Some SVG files are no more than a bitmap file with an SVG "wrapper". When I have found them in the past, I have added {{BadSVG}} to them. There will be plenty of others I have not seen. It is proposed for a new bot to go through the SVG files we have and when it finds the start of a hex code stream (i.e. like xlink:href="data:image/jpeg;base64,), it tags the file with the {{BadSVG}} template. The file names will then be in Category:SVGs for cleanup where interested editors could consider cleaning them up. Once we have examined the existing files, the bot can be adjusted just to examine new uploads. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Embedding raster graphics in a "scalable" format is pretty pointless and may confuse readers/re-users when they don't scale as expected. -FASTILY 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raster images in an SVG file should scale just like other raster images. Glrx (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also need a better process for getting rid of these images. Uploading a real SVG is preferable in cases where one exists, but in cases where no real SVG can be found, it is still preferable to replace a "fake" SVG with a real raster image. If it's a non-free image, it's fairly simple to swap it out in the article and then tag it as orphaned, but if it's not, I've had {{Obsolete}} tags removed since the replacement image wasn't the same file type. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could do with a new or expanded speedy to cover that. I've done some in the past, taken out the jpg and replaced it in the article. But there is always the risk that someone will swap it out in the 7 days that F5 takes to mature. Maybe expand G6? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I built a tool several months ago to download the first 4 KB of every SVG on Commons. And I investigated this, finding three usages of bitmaps:

1. The bitmap off canvas or behind an SVG traces, such as File:649th Military Intelligence Battalion Coat of Arms.svg
2. Mixed use: Small bitmap used for a tiny element, interactive SVGs
3. Full Bitmap in an SVG wrapper, such as File:Pst-geo.svg

I scanned the 1.2 million SVG January Commmons dump and found 2,457 SVGs with 3+ KB base64. — Dispenser 03:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is inappropriate to automatically label any file with an embedded stream as bad SVG. One application of SVG is to provide a bitmap image with editable text labels. See File:Moon names.svg, which is an image of the moon with text labels in both English and Ukrainian; there are also German, Bulgarian, Chinese, and Spanish versions. A bot could capture six reasonable images and inappropriately label them as bad. Imagine a picture of the thoracic cavity with text labels for lung, heart, and aorta. See File:Blausen 0458 Heart ThoracicCavity.png. Yes, it is a PNG, but there could be an SVG-labeled version. There's been a project to do that for many images. See the SVG text labels in c:File:Defecating into a pit (raster).svg. Admittedly, the pit image is simple enough that it should have been vectorized rather than kept as a bitmap, and the project has lost its way by spawning translated JPEGs rather than translated SVGs. Yes, there are inappropriate SVG files out there, but that does not mean all SVGs with raster data are bad. Glrx (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx: Maybe the template name is wrong? (not my template!) - Template:Bad SVG - only has the word "bad" in the title. Perhaps it should be more like "SVG with Raster". My view is that, if they were tagged then it would give a list for subsequent review. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: The use of "bad" in the name is an intent to say that the SVG format has been misapplied. The text of the template ("This SVG image contains embedded raster graphics. Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes.") does not explain the problem. Scaling of continuous tone images (typical photographs) is usually not a problem. Magnify the image enough and you will hit a resolution limit, but that is not a misapplication of a raster. That's why the Moon names raster is reasonable. If small, discrete tone, text characters (or curved shapes or non-Manhattan geometry shapes) are present in a raster image and then magnified, the anti-aliasing will blur the desired character, destroy the discrete tones, and fail to maintain / reconstruct the desired shape. There is nothing inherently wrong with inserting a raster image into an SVG file, so tagging an SVG file with an embedded raster seems like overkill. The problem is when the raster image contains drawn geometrical shapes. Sort of if the raster existed as a PNG, then somebody would come along and tag it with {{Convert to SVG}}. Even if somebody were to just stick such a PNG inside an SVG file, that would be a step in the right direction: maybe somebody will come along and replace the rasterized geometrical shapes with scalable vector shapes and remove the raster. There's not a compelling reason to delete such an SVG file; it might improve. On the other hand, an SVG that is just a continuous tone portrait of Winston Churchill probably has no business being an SVG file; JPEG would serve the purpose. None of these cases are simply detected with a string match. Tagging all of them for review does not seem to have a significant priority. So the SVG is bad/poor/misapplied. Why does it have to be examined/fixed/deleted right now? I blanche when I look at all the defecating-into-a-pit JPEGs. They are wrong in so many ways, but many of the African languages are not accessible, and the images don't need to be fixed today. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx:Oh, OK. I started this thread as I discovered that there were a few (it was about a dozen in a random 400) non-free SVGs which were which were just a photograph (and a high res one at that) - they were all converted back to jpg and scaled to an appropriate non-free size. Looks like it needs more of a manual examination. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good arguments and thanks for your kind words about my moon SVG, Glrx. Another set of SVGs with embedded bitmaps are interactive renditions of GIF animations:

• user:cmglee/Dynamic_SVG_for_Wikimedia_projects#GIF_animation_to_SVG_converter
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interactive_3D_SVG

They could arguably be converted into video clips, but that would lose quality due to recompression. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• needs some work What we need is some reporting tool to tag candidates and which can be told of the apparent few where there is a larger raster which is nonetheless appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I can't see why a bot could not work out the percentage of raster and maybe categorise into, say, low / medium / high levels of raster image. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add there are 14222 non-free SVGs and 6815 free SVGs in en-wiki Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the head download script last week. So I have 690 SVGs on the possibly bad list, but haven't time to refine it. A simple method for culling labeled or drawn over SVGs is to count the number of opening tags (<). — Dispenser 03:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical standpoint, I didn't notice any of those SVG files deserving a Bad SVG label. They are predominantly logos that have geometric shapes, so they should be SVG files. On the other hand, many of the images are non-free fair use, e.g., File:American Heart Association Logo.svg, so we may not use high resolution versions of them. That is, converting them to SVG would be a pointless exercise. The files are already tagged for fair use, so I'd just let them be.

For a non-logo example, File:Cauldron.svg is an appropriate use of SVG. It has both bitmap and vector elements; it is using SVG gradient fills. It could have been done with all SVG elements. Glrx (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try these from the list: File:Ctvhd.svg, File:BetterWorldBooksLogo.svg, File:BSicon box.svg, and File:Akhmat Grozny logo.svg. — Dispenser 04:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dispenser: All of those files make sense as SVG files (I reverted one to an earlier non-bitmap). They are simple shapes that can be described with vectors and curves. They fit in the images "that have geometric shapes, so they should be SVG files". In a free world, it would be better if the internal bitmaps were vectorized, but imagine somebody coming along later and running a bitmap-to-vector converter on the images. If the image is non-free, then WP should not have a high-resolution version of it, but that can be achieved by applying a Gaussian blur filter to the SVG so the image looks fuzzy even when enlarged. Glrx (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial oppose As per Ronhjones, I think it shouldn't be called "BadSVG". A different name e.g. "SVG with embedded bitmap" is fine. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

346 SVGs which don't use any drawing elements besides <image>. These should be tagged with one of the aforementioned templates. — Dispenser 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What template would you use? It's already SVG, so {{Convert to SVG}} doesn't make sense. The images are appropriate for SVG format, so {{Bad SVG}} or its rename isn't appropriate. Yes, they have embedded bitmaps, but they are non-free logos. Most of the files are in the same limbo-land hell of File:Liga Elitelor U17 logo.svg. A {{Bad SVG}} tag is saying the file has a raster image so it is probably poor quality and should be vectorized, and another tag is saying it is a non-free image and the quality should be reduced because it is a smidgen over 100k pixels. Don't add more images to the schizo soup. Glrx (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even get me started on {{non-free reduce}}. 0.1 megapixel is just a suggestion -- it's rediculous that we're tagging anything under 0.15 megapixels (or even 0.2). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the better solution is to write a bot to pop out the raster data, upload it as a new file, update links to the file to use the raster image, and then tag the SVG for deletion (ideally under CSD F1 since, despite having a different file extension, the underlying data is in the same file format, but it could also be a mass FFD). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it is worthwhile to invest time and resources in massaging/improving/dressing-up non-free files. Turning SVG versions into PNG versions is make-work. Why make another copy of a crappy file? Why waste the effort of relinking and deleting the resulting orphan? The SVG will serve. Let sleeping dogs lie. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  In the past I have found non-free svg files with a big sharp raster image inside, and I have extracted the image out and saved as a jpg - after changing the article, the svg then naturally got deleted as orphaned (these were not logos, they were proper pictures). Thanks to Dispenser for the list of image-only svg. That list will be saved - I will have a manual review and see if any do need to be extracted. I think the overall opinion is not for a bot for adding "BadSVG". Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal about creating a new user right for event coordinators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk)

Yes, yes, I know, perennial proposals and all, but what about just a small link under Other areas of Wikipedia? The Signpost is definitely useful for getting up to date with what's going on in the community, and there's also a good deal of work going into it. However, it's nearly impossible to find it, and readership has been declining for several years. There have been several crises in the team itself, mainly due to a lack of contributors - which obviously get recruited from readers. Therefore, I think it's both in the interest of Wikipedia and of the Signpost to add a

- The Signpost – Stay informed on what's going on by reading the newspaper for Wikipedia.

