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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation 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 Essays Top‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Top This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Shortcuts are cheap. Anyone can create them. If they get used, and are well used, and seem helpful to be used, then others will use them. If lots of people are using them, it may be a good idea to add a WP:LINKBOX so that people know lots of people use them.

Linkboxes are not cheap. They are visual clutter. Please don’t add them, or add to them, unless there an important shortcut to be advertised to newcomers.

Please don’t confuse the purpose of a linkbox with the purpose of the ((anchor)) template, which may be needed to make a shortcut work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find these useful and not cluttering. WP:LINKBOX merely advises not listing too many redirects; it doesn't say they have to meet a certain threshold of incoming links. None of the linkboxes you just removed listed more than three. Many were created recently (two today), hence the small number of incoming links right now.

And incidentally, since a linkbox does also serve as an ((anchor)), by removing them, your edit broke several (e.g. WP:DRAFTREASON and WP:DONTDRAFTIFY). – Joe (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from #Positive criteria for draftifying and a related discussion at VPI, where there was support for the idea stating what specifically makes an article "not ready for mainspace" rather than relying on that ambiguous phrase alone, I'd like to move forward with organising an RfC on additional reasons for draftifying. WP:DRAFTREASON currently lists three bright-line circumstances with an existing strong consensus behind them. Above I came up with several more that are seen with varying degrees of regularity (mostly because they're the canned reasons given by the draftify script), but which don't appear to have consensus behind them (yet):

1. The article does not cite any sources at all
2. The article needs more references
3. The article reads like an advertisement
4. The article has too many problems of language or grammar
5. Sources cited in the article do not show that the topic is notable

I envisage a centrally-advertised RfC asking participants to indicate whether they support or oppose each of these as an acceptable reasons to move an article to draftspace, subject to the established exceptions. Any that find consensus would be added to WP:DRAFTREASON; if there is a consensus against some, we could consider a new list of unacceptable reasons. We should state at the outset that is explicitly not aiming to be a comprehensive list: the option to IAR and move an article to draftspace for any reason is always there, and supported in the script via the "other reason(s)" field.

Before we get to that point, though, I'd like to workshop the above options and make sure nobody feels they're being unfairly presented. Is there anything that should be added or removed? Any wording changes? Bad idea altogether? Pinging @Novem Linguae, Alalch E., Kvng, WhatamIdoing, SmokeyJoe, and Thryduulf: who have participated in previous discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the motivation for adding new WP:DRAFTREASONs? For each case, what's the goal for moving to draft space? Do we think these problems are (more) likely to get addressed once the article is in draft space? ~Kvng (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation is to accurately describe the expectations of the broader community when it comes to draftifying and so give new page patrollers and others who do a lot of draftifying better guidance on when they should and shouldn't do it. That said, one very plausible outcome of this RfC (and my preferred one), is that none of these are added to WP:DRAFTREASON. I think your other two questions will be important points of discussion for the RfC but perhaps we could hold off on them for now. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a more direct approach would be to modify the script to remove canned reasons that do not appear in WP:DRAFTREASON. ~Kvng (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth distinguishing newly created from old articles. Draftification of an old article is basically just delayed deletion unless the article creator is still around and available, so I don't expect there would be consensus for draftifying old articles for things like "not enough references". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's already an established exception. ~Kvng (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Forgot that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the script can detect 'old age' and refuse to send it to Draft: space. (You'd have to move it manually.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MoveToDraft script definitely alerts potential draftifiers about this. It doesn't outright ban draftification for articles over 90 days old, but the giant red warnings and alert windows it generates are impossible to miss. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The options are presented fairly and nothing should be added or removed. I agree with proceeding with the RfC to discuss these five additional reasons to move an article to draftspace. Wikipedia:Drafts and the canned reasons in the script should be in agreement. —Alalch E. 12:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in removing the "During new page review" heading and all its associated text. I feel it duplicates the sections above it and does not concisely state current practice. In other words, I prefer the sections above it. Thoughts?

