get concerned about two matters:

Many of Onel5969's draftifications are reverted, some almost immediately after they've been moved. I commented upon this on their talk page and asked them to rethink their standards for draftifying since so many page moves were being undone but comments to them usually have little effect, no matter who is making their suggestion. I've had to warn them about draftying an article multiple times (once I saw them draftify the same article four times) but that problem has seemed to have lessened. In the past when Onel5969's editing came under fire, they stopped patrolling completely for many months...I wish they would be open to constructive criticism and adapt their behavior without quitting completely. They are a valuable contributor but like many long-time editors, after years of contributing, they are resistant to changing their behavior.
I come across very new editors who discover the page move option and kind of go to town with it, sometimes after only a few days or weeks of editing. They are too inexperienced to know when draftifying is a good decision and many of them have never created articles. Typically, a page warning can nip this in the bud but it is something to watch out for if you review the Move log. On a related point, some veteran content creators do not use Draft space and create and develop articles right in main space and it is not good for new editors or new patrollers to move these works-in-progress to Draft space while they are currently being improved. I have a general rule of thumb I tell new editors (which you might disagree with) to not draftify articles created by editors with more editing experience than they have. These article creators most likely know what they are doing and will only get annoyed and revert any move of their developing articles to Draft space.

That's it. I think this is an overdue discussion and when I have time, I'll review all of the many comments above mine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that if the standard practice which Onel5969 is an exponent of (as he really does what is de facto a standard, only doing it on a greater scale), was changed from unilateral draftification to a request to creator to draftify their new mainspace creation with a template recommendation about how it's a good idea to take it through AfC (only when doing so really does seem like a good idea—when less experiened article creators are concerned), many editors would accept the advice, and would consent to draftification. —Alalch E. 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion comes across to me, at least in part, as a witch hunt against Onel5969. Pinging editors that are known to have issues with them previously hardly leads to a neutral or balanced discussion. As this has all been brought up previously at WP:ANI more than once, then it could be argued that this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There is a misguided argument running through this discussion against draftifying articles that would likely be kept at AfD based on 2a-ii of WP:DRAFTIFY. 2a-ii is just one of a number of reasons for draftifying, it is not a requirement for draftification. There are also suggestions that AfD should be used instead of draftification. In the case of 2a-ii, then I wholly agree. With other reasons for draftification I can't agree unless changes are made to AfD. AfD is to determine if a subject is notable enough for an article, the majority of draftification are to articles where the subject is notable but they don't meet the minimum standards of WP, often WP:V. The two processes have different aims. Whilst merge, redirect or send to draft are possible results at AfD, the majority are keep or delete. This leaves very poor articles in mainspace that are virtually untouchable because they have been kept at AfD. If notability is established at AfD then the content of the article needs to be looked at. If it largely meets the minimum standards (say WP:COPO) then keep should be returned, if not send to draft. I'd be interested to learn how people opposed to draftification would like sub-standard articles dealt with, or are they happy for these articles to remain untouched. --John B123 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been mentioned (and thereby pinged) by Tamzin in this discussion in no way solicits me as an editor "known to have [had] issues with [Onel5969] previously". I've not had any such issue and, to my best recollection, admire Onel5969 as an esteemed colleague. My participation here is not to consider editor conduct (outside of this discussion) but instead to voice my opinion on draftification in general and likely to reiterate my belief that a codified process for draftification is needed. Unless I am missing something, I do not see how an argument "against draftifying articles that would likely be kept at AfD" could remotely be characterized as: "misguided". In my opinion, that argument is sound and I doubt that reason could arise to dissuade me of that opinion. Having said these things, I wish you (and all) well and look forward to participating further in this discussion (hopefully without the encumbrance of a label, wrongly assumed). --John Cline (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: I assume that John B123 is not referring to my ping of you and others, but rather Fuzheado's earlier ping of me and others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you are almost certainly correct. And admit that my comment was engendered by a misunderstanding (on my part). Nevertheless, the resultant truth, as extraneous as it is, remains true and, being published, warrants no redaction. Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: Edited to correct for erroneously stating user was an admin. Doesn't materially change any of the issues, but it is now corrected for the record. Apologies for the error.) It goes against WP:AGF to characterize notifying folks who have had recent direct experiences with this editor as FORUMSHOPPING. I was alarmed by the massive number of WP:DRAFTIFY actions the editor was taking that were clearly against policy, and I was not aware of the previous ANI around this issue. I saw ~~an admin~~ a user that was draftifying obviously notable people (e.g. the current sitting ambassador from the Philippines to China, a legendary CNN journalist, published author, who was covered by multiple sources in the article) and getting a stream of complaints on their talk page. Onel5969 ~~as an administrator,~~ was using automated tools to enact changes at a large scale and ~~because they were deletions,~~ were hard to review or WP:BRD by ~~ordinary~~ users. Being ~~an admin and~~ a tool user means you face extra scrutiny and answering for your edits. With great power comes great... you know the rest. That does not constitute a "witch hunt." A reminder that the following were my exact words and are hard to see as a "hunt" or any call for action, but a mild call for discussion: I don't doubt there have been useful contributions by this editor, but this has become a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion.. – Fuzheado | Talk 11:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Onel5969 is not an administrator therefore your further remarks based on this and your edit summary are erroneous. Secondly, draftification is not deletion as you imply. a lingering problem that merits a wider discussion - pinging editors who are known to share the same or similar views to yourself doesn't seem to be a way of obtaining 'a wider discussion', in fact the opposite, narrowing down the discussion to similar viewpoints. I note you have moved many articles back to mainspace with the edit summary improper move to Draft namespace - does not satisfy WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii - "it would have very little chance of survival at AfD". WP:DRAFTIFY 2a-ii is just an example of a 'page obviously unready for mainspace', it is not a requirement of WP:DRAFTIFY and not complying with 2a-ii doesn't make a move to Draft improper. Many, if not all, of these article moved back to mainspace would have been draftified by Onel5969. Your comments about admin behaviour could well be applied to an admin undoing many actions by a single user based on a misinterpretation of WP:DRAFTIFY. --John B123 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, thanks for pointing that out. I have amended the post to correct the error of saying the user was an admin, though it doesn't change the argument materially. There's been so much drama around draftification that I got the user privileges mixed up with this case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:BigHaz redux. That said, it is clear we are seeing more conflict in draftify best practices, especially with the advent of new scripts and tools.