to Other areas of Wikipedia. Thoughts? Zarasophos (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC) This proposal has been replaced by the idea of adding a notification to the watchlist as discussed further below. Zarasophos (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. It will not take up too much room on the Main Page of Wikipedia to do this. Vorbee (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - why has this never been thought of before? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - because the signpost is a bunch of navel gazing bullshit and editorials that almost always do not meet quality to be linked from the main page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose-Mainly per OED, whilst distancing from the qualifiers:).Signpost is nowhere near to Mainpage-stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - navel gazing is enough for me.--John Cline (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Implemented already, sort of - we already have a link, "Site news". What's on the right? The template box version of the signpost. Plus you get other news sources. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a watchlist notice instead (as I have suggested at various times and places). Add for say 3 days after a new issue is released. Now they will be monthly this should be acceptable. Signpost is most appropriate for regular (and so mostly registered) editors, for whom a watchlist notice is far more visible. Mind you, with a main page link you would benefit from the free attentions of User:The Rambling Man imposing his unique vision of the English language on you, which would make for highly entertaining talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Another stunning contribution, laced with personalisation and offensive pinging. Well played Johnbod, you are a shining example and we should all follow your methods. You were already told over at ERRORS just how wrong you were, why you would feel it necessary to bring that up in a completely unrelated topic is beyond me. It's not a good look John, it's not a good look at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I wasn't "told" at all, until someone else informed me after the event, as you insist on the editors whose work you attack so freely at ERRORS not being notified (see over there)! And you were wrong. Unlike you I believe in pinging people when their work is being criticized - there is such a thing as unproductive and "offensive non-pinging". Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You're just making yourself look bad here John, really really bad. Continue, by all means, but don't say you weren't warned. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, on request I gave the signpost a 1 week trial on watchlist last issue, and asked the editors to seek wider consensus if it should be recurring in the WL. (c.f. MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#Signpost). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The signpost is primarily written for editors and not for our non-editing readers. --Jayron32 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot As Bellezzasolo points out, we already have this. He pointed to the Site News link. Signpost is also prominent in the Community portal which is linked in the sidebar for every page, not just the Main page.Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -actually strong oppose if it means anything. Signpost is nothing more than glorified WikiProject newsletter. It is nowhere near the standard of being in the main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Signpost builds and indicates community which is what we want to broadcast to readers and editors. The quality is fine, better than fine considering it's volunteer grass roots with 0 budget, like most everything else on WP. Our ethos is open knowledge for all, but many have an attitude that open knowledge about Wikipedia itself is not of public interest. Far from it. -- GreenC 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for "publicity", posting the Signpost to places like the Teahouse or WP:AN would be better. For the mainpage itself, making the link to Wikipedia:News more prominent would be most helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above - Do we really think our non-editors would care about "Admin reports board under criticism", " WikiProject Military History" or "ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide" ? ... No ofcourse they wont, The Signpost is more of an editor thing than a reader thing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Before some smart-arse comments on the "Reader" part - When I say Reader I mean Non-editor. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional - if it receives recurring watchlist notification, as was trialled with the last edition courtesy of xaosflux, then I don't think it needs Main Page publication (Personally I'd like it, but I see the arguments against). If it isn't going to have the watchlist, then I "vote" support. There is discussion on the recurring bit at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#Signpost Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support From my experience with newbies in public wiki workshops, I think a lot of readers will actually find the Signpost informative and a fascinating insight into the community.--Pharos (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I like the idea of the watchlist notice, to involve more editors who might not otherwise be looking, but I don't think the content of the Signpost is appropriate to try to put in front of people who don't understand the context. The Signpost frequently contains editorializing/commentary/humor that, while well and good within the community, would be confusing to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia process who comes to it through the main page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The Signpost is geared mostly toward editors so I wouldn't place it on the Main Page. However, I'm fine with placing the notice on centralized discussion, or AN, or other place where editors frequently congregate. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Epicgenius; non-editors don't have any reason to see it. Unlike other editing-related things on the Main Page (e.g. the link to WP:CP in the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section), it's not something that's intended to arouse editing interest in non-editors. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maaaaayyybe It might help give non-editing readers some insight into how things work, and whether they want to stick a toe into the editing side of things. What they'll think of that, well, who knows. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - long-running community initiative that deserves an audience and that showcases how Wikipedia works. Amisom (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone starts a new article, there is a template with useful links above the editing box, one that starts with "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article". The last line says "You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Article. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready".

What about adding a link to Draft/Article as well? The text may mention that it would be preferred for drafts that would be worked by several users (at least, that's the idea), and that the userspace is more suited for personal projects. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. I propose changing this

'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.'

to something similar to this,

'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example or Draft:Example. There, you can develop the article... (etc.)'

this,

'You can also start your new article at Draft:Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready. Additionally, you can do the same thing in your personal user space, by going to Special:Mypage/Example.

or this.

'You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/Example. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready. Additionally, you can start the article in the draft namespace, by going to Draft:Example.

If somebody else has another suggestion, please comment here, as I'm not the best when it comes to writing stuff like this.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: Do you want to start an RfC for this? It's been up for almost a week, and I'm the only person who has replied. Also, an administrator will have to see this post before it can be implemented, as changing this would involve editing a page in the MediaWiki namespace (which can only be edited by admins).--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 19:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the name of the template we are talking about? Perhaps someone else will notice if I ask at its talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I finally found it, Cambalachero (I've been looking for it for a while). {{Newarticletext-confirmed}}, which is used on MediaWiki:newarticletext. However, I can tell you that you're likely going to get more traffic here than on the talk page of the template. If you start an RfC either here or there, though, users are probably more likely to see it. Of course, submitting an edit request would result in admins seeing it the soonest, but it's probably best to get the support of more users before we use that.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text of new article template

Should {{Newarticletext-confirmed}} include a link to the draft namespace? Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded explanation: {{Newarticletext-confirmed}} is the template that shows up above the edit box when someone tries to start a new article. The last line says "You can also start your new article at [link to page name in userspace]. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready." I propose to replace it with the following lines:

• You can also start your new article at [link to page name in draft namespace]]. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.
• Another alternative, if you want to manage the draft mostly on you own before making it ready, is to start the page at [link to page name in userspace]. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modified support. Like I've said before, I definitely like this idea, but I don't think that the two options should be on separate lines or take up a lot of space. I currently support one of the 3 options I provided above, but I may change my mind if anybody else has some other ideas of how to word it.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 13:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I’m expanding an existing Wikipedia article, one way to find good info to add is by using the “What links here” button. But this is ruined if the article that I want to expand is in a template that’s used in a ton of articles. For example, consider Picket Lake, Minnesota. If you go to that article and click on “what links here” you get a ton of useless search results that are listed merely because they each use a template that happens to include a link to Picket Lake, Minnesota and it’s impossible to tell which of the search results will actually provide further substantive info about Picket Lake. So, I suggest that the “what links here” button should exclude search results that merely have templates mentioning the article in question, although the template itself would be a valid search result that would not cause any difficulties. Or else the search results should indicate which ones result merely from a template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question that probably needs to be added WP:PERENNIAL. The answer is, yes, it could be so-modified, but no, it probably won't happen, because it is marginal utility for some probably-large amount of software work to make the search and WLH functions work inconsistent with expectation. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the above example can still be "handled" as the total number of incoming links is still limited, but there are examples with hundred-thousands such incoming links making it a complete nightmare to reverse-lookup stuff through WLH. So, some options to filter and/or sort the WLH output in useful ways would be highly appreciated, and any time spent into developing a solution is time well-spent: Solved once, used often.

In some cases, however, there is a good working and easily applicable (although not perfect) solution to this problem already:

The link through the template should go through a (specially crafted) redirect rather then point to the target article directly. This way, incoming links through that redirect are easily distinguishable from "normal" links (and links through other redirects) in WLH.

At present this isn't really applicable to navigation box links as we try to avoid redirects there so that the navigation link is displayed in boldface on the page itself (a practice with IMO only marginal value and that could IMO be abandoned).

However, there are other use cases where it is applicable without any backdraws: For example, some of the templates linking some kind of numerical identifiers to a common article use this through special redirects ending on …" (identifier)" as parenthetical extension of the subject's name, see {{CVE}} for an example. This nicely groups all those links under a single redirect in WLH and allows a user to optionally ignore or even focus on them depending on what kind of information s/he's trying to look up through WLH. Also, unlike navigation boxes these templates aren't normally used on the target page and so the desire (if any) for boldface links doesn't exist. Of course, this only catches links going through the template (but that could be easily solved by bots), so, depending on how consistently such identifiers are routed through such templates in related articles, it might help to remove more or less clutter from WLH and thereby help reverse lookup of relevant stuff. It was also used by {{ISBN}} thereby helping to remove a lot (!) of clutter from the ISBN article's WLH list - but one editor decided to edit-war over it. It would help even more, if the citation template would use it as well (which would be trivially easy to adapt).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case given, would it help to do a "Search Wikipedia" for containing... "Picket Lake"? (The quotation marks are necessary.) There would be fewer results and they may be more relevant. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anythingyouwant, you may publish your request later this year at the 2018 Community Wishlist Survey. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to sort the results. Sometimes I copy the results to a text editor so I can sort them, see the namespaces separately, and easily scan the one I'm interested in. Bob Webster (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you install User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js then Picket Lake, Minnesota gets a link below What links here saying Source links. {{Source links|Picket Lake, Minnesota}} produces Source links.