If folks don't want to delete the entire section, I think it'd also be acceptable to keep 1-5 but then delete everything from "Expanding on the above" down as too detailed and procedural. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing it entirely. All the substantive points are now covered in the other sections of WP:DRAFTIFY, IMO in a more approachable way. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support removing it. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the numbered items correspond to options in the AFCH script? The script's options should be documented somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH is for promoting drafts to mainspace so probably isn't applicable to draftification. If you meant the MoveToDraft script, no. MoveToDraft's message options more closely correlate to the recently added WP:DRAFTREASON and also the bullet points above that Joe Roe wants to RFC, rather than this "During new page review" section that is proposed for deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removal. I also find this content to be duplicative. —Alalch E. 13:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Ready for the mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that Idea Lab discussion I linked above, even though the phrase "not ready for mainspace" creates a lot of ambiguity, we may need to add that phrase somewhere in this document, as it does appear to be current practice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the "during new page review" section – that's where the phrase originates, in fact. Do you mean add it somewhere else, assuming we remove that section as you've proposed above? – Joe (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed it when I did Ctrl+F for "not ready for mainspace". It's phrased as "unready for mainspace". So yeah, I think it needs to stay in the document somewhere for now even if we give the "during new page review" section a haircut. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been there since 2017, so the default should be to keep it, for sure. However, I don't think we should feel obligated to: it's widely used 'in practice' because of automated scripts, which a) are paraphrasing this essay to begin with, and b) are a poor indicator of consensus, since individual editors using them don't choose the wording. If we think we can express current consensus in a better way we can certainly drop it, and I read the general sentiment in the VPI thread as that if we can agree on one thing, it's that that particular phrase is poorly defined. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E. has made a handy diagram that describes the 'gray zone' between deletion and mainspace where draftification comes into play. Would it be useful to add it or something similar to this page? @Alalch E.: Would it be possible to generate an SVG version so that others could edit it as this guideline evolves? – Joe (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Converted, thanks.—Alalch E. 16:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult for me to read. After staring at it for a few minutes, I guess it's mainly divided into 3 sections: red, gray, and green. I still don't understand DELREASON vs no DELREASON, A vs B vs B', or the subcircles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A and B are sets that do not intersect. A are all the articles that should be deleted, B are all the articles that should not be deleted, and B' is a subset of B comprising articles that should likewise not be deleted but are subject to unilateral draftification. B' being laid over a zone marked as draftspace indicates that they will end up in draftspace. There is a chance that they can be improved (just as there is a chance that any article in the remainder of A can be improved), but when hope is lost and it turns out that they can not be improved or have been effectively abandoned (equalling an assumption that they can't), they are deleted. When it turns out that an article that should not have been deleted initially, because it seemed like there is a chance of suitable improvement, can not, in fact, be suitably improved, and there was no specific reason to draftify, it should be deleted (not draftified).

Articles that should be deleted should be deleted, not draftified. The general reason to draftify is a need to keep the page out of view of general readership while it's given a chance, and for most articles with what we would call big problems, there's no such need because readers can see the problem themselves (and with the help of tags) or it does not affect them negatively. If someone wants to read an accurate directory-like page that could maybe be reshaped into an encyclopedia article, fine. If the final conclusion is that it can't, deletion ensues. Moving to draft doesn't do anything there. But there's no sense in tagging a page with "this page about an upcoming event about which few things can be verified is probably mostly misinformation, and facts will probably be significantly different when the event happens, so don't even read it"; but the event might happen and be notable, so there's no point in deleting either. —Alalch E. 17:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram, complicated as it already is, does not appreciate that not all deletion discussion result in deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that just has to be abstracted I think. It concerns idealized cases. An idealized case like: Topic has dubious notability (according to one editor who tags it with the notability tag; there's still a chance) -> a while later someone does a proper WP:BEFORE and determines that the topic is not notable (there's no chance; that editor is simply correct per his idealized WP:BEFORE) -> article is deleted using an appopriate process (other editors agree, so the process is also idealized). —Alalch E. 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• “Topic not notable after a BEFORE” does not mean “There is no chance”. Eg WP:TOOSOON, WP:NFF. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, "COI creation" does not mean "not ready for mainspace". To the contrary, we encourage COI creators to create their content as drafts and apply for it to be moved to mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's just shorthand for The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process (from WP:DRAFTREASON). There's an arrow to the right indicating that COI creations can become articles.—Alalch E. 23:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's intended to denote that at a given time (the time when the detemination is made) there is not a chance that the article should exist. A non-notable rapper or politician for whom there is "no chance" can become notable in the future, etc. I didn't mean it to say "never". —Alalch E. 23:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A diagram is not a useful teaching tool if it requires the viewer to infer the artist’s intentions. This diagram should never be used on a project page, but I encourage you to keep trying diagrams to develop and express your thinking.

  For teaching, the best diagrams are very simple. Diagrams are not so good for comprehensive purposes, and the intended meaning becomes lost in the details, and the amount of detail makes it difficult to refine the diagram. Detailed diagrams are great, but only for private use. Reveal only greatly simplified versions that illustrate only the intended point.

  I think File:Consensus Flowchart.svg is a great diagram.

  I think File:NPP flowchart.svg is a terrible diagram.

  - SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Problems with a diagram (such as overly complex or requiring inference) may be revealing problems with the process. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I've personally never been a big fan of the NPP flowchart either (because it flattens things out, failing to convey that some things are more important to check than others, and that not every article requires the same type of attention), I recently did a straw poll of NPPers and most found it useful: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Flowcharts. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, thanks.