If you inspect the pages I've moved back to main space, many of those articles exist in other Wikipedia language editions (e.g. Kolmogorov Prize in ru, de, pt) which speaks to their notability and appropriateness for inclusion, or are the continuations of very established article name patterns (e.g. 2027 in public domain). This audit and undoing of draftifying was appreciated by other Wikimedians. [1] [2] A quick perusal of the types of articles that were in dispute show a pattern of not considering them closely in context, which is a hazard of these types of script-based tools and the speed-running they facilitate. This is just to say - let's slow our roll out there, and take some more time to consider the articles and the editors that are affected by hasty draftifying. Thanks. – Fuzheado | Talk 23:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate this check on overuse of WP:DRAFTIFY. No need to accuse anyone of violating policy. Just use WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You might not even have to do the moves yourself if you're civil, reasonable and lucky. ~Kvng (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

many of those articles exist in other Wikipedia language editions (e.g. Kolmogorov Prize in ru, de, pt) which speaks to their notability and appropriateness for inclusion. Please be very careful assuming that other wikis having an article indicates notability. I think enwiki might be the strictest wiki in terms of notability, and I can think of multiple times I had to decline drafts due to notability issues from folks translating articles from other wikis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability from articles in other language Wikipedias is covered by WP:OTHERLANGS. That aside, the text quoted by Novem Linguae above continues the misinterpretation of WP:DRAFTIFY that notability is the only criteria for draftification. --John B123 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I think enwiki might be the strictest wiki in terms of notability" - Not at all, in my many years of experience. With English Wikipedia being the largest of all language editions at 6.6 million articles, just from a logical standpoint "strictest wiki" cannot be true. If you ever hang out at German Wikipedia, they are very strict about notability and new article creation, especially those around pop culture. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Please be very careful assuming that other wikis having an article indicates notability." Of course. I said it speaks to their notability, not that it proves their notability. But it is clear many of the folks moving things to draft are not even bothering to check this very important data point in their evaluation. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS and WP:BRD would appear to apply here; assuming these are new articles that Onel is draftifying, then the onus is on the creator to get consensus to include the information in mainspace, not on Onel to get consensus to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the opposite of our draftification guidelines, which forbid repeat draftification and explicitly allow article creators to object to draftification and force the draft back into mainspace (at the expense of facing a likely AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, a core policy, takes precedence over WP:DRAFT, an explanatory essay. WP:BRD is also just an essay, but I suspect it enjoys greater community support than WP:DRAFT does. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says nothing about allowing draftifiers to unilaterally force content out of article space over others' objections. Failure to be verifiABLE (not even close to the same thing as being inadequately sourced) is a valid reason for deletion, but content worthy of deletion should not be draftified, and deletion should follow our deletion processes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS permits editors to remove newly inserted information they believe should not be included, up to and including the entirety of the article, and puts the onus for restoring it on the editor wishing to include it. Functionally, this means either draftifying or blanking-and-redirecting the article. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:onus is good policy. But it is not a blank check drawn solely on the removing editor's personal belief in the content's suitability, and does not constitute an unsurmountable blockage of content reinstatement. If the removal of content is not explained in the edit summary and shown to be rooted in consensus and best practice, the removal is subject to, and likely will -be reverted (without the burdens of onus coming to bear). And if the content removal's edit summary can not withstand the merits of a valid, policy based rebuttal, the burdens of onus are met. In the case of draftification (where the article is not subject to specific deletion criteria) mere objection to draftification is sufficient enough to meet the onus of reinstatement unless and until a consensus at AfD determines otherwise. Have I said anything in this posting that you feel is not correct? Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there examples of where DRAFTOBJECT has led to AFD, but are not examples of WP:HEY? These AfDs would be informative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know of AFD's that were a consequence of DRAFTOBJECT; it's not an area I've been active in. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently sent a couple, both are still going but one is pretty much over.