Adding this issue to WP:PERENNIAL may be a good idea considering these requests:

• Help talk:What links here#We need a way to hide/show links from templates
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 September 7#What links here - hide transclusions
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#What links here / templates
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 328#'what links here' question
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 March 25#Filtering "what links here"
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Can links via navboxes be excluded from "what links here"?
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#What Links Here generating too many listings due to navboxes
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Amount of work for "What links here" to distinguish between links from within templates and those that aren't.
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Fix a problem with What Links Here?
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#"What links here" to group links from templates as it does with redirects
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 122#WhatLinksHere overwhelmed by links in navigation templates
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#What links here - templates
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 69#What links here and navboxes
• Help talk:What links here#Question. How do we hide excessive linkage?
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 20#What links here
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 May 9#"What links here"--is there a way to eliminate the nav box links?
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 January 18#how do I filter out template links from "what links here"
• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 February 25#Incoming/Outgoing page links (Backlinks and What links here) issue
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive S#Whatlinkshere idea
• Phabricator:T3392: "What links here" should show only the template linking, not all pages containing the template. Same for "pages that use this image".
• Phabricator:T5241: Transclusion should produce tree-like results in "What links here"
• Phabricator:T14396: "what links here" should list the template, not the pages that use it

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#what links here problem
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#What Links Here vs.Templates

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#What links here? - Exclude links from templates

PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the validity of this too-soon RfC

It has only been a month since the last time this proposal was rejected. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. Editors should not be allowed to ask the same question over and over, hoping for a different result. This RfC should be closed and the proponent should be asked to wait at least a few months before asking again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of editors above disagree. Why not let them have their say and let consensus decide? Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a proponent, but I argue that this proposal is sufficiently different. The last proposal was short and asked to link to an external site; this proposal is more detailed, presents example material, and proposes a US-specific banner (major point) leading readers to on-wiki material and calls to action. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting, to see the earlier one. I didn't know it existed. This proposal is focused on a near-term situation; it's not an identical proposal. I'll read the materials at the links you posted, Guy Macon. -- econterms (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There have been a number of previous discussions on this noticeboard related to Wikipedia's role in preserving net neutrality in the United States, some more substantial than others and a couple of which I closed. I would recommend the community to review the arguments expressed in them carefully before commenting.
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 112#A modest suggestion about Net neutrality, last post 11 May 2014
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#Get wikipedia to participate in Go-Slow Day!, closed 9 September 2014
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 139#Wikipedia and Net Neutrality, closed 29 May 2017
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 140#Is anything happening with Wikipedia in relation to the July 12 Net Neutrality day of action, last post 13 June 2017
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 143#Wikipedia and the Dec. 12th “Break The Internet” day of action for net neutrality, closed 15 December 2017
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality, closed 10 April 2018
• Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with this. You can't reopen something immediately if you don't like the result. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems sufficiently different from the previous proposal (which should have been SNOW closed far earlier than it was) that I don't oppose it on procedural grounds. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding any meaningful difference between

Could we perhaps link to www.businessesfornetneutrality.com in a banner at the top of all pages?

...and...

Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality.

What makes them different? Is it the added US-only provision, or the slightly different wording in support on Net Neutrality? I didn't see any responses to the previous RfC that said "I would support it if the notice was US only" or "I would support it if you dropped the businessesfornetneutrality.com link". Generally, for a new RfC to be posted after a month, one would expect the new RfC to address some issue identified in the previous RfC. In my considered opinion, this is substantively the same proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the banner which states: "Wikipedians are opposed to the advancement of government control over our internet!". Wikipedia, however, does not speak with one voice here. Let's get over it, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Can someone close this waste of editor time and energy which will NEVER REACH CONSENSUS and is beating a dead horse? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, however, does not speak with one voice here. Can someone close this waste of editor time? Pot, meet kettle. Just let the discussion play out first. Maybe there will be consensus for one side or the other, but no one will know unless the discussion runs its course. epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No matter what issue exists, on any topic at all, it is likely unwise for Wikipedia to take any stance on any issues based on "consensus of editors" on any Wikipedia page. The potential morass is vast. The gain is de minimis. And where iterated versions of such things get placed here on a monthly basis, the value of any "consensus" is Wertlos. Guy Macon is correct. Collect (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is substantially different, and the discussion should continue. Megs (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course it is too soon. Saying "Plenty of editors above disagree." is either disingenuous because you want your side to "win at any cost", or moronic. Bludgeoning the community until it grows weary of these discussions is not how you form a consensus. In the past it has been clear that a majority do not want to get involved in ANY politics. Saying the slightly different wording changes everything is bunk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While not technically against the rules, There is a strong appearance of a conflict of interest when the person who posted an RfC reverts a (at that time uninvolved) editor hatting it.[10][11]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You opposed the previous proposal so you weren't uninvolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that the proposals are in fact the same thing? Natureium (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were different anyhow; but presuming the proposals aren't the same, the proposals would still be on a similar enough topic that it'd be hard to call Guy Macon uninvolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But whether or not I am involved because of my participation in another RfC, you do agree that the person who posted this RfC is involved, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would not accomplish what this RfC claims that it would accomplish

According to this legal analyses,

"The CRA would not undo the FCC’s decision to classify broadband internet access service as an information service. That classification decision was the result of an adjudication and is embodied in an order, not a 'rule' subject to the CRA. Nor would the CRA permit Congress to restore the net neutrality rules that the FCC eliminated in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

Thus, the CRA joint resolutions of disapproval recently introduced in the Senate (S.J.Res.52) and House (H.J.Res.129) can neither return broadband Internet access service providers to Title II regulation nor restore prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. In fact, the result of an enacted CRA resolution in this case would be to disapprove the FCC’s transparency rule — the only substantive rule adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order — and prevent the FCC from adopting substantially similar transparency requirements in the future. In short, the CRA resolution exercise represents nothing more than empty political theater rather than a serious legislative effort to preserve Internet openness."

Related: The Process for Using the Congressional Review Act to Protect Net Neutrality, Explained. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, a blog post written on a law firm's website, by a lawyer that represents communications companies against the FCC. Always nice to grab extra attention with a new subsection for such things.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Snark ignored.) Actually, it was published on Law360. As a convenience to the reader I searched out a non-paywall version.

Do you have a source that disputes the sourced claim that the CRA allows review and possible overruling of new federal regulations issued by government agencies and does not allow the overruling of a repeal of an old regulation as a result of an adjudication?

Do you have a single example of the CRA being used to force an agency to adopt a rule as opposed to disapproving a rule? See Congressional Review Act. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Psst...saying something is ignored is the opposite of ignoring it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist Geonotice

A watchlist geo-notice targeted to the US is now in effect advertising this discussion, saying "Please participate in a discussion about whether to temporarily display a banner in support of Net Neutrality to U.S. readers only." As there is a very tight timeframe here and the notice is neutrally worded, this seems acceptable to me, though I assume some of the other participants here will disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked this this be removed from watchlists ASAP. I view this as an attempt to get around the obvious no consensus here as it all but adevrtises this banner despite the fact that there is no consensus for it. This is already advertised on CENT. There is no need to further advertise it, and IMO, doing so undermines the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been reverted after several objections. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion update

• For whatever it's worth, the Wikimedia twitter account sent out a statement, linking to meta:Special:NetNeutrality. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And EFF updates: The Senate Voted to Stand Up for Net Neutrality, Now Tell the House to Do the Same. Meanwhile at the House... --Nemo 04:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IntelligenceSquared Debate on Net Neutrality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAJabAjoK08

The Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision to end Obama-era net neutrality regulations has sparked contentious national debate about the future of the web. Is net neutrality necessary to preserve a free, open internet for all?

For the Motion:

• Mitchell Baker Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation
• Tom Wheeler Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School and Former Chairman, FCC

Against the Motion:

• Nick Gillespie Editor at Large, Reason
• Michael Katz Professor, Berkeley & Former Chief Economist, FCC

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC of probable interest is published at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block#RfC about appealing a block and Wikipedia "standard offer". Thank you and please act accordingly.--John Cline (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please place this in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) if it is about policies, not Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

  I placed a courtesy notification both here and at vpp simultaneously when the RfC published. I did that because the RfC is published to two categories: Wikipedia:policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:proposals. The notification, here, is proper. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am proposing is the following:

1. Certain cleanup templates that require subject-area knowledge to effectively respond to should accept a parameter marking the subject area of the article being tagged.
2. This information should be used to categorize tagged articles into subcategories by subject area (as is currently done by month).
3. [this item added on May 14th] Alternatively: The creation of more subject-specific maintenance templates and categories (like the existsing {{LawUnref}} and Category:Law-related articles lacking sources) should be encouraged, but not implemented through template parameters.

Background

Many of our cleanup templates (and some other types of templates) tag articles for the kinds of attention that only editors familiar with the subject matter will be able to effectively provide (e.g., {{lead rewrite}}, {{context}}, {{expand section}}, {{missing information}}, {{confusing}}, {{disputed}}, {{undue weight}}, {{clarify}}, {{dubious}}, {{original research}}, {{more citations needed}}, {{citation needed}}, and several others). While the dating of templates (using |date=) has become almost universal, indicating the subject matter in a similar way has not (although {{expert needed}} does have a mechanism for associating the tag with a WikiProject). As far as I know, only stub templates are routinely marked with the subject area, allowing "sorting" into an appropriate stub category, but this is done by creating a separate template for each subject area.

The proposal

[edit: ignore the above line… — see explanation below for the odd ending here. - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)][reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcljr (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there more to this? Natureium (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh… there was going to be. I was actually trying to abandon this post (not save it) to work on it more in my userspace later and then post it perhaps tomorrow (ran out of time today to finish it properly before I had to go do other things). Oh, well, it's pretty much complete as posted; I was just going to restate the proposal(s) in other words, with some more details and links to relevant examples, and possibly address certain objections I could foresee people having. Let's just say this is my proposal. [grin] - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have 1. and 2. for all cases of {{Expert needed}}: Category:Geography articles needing expert attention (see esp. the subcategory Category:Countries articles needing expert attention). We also have 1. for some cases of {{Globalize}}: Category:Articles with limited geographic scope, although not all templates in Category:Internationalisation maintenance templates have their own maintenance categories (proposal 2.)