  I agree especially with PamD in its Discussion section, I was going to say the same thing.

  I think comprehensively detailed flowcharts are off-putting to newcomers. But the detailed NPR flowchart would be excellent as a cheatsheet for experienced NPR-ers, or for them to check they are across all the details, or for them to collectively critique their process. The ability to map a process to a logical flowchart correlates with whether the process is logical. Increasing the visual simplicity of a comprehensively detailed flowchart should help with improving the efficiency of the process. Alalch’s chart might be similarly useful, but don’t put it on the WP:Drafts page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And, exactly as Kvng wrote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943 and Tavix: Re: from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Draft:Joe Biden.

Drafts are sometimes redirected to an article or section of an article where the topic is already covered. Regardless of whether it should happen, it does. However, this seems completely reasonable in my mind. It leads anyone attempting to draft on the topic to where the information we may already have on it may reside. This avoids duplication and allows expansion if a standalone or different article is not appropriate.

This leads to the question, what should be done with such redirects. G13, very correctly in my opinion, does not apply to redirects. Thus, the only way to seek their removal (the crusade to "cleanup" draftspace is relentless, but I will not editorialize on that aside from this short parenthetical) is through redirects for discussion. At the end of the day, they are really just harmless navigational aids pointing somewhere likely helpful to any potential draftees.

Are such redirects, bar exceptional circumstances, something we want to regularly handle and delete at RfD? Or, are they something we want to discourage nominations of at RfD and leave well enough alone? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also ping Robert McClenon as not to leave anyone from the aforementioned discussion unaware. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SRE. Draft namespace pages are often speedily redirected to the mainspace if they do not obviously meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion and [are] an exact match of a topic already covered within mainspace when listed at miscellany for deletion. Thus, allowing the deletion of such redirects at RfD, allows a potential merry-go-round of deletion seeking if one desires it. Or, further even, redirecting a draft and then nominating it for backdoor deletion at RfD (instead of letting it go naturally through G13). I suppose one could make the opposite argument in regard to 'saving' drafts, but again, relatively harmless. In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote that deletion guideline based on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 14#Speedy redirect approximately five years ago. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Redirect has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following are all examples of redirects out of draftspace that should generally be kept:
  • From drafts moved to mainspace
  • From drafts merged with a mainspace article
  • From drafts merged with another draft that was later moved or merged to mainspace
  • From drafts that duplicate an existing mainspace article
  • From the title of a draft that was moved within draftspace before being merged or moved to mainspace
  • From titles that were never drafts but at which a draft that duplicates an existing mainspace article might reasonably be created.

  The only reason we should be deleting a redirect in any namespace is because it is harmful, and Godsy presents good examples of ones that are not harmful, indeed it is harder for a redirect in draftspace to be harmful than it is one in mainspace (and draftspace does not need to be "cleaned up"). Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IF draftspace does not need to be cleaned up, G13 should be repealed. At present there is a very real disconnect between WP:SRE and WP:G13. I editorialized this further at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26#Draft:Giannis Antetokounmpo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Godsy: For what it's worth, when I reverted your edits which resulted in you opening this discussion, I just didn't agree with your somewhat WP:BOLD addition to the WP:RDRAFT guideline since ... what will happen is that editors who have never been involved in the process before will start citing it as a reason to "keep" or "delete" without understanding it ... since I have done that before. I get it, you added to the guideline since you considered it precedence, but adding it without discussion would "de facto" mean the addition is uncontroversial, which isn't the case since I disagree with it. Other than my disagreement which resulted in the reversion of your edit, I don't have any other effort to add to this discussion, will probably abide by and implement whatever is discussed here, and I thank you for opening this discussion to get this settled. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: No worries -- many of the discussions that made me feel comfortable in expanding the scope of RDRAFT are quite dated now. Revisiting a topic and allowing fresh perspectives that have developed over time is often beneficial. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Godsy and Thryduulf. There's no harm in keeping these redirects, and some benefit from having the page history in draftspace for editors to draw on. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Draft:Taylor Swift and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Draft:Donald trump. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I made this Draft:Choi Yu-ju yesterday, I hope someone can review it. Thanks - Jjpachano (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjpachano They would not have seen it because you had not submitted it. I have done this for you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The List of kidnappings, previously one of our longest pages, was recently split by century/date. One of them was moved to the Draft: space over alleged BLP violations (i.e., naming the perpetrator). There is a question at Talk:List of kidnappings about whether long-standing article content, placed on a brand-new page, can/should be treated like a new article or like an old one, wrt "The article was not created within the last 90 days" in WP:DRAFTNO. I don't know if this has ever been discussed before, so I hope that one of you will know the answer and reply over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTOBJECT is all that you need to do if you see someone is using draft space in a questionable way like this. You don't even need to provide a justification. There's always a better process available for controversial material once the content is back in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]