A couple of days ago I sent Project Colored Mountains (video game) to AFD, a COI creation. I actually didn't realize the COI line when I sent it to AFD, but it's pretty much deleted (SNOW-level) at AFD; the creator tried to draftify it themselves once it ended up at AFD, and then got blocked for advertising.

Earlier today I sent P.M Bhaktha Valsalan to AFD, which seems to be headed for speedy deletion under G11 (I didn't think it was that bad myself, but I defer). It falls under the 1 GNG source criteria for borderline notability that was talked about earlier.

I think both of these could have been improved in draftspace (the first was more of a CRYSTAL situation, good for draftspace), but in both cases the creator themselves moved it back to mainspace and they ran into AFD, where neither seems likely to survive. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for examples of DRAFTOBJECT that were kept, but not through WP:HEY, a recent one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Pan (professor). Some improvements were made to the article over the AfD, but they were not discussed within the AfD as part of a keep rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. That’s a good example.

User:LilianaUwU unilaterally draftified a version identical to the version SNOW-kept at AfD.

It was and is a very well referenced STUB with no secondary content. I can see why a reviewer might Draftify it, and I agree that such a stub is welcome in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, per WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN and other policies/guidelines we allow editors to remove content that does not have consensus, but when it comes to an entire article that isn't verified then it would have to be deletion, BLAR, and draftification—often expected to have affirmative consensus to remove the entire article. To me this seems inconsistent and when it comes to new articles I think draftification should be allowed when there is not consensus that the content belongs in mainspace. Ideally, new articles could be fixed or deleted if NN, but there's a fundamental problem when editors can flood Wikipedia with garbage like machine translations far quicker than it can be removed, which is what you get when consensus is required to delete said garbage. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:AFD we keep articles where there is not a consensus as to whether they belong in mainspace. It sounds like you would support changing that. Until that change is made, I don't think there is policy support for draftifying without consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is not deletion, though. The content still exists and the creator can always move it back to mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked above for evidence that articles ever get improved once draftified. I'm not sure anyone knows. Until someone makes the effort to do some objective observations, neither of us can say for sure how closely draftification resembles deletion in practice. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While consensus is clear that draftification should not be used as a quasi form of deletion, the process very clearly does resemble deletion and deletion is, quite often, its resultant end. Furthermore, and, in my opinion. more importantly: the creator of an article unilaterally draftified from the main space is considerably disadvantaged in the scheme of article creation and in peril of irreparable harm (as a content creator) directly thereby. For example: the creator of an article that is draftified from the main space is not protected (as first mover) against another editor's subsequent creation of an article for the same topic and no recourse exists to restore their status as the article's creator if ever such a subsequent creation manifests while their creation languishes in draft space. One can easily see how such an occurrence would likely drive a potential editor from joining our community. This and other reasons are why draftifications should be carefully considered and furthermore, why I believe that unilateral draftification and all forms of hurried or speedy draftication should be discontinued as soon as possible. If a formal process can not be accomplished that puts and end to the "wild west" antics of draftification that are currently in play, I would support, and suggest that the entire draft space itself should be shut down and marked historical. --John Cline (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was with you until that last clause which would presumably also shut down WP:AFC. I suspect that until we have better information about what actually happens to an article after it is draftified, we won't be able to make much more progress on this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common misnomer that wp:afc is dependant on the the draft namespace for its very ability to functionally exist. In fact, wp:afc was in operation long before the draft namespace was even imagined. Notwithstanding: the good faith and very best intentions that gave birth to the draft namespace and the enormous sums of effort and editor time invested to improve and maintain the same, not the first dividend or favorable gain has ever returned and sadly, all indications suggest that no such profit ever will be. Don't shoot the messenger but for everything hoped, nothing has come. In closing, I'd like to say that the presence of hyperbole, in my replies is deliberate, and meant to reflect the strength of my convictions regarding this topic, and the poetic license I cherish in use when deciding and forming the words that I choose. --John Cline (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the creator of an article unilaterally draftified from the main space is considerably disadvantaged in the scheme of article creation and in peril of irreparable harm (as a content creator) directly thereby

Although more strongly put that I would (small article countis harm is reparable by WP:History merge, as often done) I broadly agree. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is a remedy. If more is desired, I suggest a link to WP:DRAFTOBJECT be mandatorily provided (in the edit summary, or on the authors user_talk page) to the article creator on draftification, done by the script. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving drafts back to mainspace

OK, so I can do the move to mainspace bit. But it leaves the draft behind as a redirect. Is that the expectation or does this need to be cleaned up? Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from draftspace to mainspace should stay. That is expected, and they are exempt from G13 and R2. Hope that helps. Thanks for checking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]