But more importantly, there is an external tool that does this for all imaginable maintenance problems by checking tagged articles against WikiProjects (not limited to geographical scope by the way) see e.g. Germany. It's super useful and automated and basically does what you want, and more. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Petscan can also do the same as the tool provided by Finn. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Yes, I was trying to say {{expert needed}} was an exception. To my knowledge, all the other templates I listed ({{lead rewrite}}, etc.) do not have a way of marking the subject area. @Izno: The template version of {{PetScan}} looks quite useful, especially for linking to lists of articles needing attention in, say, WikiProjects and "Portal:" pages. Unfortunately, it doesn't really replace the functionality of categories. I'm sorry but I literally cannot take the time to talk about this right now. Tomorrow I can say more. - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

…Or not. [grin] sorry for the delay… - dcljr (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium, Finnusertop, and Izno: OK, basically what I'm saying here is, the current system of (sub-) categorizing article-improvement issues by date is useful only, perhaps, in tracking the lack of progress in dealing with them, not in effectively getting editors to notice the issues and address them. In cases where some degree of familiarity with the subject matter significantly improves the chances of being able to actually deal with the tagged issue (see partial list in my original post above), it makes sense to "sort" the request into subcategories by subject. So, for example, if I put {{unreferenced|date=September 2017|subject=sports and games}} (or whatever) on the article American Poolplayers Association, it would be listed at Category:Articles lacking sources in subject area sports and games (or whatever), as well as Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2017 and Category:All articles lacking sources. This would allow related WikiProjects, portals, etc., to link to such (subject-based) categories to direct the attention of those editors most likely to be able to fix the problems. As things stand now, only the users interested in sports/games who happen to visit or are watching the article American Poolplayers Association will notice the tagging. Relatively few (or possibly none) of those users will ever look through Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2017 and Category:All articles lacking sources looking for things to fix (since the vast majority of articles there have nothing to do with sports and games). And those users who notice the tagging of that article will not see a category link to other related articles tagged the same way, only to a mass of articles on completely different topics. If this kind of subject-based subcategorizing is implemented/popularized, as it becomes better known more users could start regularly looking through categories such as Category:Articles lacking sources in subject area sports and games looking for things they can fix. Now, granted, there are issues with this approach, including most obviously (1) creating the required categories (/avoiding redlinks), and (2) controlling which subjects deserve a subcategory (like sports and games) and which don't (like Power Snooker). Thus, perhaps a template-parameter approach may not be the right way to go (although templates can detect things like missing categories automatically, and issue warnings). In light of these considerations, I have added a third alternative above (so, either do #1–2 or #3). Finally, to return to {{PetScan}}, like I said before, this could be useful for WikiProjects and portals to link to (although the user interface of the tool itself is slightly intimidating—i.e., you don't get the list you want until you submit a form), but using an external tool like that is of little use to the vast majority of users who are just looking at articles. (Of course, one could say that the vast majority of editors never look at the maintenance categories anyway, but I'd think that more of them would use categories over external tools than the other way 'round.) - dcljr (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realize I screwed up the initial posting of this proposal, but now that I've fleshed out my idea a bit, it would be nice to see some kind of discussion about this. Comments? Questions? Suggestions? I don't think an {{rfc}} tag is necessary here, but if that's the only way I'm going to get this noticed… - dcljr (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of drafts via MfD was previously discussed over two years ago in this RfC that concluded that drafts should not be subject to the notability criteria, but that there may be other valid reasons for the deletions of drafts. Reading the comments of the RfC and the close, there also seemed to be agreement that drafts should be works in progress, eventually expected to meet mainspace standards. Currently, it is possible to continually resubmit a declined draft to AfC with no changes while not meeting any of the CSD criteria or failing WP:NOTWEBHOST and effectively stay in draft space forever. This has caused some back and forth at MfD as what to do with these articles. To help provide clarity for this situation, I am proposing WP:NMFD be modified to read the following (updated text in red):

Drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability so creators may have time to establish notability. Drafts may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but not solely based upon a concern about notability. A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts RfC Survey

• Support as proposer as it will clarify what has de facto become a delete reason at MfD, deal with cases that will never be G13 or G11 eligible but also have no chance of ever becoming an article, and also provides protection to drafts so that they are still not eligible solely because of notability and requires that they be given more time to develop. This also has the potential to lighten the load on MfD because it would set the standard as repeated resubmissions (read 3 or more times) and would leave the others alone to develop or meet G13. I think this wording is a good way of splitting the baby of protecting drafts from overeager while remembering that at the end of the day, we are ultimately an encyclopedia first and foremost, and that the end goal of the draft space is to build that encyclopedia. Content that doesn't have a chance of meeting that goal shouldn't be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted without improvement are an unnecessary waste of volunteer time and should be deleted. Some submitters evidently have difficulty in understanding the word "no" (let alone "encyclopedia"). Deletion makes that message clear. I'd like to see some article CSDs (A11 in particular) apply to submitted drafts, as the act of submission indicates that the submitter believes their draft should be treated as an article. MER-C 18:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MER-C, the resubmitters are never told “no”. Have a look at some. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some sense, yes -- I strongly agree with you that we waste far too much time sending the wrong message to and accommodating those who aren't here to improve Wikipedia. But having a draft declined stating that further improvement is necessary and not doing that before resubmitting is still failing to understand a very simple concept. MER-C 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mer-C & Tony but is not strong enough. I like Robert's idea of A7 for draft articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As I noted at AN before the thread was closed, resubmitting a draft multiple times is a conduct issue not a content issue and should be handled by sactioning the user in question instead. Once the user has been banned/blocked, the problem posed by the RFC is solved. This proposal would allow a single editor to decline a draft three times and then nominate it for MFD for being declined three times, effectively circumventing the whole reason why we have Draft-space in the first place (which is also why I strongly oppose any attempts to expand A7 to drafts). Regards SoWhy 19:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  SoWhy I would be in complete agreement, except Tony has inserted the phrase "without any substantial improvement". If there is question about what "substantial improvement" here constitutes, an per-case discussion happens at MfD. This is not a "Speedy" process, although I also think there should be such a process for egregious cases. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I just don't see it as solely a conduct issue. The reason why a draft may be repeatedly declined is because the subject simply isn't suitable for an encyclopedia and has no foreseeable chance at becoming suitable in the future (WP:OVERCOME); that's a valid content issue, if I did hear one. Although it might work, the problem I see with treating it as a behavioral problem is WP:BITE. Threatening to block should be a last resort, and I see deletion as the neatest solution that saves the most time and doesn't unnecessarily personalize the issue for new editors. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How does deletion stop a user from recreating the same page? BITE problems are a big reason why I don't favor deletion of drafts at all (I see it as a fool's errand to devote energy to pages whose existence does not pose an actual problem in terms of outside visibility) but even BITE has its limits. We block users who don't get the message after being warned multiple times in other areas as well, so how is AFC different? Deleting a page someone has worked hard on is usually as BITEy as blocking them because both send the message that they are not welcome. But only sanctioning the user will actually address the problem posed by Tony. If we agree to sanction users, we could easily create an edit filter that prevents those users from resubmitting drafts (which would be less BITEy than blocking them without being less effective). Regards SoWhy 09:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Off topic uninformed oppose Vote! on a clarification of policy to match existing practice at MfD from a user with 17 visits to MfD in their last 50,000 edits over a decade. Sanctioning new throwaway accounts is a fools errand and does nothing to remove the bad Draft from the system. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Legacypac: An ad hominem argument obscures the points you are trying to make. You should stop attempting to discredit users by who they are or what they've done and instead discredit their points by answering their points directly. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I appreciate the nuance given here to those editors who make good-faith efforts to improve their draft, even if it takes 3 or more or many more attempts. Tendentious resubmissions with no effort to address the concerns of the declining editor, however, should be cause for deletion. Even speedy per Dlohcierekim. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as redundant addition. I don't see the slightest effect that this will have on what we currently have. Also agree with SoWhy. Changed to support. As I already made it clear, I am not against the substance of this proposal but the amount of difference it can make to what currently exists. After TonyBallioni's response, I am convinced supporting this will surely be a one step forward and the impact will (hopefully) be seen in the long-term. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes “repeatedly resubmitted with no improvements, has no chance of being in mainspace, and has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability.” an unambiguously valid reason for deletion at MfD. I think it should be already per NOTWEBHOST. This makes that clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @TonyBallioni: I generally agree with the principle of any proposal that will hasten deletion of non-notable drafts that otherwise didn't meet any of our extant WP:GCSD. But I would like to support something that will make impact. Many proposals nowadays are just collection of random support without short term or long term effect. Even now, that this proposal is not in effect, one can nominate non-notable, hopeless and repeatedly submitted draft and it will surely be deleted. But considering your points;

  1. repeatedly resubmitted
  2. with no improvements,
  3. has no chance of being in mainspace, and
  4. has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability

  Shouldn't this be clear need for speedy deletion criterion? If a draft meet all these criteria what else people will discuss? How many people participate in MfD these days? –Ammarpad (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Ammarpad, thanks for pinging me. The reason I didn't propose those here is because those would be a lot bigger changes than this, I don't think they have consensus at this time, and I hadn't done any work into looking at what a process there might look like.

  My general approach to policy reform is that policy is meant to be descriptive of practice, not prescriptive. That means I typically only propose RfCs where I think there is a pre-existing consensus. Here, I'd heard enough complaints about how we deal with drafts through MfD, I was aware that previous attempts to get a CSD criterion approved had not been successful, and that draft PROD would be more controversial than this and would probably have a 50/50 chance of passing. I think this proposal addresses a concern that people have, already has consensus, and will improve the encyclopedia as a whole.

  There may be other reform ideas in this area that could be successful, such as Kudpung's suggestion for DfD or yours for Draft PROD. I'd likely support those. That's not the intent of this proposal though. This is an attempt to be a first step in making the process easier by documenting what people already bring up at MfD pretty frequently in policy. If you support the idea generally, like Mz7 below, I hope you'll consider supporting. This doesn't pretend to be the perfect solution, just a viable step forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, TonyBallioni, I now understand you better. Hopefully, although this doesn't mean much now (my concern), it is a stepping stop to something more impactful in the future, instead of ignoring/opposing it now and end up discussing it again at the time we ought to be discussing measures beyond it. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MfD receives reasonably high participation actually; for a CSD you'd need an A7-esque standard, as what counts as "no sourcing" for notability and not suitable for mainspace is contentious Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, I think if you look at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion and its archives, you'll see that the current wording of this section has resulted in a lot of confusion and debate. For that reason, I do not see this clarification as redundant, and if you think it is descriptive of current practice, I think you should consider supporting. Mz7 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I see it as that. That means it will have no solid impact. It merely repeats what already exists. Any draft that meet what was described above will surely be deleted at MfD. See my reply to TonyBallioni above. The current problem as described requires only speedy criterion to make sense and for us to know we're moving forward. Or to a lesser extant, to establish special "sticky prod" for drafts. I will shortly describe it in General comment section. comments below. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support see User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts where drafts are declined as many as 11 times! It is a serious waste of effort and gums up AfC. This can help the actually notable draft stuck in AfC as well because it will expose the page to a discussion where someone can make a case for promotion, but mostly it will provide an exit path for the hopeless repeated reviewer free spin of the wheel style resubmissions. I also support applying A style CSDs to submitted drafts. The act of submission is a request to apply mainspace criteria to the page so treat the page as such. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Why should notability not be considered for drafts? The point of drafts is to develop into articles, and articles require notability. What then is the purpose of allowing drafts on non-notable subjects? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - We should not be spending time in deletion discussions about drafts. These discussions and administrative actions take unnecessary resources, are WP:BITEY, and feed trolls. Please let these submissions wait their turn in the queue for a few weeks before rejecting them. Authors will get the message and the drafts will eventually be deleted under G13. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Kvng. This proposal comes across as a punitive measure, too. --Doncram (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other working proposal to deal with this is to block them and let G13 take hold. I consider that much more bitey and puntative. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: I proposed above that we basically put these drafts in timeout. Can we put that on the table too? No change to process is required, just a change to reviewer behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really sure if there is a way to prevent them from submitting the AfC draft. I'm also not sure what good it does to keep them for 6 extra months if we've already made the determination we don't want them. If the main reason is BITE, I'll somewhat echo Seraphimblade below in noting that most of these are not actually good faith users who are trying to contribute something encyclopedic that they find interesting to Wikipedia. Most of these are people who have a financial incentive to keep resubmitting and take advantage of our good faith. I'm not sure BITE is really a good argument in dealing with people we don't want contributing anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose arguments such Kvng's are admirable in their assumption of good faith, but practical AfC data shows that there are far too many bad-faith article creators. This reality is the reason that we have made ACTRIAL permanent, after all. The proposed language is a common-sense way to address bad-faith resubmitters. The difference between good-faith and bad-faith article creators is often disclosed by their response to AfC rejection. The former will at least query the rejection and its feedback, while the latter will just send the exact same article back into the queue. This proposal only targets the latter behavior, something that should be dissuaded in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eggishorn: Can you provide some details about this "practical AfC data"? ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng:, I suggest starting with the meta:Research:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial and wp:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I've read those and they don't support what you're saying here. There is nothing in the report about draft author behavior. Also the WMF is only now gaining an understanding of how AfC works. The AfC-related conclusions in the report are disputed. There were more submissions to AfC but there is no evidence there was a "struggle" to keep up with it. See Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial/Post-trial_Research_Report#AfC_backlog_"struggle". ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Support – It is true that in the wide majority of cases, the notability guidelines that justify the deletion of articles do not automatically justify the deletion of drafts. This is because one of the purposes of the draft space is to serve as an incubator for drafts about non-notable subjects that have a high likelihood of becoming notable in the near future (e.g. film actors who are about to star in a significant role, upcoming films from major studios, athletes who are about to debut in the top tier of their sport). The draft space is the successor to Wikipedia:Article Incubator in this respect. Articles that were in the incubator did not stay there forever, however; they either were moved back to mainspace or were nominated to MFD or userfied (see WP:GRADUATE).
  I've long held the view that there are two general cases where notability should and does factor in as a part of a decision to delete a draft (see this July 2017 discussion). The first is repeatedly submitted AfC drafts with no foreseeable chance at acceptance due to lack of notability, and the second is long-abandoned non-AFC drafts about non-notable subjects with no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future. The second case has largely been mitigated with the expansion of CAT:G13 to all drafts, but I see MfD as the natural place where repeatedly submitted AfC drafts should be sent. I don't see blocking or other conduct sanctions as the best solution because the issue is indeed fundamentally with the subject of the article: no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for a few reasons, although mostly this is just echoing SoWhy. First, AfC doesn't own the entire Draft namespace, so constant submission is a project problem. In that case, I think SoWhy's response (i.e., it becomes a behavior/cluefulness issue) is appropriate. Second, the purpose of draftspace is for folks to work on pages that are inappropriate for mainspace; this would defeat the whole purpose of treating something as a "draft" rather than an article. I've said elsewhere that I am unconvinced of the damage or harm a large draftspace would supposedly cause, and that remains true. Finally, I think the proposed text weakens WP:NMFD to a degree that it will cease to be a barrier. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, AfC doesn't own the draft namespace, Amorymeltzer, but it was created with them in mind and with the hope that ACTRIAL would take place one of the days. Well, ACTRIAL took place, and has since become ACREQ and there has been the anticipated (but slightly lower than feared) increase in the number of drafts. Nevertheless, SoWhy's argument (i.e., it becomes a behavior/cluefulness issue) is indeed also appropriate, because the reviewing needs to be much improved so that even if they have clue, they will be singing from the same page of the same hymn book, and at the moment they do not appear to be doing either. And that's a much longer story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would qualify your description of the purpose of the draft space in this way: the purpose of the draft space is for folks to work on pages that are inappropriate for mainspace but will soon be appropriate for mainspace. The draft space is not a dumping ground for articles about just any topic that doesn't meet mainspace standards to remain indefinitely – that would be using Wikipedia as a web host. We expect drafts to be actively worked on and improved so that they will eventually be a part of the encyclopedia. If a draft is about a topic that is inherently non-notable and has no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future, then more community time is wasted when we allow it to be repeatedly submitted at AfC than if we allow it to be deleted at MFD. Fundamentally, it is not just a conduct issue, but an issue with the subject of the draft. If the real solution is to threaten to block a user if they don't stop submitting, and let it be deleted after waiting out 6 months via G13, then isn't that WP:BITEy and perhaps even more time wasting than if we just waited out 7 days at MfD? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Support strongly - in fact I would go one further and suggest the creation of DfD - Drafts for Deletion. Since ACREQ was rolled out, there are going to be a lot more drafts for deletion. As one of the editors who works a lot in these areas I prefer pragmatic solutions rather than philosophical ones. Being BITEY is not part of the equation , telling a troll his trash is not wanted is not being bitey, nor is telling an obvious paid editor that Wikipedia was not conceived as a platform for blatently making a career from making money out of our volunteer-created encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a business directory either or a register for rappers. What is really needed are a better set of instructions (without TL:DR, but more than just a quick click-through of four four-line pages) at the Article Wizard, and more consistent reviewing at AfC; and above all, more truly active AfC reviewers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I would say, personally, I would like a DfD system, but I've heard arguments that it won't have nearly enough traffic to work properly. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Kudpung, User:Jjjjjjdddddd - I am genuinely puzzled by the idea of Drafts for Deletion. My question is why drafts need a separate deletion process from MFD, especially since MFD is primarily used for drafts anyway. Why do drafts require their own deletion process? Why not do at MFD whatever would be done at DFD? I hope that this isn't considered a stupid question, but I really don't understand why a new process would solve the known problems with cruddy drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In my experience, G13 is just not good enough to deal with this issue. Drafts that are truely not notable, which are just cruft should be able to be deleted rather than going after x months of no edits and instantly undeletable. Additionally, at MfD/DfD/whatever it is called, there will be the chance for more people to look over nominations than one reviewer every few weeks. While I'm an advocate for a more engagement-based approach on paid editing, in cases where companies are non-notable, we do need to be less wishy-washy on the message we send out. Mdann52 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I like Kudpungs idea a lot - Having "DFD" would be a much better place for all of these as IMHO Drafts are unrelated to MFD, Anyway support this proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (edit conflict) - I understand SoWhy's concern but I think that if the article is undergoing substantial improvements there is no concern with this affecting the draft. -- Dane ^talk 21:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this is a step in the right direction, although it is still insufficient. Blatantly non-notable drafts (one where no reasonable editor can make a case for notability) should be eligible for deletion either as a speedy or through a XfD process without the need to show anything else. Endorse Kudpung's DfD process. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In-the-end Support but not yet, not when the resubmissions followed a face reading of the saccharine decline template that encourages the author to edit improve and, with a big blue box, “resubmit”. The template confuses the newcomers who think this is how to communicate. The root fault lies with the AfC template and this deletion process does nothing to address it. Support for resubmissions that follow removal of the saccharine resubmit template only. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prerequisites to precede are (1) Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Applying_A*_criteria_to_submitted_drafts and (2) fixing the AfC practice of the confusing rejection template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I also wouldn't mind having a Drafts-for-Deletion notice board, but would prefer to save DFD for a Disambiguations for Discussions notice board. Also, if we are going to separate drafts from MfD, we should create a master deletion noticeboard where editors can see all discussions going on at AfD, MfD, CfD, RfD, and any others that are made. bd2412 T 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAB pages are dealt with at MfD. They may need to be deleted occasionally, but rarely for the reasons that junk that is received at AfC needs to specially treated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DAB pages are usually dealt with at AfD - if the issue is deletion. More importantly, however, there are a number of non-deletion issues for which disambiguation pages require a central noticeboard, including move requests, and proposals to change an existing article or redirect to a disambiguation page (or to turn an existing disambiguation page into an article). bd2412 T 22:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAB pages are never dealt with at MfD but are immediately referred to AfD. DAB discussions would be better as RM discussions on the DAB talk page, except if an outcome is deletion the discussion would be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you'd better send this to RfD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With four incoming links, and before today an average of less than one view per ten days, rfding it would be busywork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Kvng and SoWhy. I don't agree with deleting drafts that are declined multiple times after many resubmissions since it may come off as WP:BITEY and completely unnecessary. Just undo/revert the submitter to solve the issue easily instead of MFD-ing which is a waste of time or reviewers should just leave them alone for a few weeks before declining since no one outside the community cares about the draft space and keeping the drafts around will not be detrimental to WP. What is already written is sufficient and the proposed addition could actually make it more confusing rather than give clarity. KingAndGod 22:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You are free to vote bow you like but basing your vote on the reasoning of an editor with no AfC and extremely limited MfD experience is less convincing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Legacypac: See above your comment to SoWhy re ad hominem. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, absolutely, per Tony. Volunteer time is our most precious resource; we should not be forcing wasting it on reviewing and declining drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted by people not acting in good faith. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Resubmitting the same draft over and over is a behavioral issue. Deal with the user. If it's a recurring problem, disallow it via AfC processes. If AfC allows resubmitting the same draft over and over again, don't defer to another process to fix it by deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioning new throwaway SPA accounts does not solve much. MfD is no more a seperate process from Draft space than AfD is a seperate process for Mainspace. I am unaware of any way to prevent someone from adding the AfC submit code to any page other than to block them. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, draft space should be used for things for which there's a reasonable likelihood that they can one day be an article. It should not be a dumping ground for people to write about their pet dog, nor (and I've seen this tried on multiple occasions) for an undisclosed spammer to see just how much promotional language they can get away with by making small changes and resubmitting. We either need this, or a "______ strikes, you're out" speedy criterion. At some point, repeated failed resubmissions indicate that either the author is not acting in good faith, or lacks the competence to write an article. In either case, there comes a point at which we need to say we've spent enough time on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – this is a no-brainer: this is an encyclopedia devoted to articles on notable subjects – if a draft has been determined to insufficently notable at something like AfC multiple times, and is unlikely to ever be notable, it does not belong as part of this project, even in Draftspace. WP:NOTAWEBHOST. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - While I understand the good faith aspect here, and indeed whenever possible, if a draft has potential to become an article, they should be kept as long as they're being worked on. But unfortunately, there are many drafts on subjects that simply would be deleted quickly if they were an article. It would be better to put them out of their misery quickly as opposed to keeping them in the limbo of waiting for them to become G13 eligible. This is especially with ACTRIAL becoming permanent after all. With that said, perhaps MfD would be a better compromise as opposed to extending certain CSD criteria to drafts, since many drafts are still potential articles, and it's necessary to see which is workable and which needs to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most people that repeatedly submit the same bad submission are either not acting in good faith, or are ignoring the decline reason. AfC is already heavily backlogged as it is, and besides, the MfD discussion will either have the bad-faith trash deleted, or give the (presumably somewhat good-faith) submitter a push to improve their draft. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We are WP:NOTWEBHOST for material unsuited to our project. Sandstein 07:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this seems reasonable, it allows for people to try to bring a draft up to acceptable standards without turning draftspace into a webhost for pages which will never become articles. Hut 8.5 10:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Hut 8.5. This doesn't stop people from using user space for longer term storage, but it does give us the appropriate tool to deal with the few drafts that need to be cleaned up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This proposal makes a very bold assumption: that AFC reviewers are infallible and that if a draft has been rejected by them three times then "obviously" the draft must be worthless. the problems with AFC's lack of accountability have been discussed many times on Wikipedia and I fail to see how this does anything bu increase the lack of accountability.

  AFC reviewers are declining articles for incredibly petty reasons like not formatting a reference correctly, or "this looks notable, but can you make the article perfect", or the most obnoxious, which is the dreaded copy-pasted boilerplates that say the draft is not good, but do nothing to advise the draftee on how to improve it.

  Something many older reviewers don't realise is that new users are corralled into AFC. AFC is not mandatory for creating a page, but if you are a new user, the instructions you receive to everything to convince you that the only way to create a new page is to make a draft and submit it for review. This has given the reviewers of AFC an incredible amount of power, in a way that goes against the entire spirit of the Wiki (Collaboration). Many AFC reviewers instead of looking to improve articles, have appointed themselves unilateral quality editors and continually reject drafts that AFD would never delete. This proposal seeks to increase the power of AFC editors, but I suggest that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Egaoblai (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai this isn't a CSD so they aren't automatically deemed worthless. Having an MfD for those drafts declined spuriously means that they'll get attention from multiple editors and more accountability and an accept in those cases where the declines are spurious Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At MfD we can discuss and save if the AfC reviewers are wrong Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns Egaoblai but a timely MfD is likely to be an improvement on the draft ageing out and being quietly deleted G13 after 6 months. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I see this as a genuine problem and this seems like a practical way to solve it. WP:MFD will get extra eyes on them in case there's a consensus that the AFC reviewers have erred, and there's always WP:DRV as a backup as with other deletion processes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tony and Mer-C; blocking the accounts is hard to do when they are likely in good faith etc; you'd need first need to leave specific warnings rather than encouraging AfC messages and it is basically much more effort overall. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this seems like a measured solution to the problem. Richard⁰⁶¹² 13:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no physical limit requiring deletion. If resubmission is an issue, it is better to retain drafts as a record of previous versions. If you start deleting versions, then further submissions will seem to be starting afresh, so causing the process to loop indefinitely. So, just as we keep our discussions and archives indefinitely, we should keep draft versions too. If they don't seem to be going anywhere, then use a category or other tag to mark their status. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Measured oppose "Repeatedly" is an interesting word, and the criterion should not be "repeatedly" but "repeatedly without prospective changes in notability" - that is, we ought to avoid burning up a draft where the notability of the topic or person has a decent chance of being altered substantially. Collect (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if that is true for a draft that can be discussed at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a measured proposal that doesn't try to go too far. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Something needs to be done about tendentious resubmission. Either the drafts can be deleted, or the resubmitters can be blocked, or both. Something needs to be done. I don't see a practical way to request that the fools and flacks be blocked, because WP:ANI isn't worth the drama and will probably wind up with a warning anyway, and they aren't vandals. I don't think it goes far enough, but it is better than nothing. I would like to be able to speedy drafts that have no credible claim of significance, but I know that I am in the minority there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The issue of a draft being submitted too many times would be better addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. For example, a process of barring a draft from resubmission for a certain period of time or barring a user from submitting draft(s) to be considered for a certain period of time could be established. Let the AfC process govern itself; the problem should not be thrust directly on MfD. If AfC establishes a guideline that such drafts should be deleted (as opposed to my examples above which I believe are better options), they can cite it at MfD. WP:NMFD is not the place for such guidance to reside. All drafts inducted into the AfC process become eligible for speedy deletion per G13 after 6 months of inactivity anyhow, so I fail to see the necessity of early deletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they get repeatedly resubmitted they never get to G13 Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per User:Robert McClenon Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a separate "drafts for discussion" page, as well as a CSD for drafts that have been declined more than 3 times without any plausible improvement. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a working solution to a real problem of NOTWEBHOST content that otherwise falls between the cracks. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just formalizing my own personal view. If the same submission gets repeatedly submitted without correcting the problem I go from friendly to not-so-friendly in my comments with the last comment being to the effect of Do not resubmit this without correcting the issues already raised otherwise I will nominate this for deletion at MFD. It doesn't threaten the user directly, it simply explains what the consequence of them failing to read/understand/correct will be. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SoWhy and Amory. Besides, draftspace is exactly the place to put not-article-worthy-yet drafts. This would defeat the whole purpose of it. Besides, there are some AfC reviewers that will acept draft with lower standards, while others will wait for them to be GA-class to accept them. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but only under a specific set of criteria. I agree that drafts that aren't likely to go anywhere need to be shown the door, but I'm not sure just doing it by MfD'ing everything that gets power-submitted is the way. I'd actually think a valid case could be made for drafts that fit all of the following criteria:
  1. The draft has been rejected at least five times, or has been resubmitted and rejected with no substantial edits to it three times. If someone is working on a draft and at least trying to make it work out, the likelihood of it getting rejected five times is slim to nil. On the other hand, someone who's just spamming the submit button is likely doing it for Google exposure, not to build an encyclopaedia.
  2. The draft's sources are unacceptable, and no acceptable sources are available online or off. Oftentimes the biggest hurdle to a draft is finding usable third-party sources, and newer users are less likely to understand what we deem acceptable. I would also suggest amending the decline message for lack of notability to include a link to a plain explanation of acceptable sources (which I'll probably dope up soon, since this is almost universally THE main sticking point as far as helpees in -en-help go).
  3. The draft, in addition to the above, has not been (substantially) edited for at least three months since the last decline or edit. Given that the usual backlog for AfC at present is in the neighbourhood of months (as an acknowledged consequence of ACTRIAL and ACPERM) this gives time for sources to come into existence and thus subvert the second bullet above. This is also why a WP:BEFORE check must be done before a draft gets taken to MfD. While I suggest three months (as a fair chunk of drafts are made in anticipation of a topic) this should be considered a suggestion and not a hard-and-fast rule, but it should be no less than ten weeks and no more than 6 months (when G13 kicks in anyways). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is not an area where I have a great deal of experience, but it seems to me that the "support" !votes present better arguments than do the "oppose" !votes. Having no strong personal reason to oppose, and trusting in TonyB's judgment, I support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Regardless of whether resubmitting a draft repeatedly is a behavioural issue as some argue it should be treated as, this will make it easier to get rid of problem drafts via MfD. If it is a substantive draft that is actually worth keeping, MfD will see it as such. Draftspace has been a mess for a while, and the problem isn't with the potentially publishable drafts; it's with the repeatedly resubmitted corporate spam and self-published non-notable bios. I don't see the issue here. Kb.au (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I will ask a going further, for those where consensus is at MFD that there is no clear case at mainspace WP:SNOW - then admins should be able to SALT the page. I have been seeing people recreating their useless drafts and then repeatedly recreating. Banning individual users may be in need, but we need warnings, final warnings and etc. And the user maybe able to contribute in other areas, so sometime can't ban also. Therefore, to solve the content issue, SALT the page. --Quek157 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 is applicable if they blindly re-create it after an XfD debate without fixing any of its issues. We shouldn't salt the earth unless and until they prove themselves unwilling or incapable of listening to criticism of their article by repeatedly growing a new one from the ashes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jéské Couriano:, I declined a draft with 2 - 3 can't remember previous deletion, CSD G11 (Advertising) with G4 (SALT). The admin who process initially did G4, but then said "unnecessary for draft" so then reallow creation for G4. G4 can only be used for mainspace, not draftspace, I am thinking to extend it to here. --Quek157 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion."(emphasis in italics). This is the big problem NOW at the draftspace which is this entire RfC is for. It is quite protected and is not like others. I just came back after a long hiatus and apparently it is now like that, FYI too =) --Quek157 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- I'd personally go further, in terms of Notability as a criterion, but the proposal would certainly be an improvement on the current position. KJP1 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do think that this would address a need. What makes it work for me is that it is directed at drafts that keep getting resubmitted without "getting the message", and that it makes it possible to decide that a draft should be deleted, as opposed to saying that a draft must be deleted. In other words, it still leaves discussion and editorial judgment in place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is already how discussions at MfD are turning out: the community (or, at least, the portion of the community that regularly votes at MfD) feels that it is appropriate to delete tendentious resubmissions that utterly fail to address the reasons for their rejection as a way of communicating to the user that their disruption won't be tolerated without going to the extreme of bans or blocks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Anything not in one of the "normal" namespaces can already be nominated for MFD, and any such page will be deleted if consensus favor deletion. This isn't adding any new ideas or procedures to policy; it's simply saying what's already happening. WP:PPP. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, also support Drafts for Deletion. Having drafts with no hope of becoming articles is helpful to no one; having a dedicated drafts for deletion space will allow people specializing in drafts to watch it, as shepherding a draft into an article is a skill. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Kudpung. Amorymeltzer is exactly wrong; draft space only exists as the location for AfC's backlog. SoWhy is correct insofar as problem editors are behind the repeated submissions. Because these drafts are of interest to businesses or fan collectives where meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is likely, deleting the draft is a more efficient practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts Discussion

TBD, the whole Draft system itself, should be abolished. IMHO, it's best to let an editor create an article as a stub, then let the community gradually evolve that article. Meanwhile, individual editors can use their own sandbox to construct what they want to put into an article created by themselves or somebody else. The Draft system is just an extra layer, for editors to fight over. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is an appropriate suggestion at all. Coming from a user who has a very high count of minor edits and not in the areas under discussion here, I wonder on what experience you actually base your comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up until a few weeks ago, there were quite a few Draft-related disputes concerning behavior being brought to ANI. This wouldn't have occurred, if there were no Draft system. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Quite a few' is quantitively subjective. I'm no friend of statistics where concrete empirical evidence exists, but I would like to see that claim supported by some numbers. Are you an admin? Do you frequent ANI regularly? I do. Those issues would probably have been brought to ANI under some other reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

Abolish the Draft system & the community just might be happier for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I remember the days when AfC drafts were stored in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace because the draft namespace just did not exist. Let us not return to those days. Mz7 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Up until a few weeks ago, there were quite a few Draft-related disputes concerning behavior being brought to ANI. This wouldn't have occurred, if there were no Draft system." On those grounds, if we abolish article space we'll have no article concerns brought to ANI, and if we abolish User space we'll have no User space concerns... perhaps we should just abolish Wikipedia? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the interpretation of the RfC that "notability criteria don't apply to draft space" continues to be tone-deaf, overly simplistic, and harmful. Of course drafts should be on notable topics; anything else fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. Deciding which is which is a task for MfD (or perhaps drafts should be handled at AfD since they're supposed to be articles) but just setting another completely arbitrary draft working limit (like "six months") is not going to do anything to address the problems identified by this proposal (which are real problems which should be addressed). It's just inviting fights about what constitutes meaningful improvement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I also endorse GoodDay's comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but 1) I never propose RfCs that I don’t think have pre-existing consensus, and I think making N apply to all drafts at the beginning doesn’t have a chance of passing. 2) This actually expands the force of N to drafts more than it is now, while still shielding them from the brunt of it initially. It can’t be the sole reason for deletion, but a repeatedly deleted draft that fails the notability criteria and doesn’t have a chance of being in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the implementation of the RfC has been very poorly done; I get the intent, but, ugh. The notion that the draft space should be an incubating space for content intended to form part of an article, and not a junk space to hold whatever bits of writing anyone wants to drop there, seems to be a minority opinion. It's absurd to me that we allow editors to post basically anything they want in draft space, like the thousands of drafts that are nothing more than SEO listings for entirely non-notable businesses. We keep telling the authors of these articles that they "don't demonstrate notability" but our AfC messages encourage them to try again by adding more references, as though we'll decide to accept their article that's just a list of directors of their tech startup if they just pay for enough copies of their own press release, and so of course they resubmit over and over again with no meaningful improvement. There's no meaningful improvement to be made, the topic is not notable. We should empower our AfC reviewers to just come out with it and say, "this isn't notable" and punt the drafts to MfD immediately. And we can word that response as gently as we need to, we've been rejecting and deleting articles on non-notable topics for, oh, 17 years now? But if everyone who's been here a month can see that a draft on a non-notable topic is going to end up being deleted, is it more bitey to string an editor along for months and possibly years with messages telling them they just need to improve the draft a bit more before it can be an article when it never will be, or just delete it outright and say "thanks, but no"? I realize I'm ranting here and I'm probably not even really addressing the proposal at this point, but if anyone wants to really consider this, my talk page is probably a good place to respond.

Tony, to reply to your comment more briefly, a draft that doesn't have a chance of being in mainspace shouldn't need to be repeatedly [declined] before we pull the plug and delete it. In my opinion we should be able to make that determination much earlier in the process. To GoodDay's point, when a draft is reviewed we should be able to determine its article-worthiness on the first go-round, and either promote it or delete it. If it's notable but poor quality, promote it and let the usual community improvement process proceed. If it's not notable, delete it. Somehow AfC has evolved into a highly arbitrary quality pre-screening process, and I'm pretty sure that was never the intent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, The notion that the draft space should be an incubating space for content intended to form part of an article, and not a junk space to hold whatever bits of writing anyone wants to drop there, seems to be a minority opinion, is in fact very much a majority opinion. Our CSD criteria are very strict and narrow but there is no catchall for cases that don't completely match a criterion. I agree entirely that when a draft is reviewed we should be able to determine its article-worthiness on the first go-round, and either promote it or delete it. But we don't even do that in the harsh reality of the front-line trenches at at NPP where there are borderline cases that have to be sent to AfD, or inappropriate CSDs that admins have to decline and send to AfD. Contrary to GoodDay's point, it's not the Draft namespace that should be deprecated - it's more likely that AfC should be abolished or merged into NPP - but we're trying to come up with a compromise that will prevent that happening). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung, User:Ivanvector - I honestly didn't know that the common sense stated above was a majority opinion. It often seems that I am in the minority in thinking that draft space should be kept free of crud that will never be ready for mainspace. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it does appear that Ivanvector and Kudpung and I are in the minority in wanting to apply common sense to what can be in drafts. Perhaps the problem is that AGF and BITE are carried to such extremes that they are allowed to override judgment about drafts. As User:Legacypac said today at my talk page, there is a culture of busybodies who have no practical experience at AFC or MFD but show up to express opinions. This is unfortunately part of a larger Wikipedia culture that it is a good idea to dump on the reviewers for not being sufficiently welcoming to new editors (even if they are fools or flacks). I honestly didn't know that Ivanvector and Kudpung and I were in a majority, when there is a culture of editors who preach platitudes about AGF and BITE without seeing the fools and flacks. (Of course new editors who have clues should be welcomed. Some do, many don't.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. When reviewing pages at NPP, there are a lot of articles that could potentially be articles with a lot of work, but aren't good enough for article space. For example, an "article" of thoughts in bullet form with a list of references. Without the option to move this to draft space, are you suggesting that this be kept in article space or be deleted? Natureium (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, or at least extending ACTRIAL to DraftSpace. On the whole it is a big negative, mostly due to the silent cold reception given to the newcomers. They should edit mainspace before starting new topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be better extend it to all users. We could do away with AfC altogether then, but that would defeat 50% of the object of having ACTRIAL - allowing IPs and non-confirmed user to create drafts was part of the plea bargain in order to get ACTRIAL approved at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it be a possible idea to have a ClueBot NG style bot monitoring drafts and reverting resubmissions without substantial changes? I guess an edit filter won't work because it probably can't detect resubmissions but a bot could and that would be a potential time saver if human editors weren't forced to check those pages manually. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, this is beyond AI at this time. SoWhy. "What is substantial changes"? Lot of text? Lot of references?. Number of sections?. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Well, ClueBot NG is pretty good at spotting vandalism. But that's why I asked. A bot could at least handle cases where no changes were made, couldn't it? Regards SoWhy 11:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this isn't a bad idea. There's one draft currently being debated at MfD, where it was rejected for the seventh time for notability with the note that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, so the person removed the Daily Mail and then re-submitted. I've also seen drafts where it was re-submitted immediately after the rejection with literally no changes. It would very easy for a bot to detect and reject these submissions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really have any idea what this is all about. But from a purely technical viewpoint I could quite easily train an AI program to scan for substantial changes to an article, measured by a weighted quality score rather than using any one measure. Such a program could be programed to automatically detect whether sources have been added or just slightly altered. And it would be feasible for it to detect and warn reviewers of policy violations in the text. The only reservations I have is that since no program is perfect I would not recommend you have an AI editing articles all on it's own. JLJ001 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MfD of drafts and G13

I've heard that G13 is supposed to delete the junk from draftspace, but there's a better way. I propose that we repeal G13 and expand *some* CSD to draftspace, possibly write up new draft-specific CSD and PRODs, without actually expanding the normal PROD to draftspace (because it wouldn't be patrolled enough). Why? First off, G13 is simultaneously too fast and too slow. Too slow to delete the obvious garbage (and does nothing for repeat, unchanged, AfC submissions), and too fast to accommodate an abandoned-but-workable draft. Second, G13 is arbitrary. 6 months means nothing (see also WP:NODEADLINE). In a nutshell, more specific deletion criteria, less G13 dragnet. Thoughts? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G13 and extend PROD to drafts. After all, it's no worse than PRODing a new article at NPP. Again, however, I come back to what I've been saying several times: Improve the Wizard so that it provides some useful instructions for new users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 actually sorks in favor of good drafts. A non-AfC Draft gets the attention of an experienced user working the G13 elegable list and, if tagged for deletion, an Admin's attention. I've sent many pages to mainspace from the G13 list (but 99% that reach G13 need to go in the dust bin). Rejected AfC Drafts may be bot nominated.

MfD can function as an advertised PROD for Draftspace. If no one objects a week after nomination an Admin deletes. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would some sort of PROD be helpful for drafts if they're being resubmitted? That just sounds like you want to take G13 down from 6 months to 1 week. Nobody but the occasional AfC participant looks at any given draft, so any PROD-like system is just an attempt to mass-delete drafts. I don't think we have a rash of people who take a week or two off from their draft but come back and "ruin" G13 five months later. Either these pages are resubmitted to the point of disruption or they're not. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 is one of the most bizarre rules on Wikipedia. I still don't know the reason it was instituted. These arguments about "clogging" the wiki are bizarre when you consider that it's all online. Also many of the deleting admins at g13 don't even look at what they are deleting, which to me is ludicrous for a wiki that claims to be a repository of the world's knowledge. Again, what exactly is the problem here and why are people looking for ever more unilateral ways to delete potential content?Egaoblai (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on G13, but I think it should be easier to delete drafts without potential, and other junk, so there are less junk drafts to get in the way of viable drafts. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai, Also many of the deleting admins at g13 don't even look at what they are deleting, which to me is ludicrous, that's a strong claim. Please state on what experience you base your assumption. Provide concrete examples. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the G13 pages in December and saw one that I thought might be worth looking at, or at the very least not deleted without a conversation. The next day I went back to find it, but it had gone. I posted on deleting user's talkpage and asked them what the reason for deletion was, they said that it was because it hadn't been edited in 6 months and that was the only reason needed to delete an article.

I posted on the admin board about this as I believed that this was not the spirit of the rule and that deleting admins at g13 were supposed to check the articles before deleting them. The incident was closed and I messaged the closing admin about it, which actually led to this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_14#Closing_the_Incident whereI was told that deleting admins can and do delete articles at g13 without looking at them. Winged Blades of Godric even stated that "even a GA-standard article, that for some reason has been lingering for over 6 months in draft space, could be G13-ed." Not that they neccesarily agreed with that, but that is the system that is happening right now. Do we really want the same lack of oversight to be applied to PROD too? Egaoblai (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is commonly known, Kudpung. It may be that most admins who patrol G13 are diligent, but – as often happens – the vast majority of G13 deletions are carried out by the minority of admins who aren't. – Uanfala (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary when I nominate G13 I save the occasional useful page and the Deleting Admins occasionally save a page I nominated so they are looking at them. We have a G13 postponed category too. We definately need G13 or the rejected and abandoned would pile up. G13 sweeps up all kinds of problematic pages, including link spam. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... just wow... Time for a history lesson. G13 was originally created when we had One hundred and thirty thousand pages in the space Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ that had been created by 15-minutes-of-fame editors that had zero interest in coming back and correcting the issues raised with their submission. G13 was originally written to address AfC pages that had been 100% unedited for 6 months. Editors went through and did bulk nominations causing admins to be upset with the amount of pages G13 nomination category and with the overall size of the CSD nominations set. I developed a bot script that would procedurally go through all the pages and warn the author that the page was in danger of being deleted under G13, how they could prevent the deletion, how they could get the page back with a very low effort, and if they were a user the option of WP:USERFICATION. The bot limited the number of pages in the G13 sub-category to 50 pages at once so as to not overflow the admins. Over time the backlog was addressed, AfC moved to Draft space, Incubator moved to draft space, the G13 rule got finessed to be "unedited for 6 months (barring bot edits or trivial changes)" (which I think opens it up to discretion and uphold the more strict interpertation of the rule), and finally G13 got expanded to encompass all of Draft space. G13 was written to be a binary question Has this page been unedited for at least 6 months? If so, you may nominate for CSD:G13. The amount of Good will that is expended towards the authors whose pages get swept up by G13 is far more than any other area in Wikipedia for the simple reason that these authors are supposedly the newbies and shouldn't be bitten by not knowing all the esoteric rules of mainspace. Abolishing G13 will only create more MFD nominations. Hasteur (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• G13 was logically required, and still is. G13 cannot be repealed for as long as newcomers are encouraged to start drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• G13 is certainly required but I've found ~5% of G13-ed abandoned drafts are on notable topics which might be salvageable with work but aren't ready for mainspace. I wish there were some way of dealing with these and bringing them to the attention of a wider editor base. Robotically deleting G13s because they are eligible feels wasteful to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky PROD for drafts (idea)

TonyBallioni expressed these 4-points in the above proposal.

1. repeatedly resubmitted
2. with no improvements,
3. has no chance of being in mainspace, and
4. has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability

There are many, many drafts that currently possess the above characteristic squarely. However, I (previously) largely opposed because, it just repeats what exists, and will not make any solid difference to how MfD is run now. Because any draft that clearly possess these characteristics, it will surely be deleted at MfD. Now we are looking for way to move forward. To agree on more process that will hasten deletion of utterly non notable drafts that otherwise didn't met any of our CSD criterion and at the same time be courteous to these new users. One of the option can be clear need for Speedy criterion for them, which has been repeatedly discussed but lacked support. So I think why should we not try special PROD for that kind of drafts?. I know something like this was discussed before, but I am outlining it more explicitly below for more thought.

1. A draft meet all the above four characteristics.
2. A special sticky Draft Proposed Deletion tag (DPROD) is placed by user.
3. Once draft is tagged with DPROD tag, then it cannot be removed unless if the person wishing to remove it has thoroughly rewrote the article and moved it to mainspace. (This will serve two purposes: It will be an incentive to save salvageable drafts and at the same time any non-notable draft moved to mainspace without development will now be subjected to both WP:ACSD and AfD.)
4. If the tag, remains in the draft after say 1 week, 2 weeks or 1 month at most; then it will be summarily deleted as expired DPROD. Any recreation is subject to rule of G4 since it is determined not notable at all and no one is willing to explain why it should stay here.

Through this method, a large number of these hopeless draft will be easily shown the way out without exhausting editors' time at MfD and at the same time ample chance is given for anybody to prove why they should stay here.

Of course, this can be tweaked and refined. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose Every single time someone makes a proposal to increase deleting things, the argument is always "but we'll only do it for the ones that are really non notable, we swear", and every single time, the dragnet is increased and increased until you have uninvolved editors, who have zero knowledge or interest in the subject of an article or draft declaring "this will never be notable". At least with the jury system of AFD these decisions have a fighting chance, but increasing the scope of what are basically unilateral deletions is not helping the Wiki with collaborative editing. Just the other week I dePRODded an article, which the nominator then sent to AFD instead, to which the community decided that the article was notable. How many articles that the community would have seen as notable have been wiped from the Wiki because of PROD? It's undemocratic and goes against the spirit of consensus, which is supposedly how this Wiki is run.Egaoblai (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again Egaoblai you are making some very strong assumptions. The way Wikipedia is run, some examples would be needed to give weight to your opinions. Our PROD systems were introduced on very strong consensus - are you suggesting PROD is 'undemocratic' just because you found one that was kept at AfD? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have looked at your editing history and your user page and checked out the articles. I admit that more 'BEFORE' should have been done prior to listing them for deletion. But this is not a fault of the system, it's a problem of educating the users who tag them. In the case of the school article on which your arguments were excellent, your adversary has a clear pattern of singling out schools for deletion. They generally lose the school AfDs they nominate or vote on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A system should be evaluated by how it works in practice, not in theory. Furthermore, just because a system is established by consensus does not mean the system itself is democratic. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but perhaps a normal PROD would suffice. I am reminded of recent discussions somewhere about a 3-Strike rule, but I don't recall the outcome. Perhaps a PROD following the 3rd rejection? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prod for drafts but I prefer simply sending them to MfD as a form of advertised Prod If no one votes keep and adopts the page in a week it gets deleted without fanfare. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am surprised there is not already some guideline providing for the deletion of drafts resubmitted after being rejected for non-notability, and where the draft has been changed little if at all since the last rejection. I certainly think this would be helpful in helping the community delete some of these drafts that clearly have no chance of becoming actual articles. But I wonder: the proposal uses the word "repeatedly"--does that mean that a draft that was rejected once, resubmitted, and then rejected again would immediately become eligible for deletion? Does "repeatedly" mean "2 times or more" here? (BTW what the answer to this question is doesn't really matter as far as my support for this proposal is concerned.) Incidentally, I might even support the use of a new CSD criterion for drafts repeatedly rejected as non-notable, where the lack of notability is obvious. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do you realise how BITEY this sounds? "Hey your draft sucks and we've put a label on that means if you don't improve it in one week it's getting deleted!" If you wish to frustrate new users or people that can't afford to spend hours a day on Wikipedia, then this is the proposal for doing that. AFC reviewers are not gods and their opinion on what is notable should not supercede the community at large. Currently drafts can be deleted through MFD, which at least puts things to a public discussion. There is also G13 which is mostly hidden and allows drafts to be deleted without discussion after 6 months. Now you want to increase that power and allow drafts to be deleted after a week? based on the opinion of one person at AFC? What is with this paranoia and hand wringing about drafts. What problems are there that this is a solution to that G13 or MFD don't already solve? Please consider that for many many users here, writing a draft is a learning process and so is submitting it for review. Not every draftee is out to try and scam the wiki, many are good faith contributers, often with English as a second language who need guidance and help and community. What ever happened to that on this wiki? As far as I can tell this proposal does not allow any chance for the community to help the draftee improve the page, nor does it offer any space for the community to discuss the merits of the draft. According to the proposal one or two AFC editors could effectively blackball a topic from wikipedia and this would go unnoticed by the majority of editors, unless they were also AFC editors who happened to look in, or people who browsed Prod. This is really unacceptable for anyone who sees this as a community project. Egaoblai (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So you'd rather take the consensus discussion that happens at MFD to individual draft pages and put a arbitrary stickey prod on it? PROD is "I propose a uncontraversial deletion". The only exception is BLPPROD, and that is foundation policy. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not true. BLPPROD was not created by fiat because of "foundation policy" as you're wrongly implying. It was created after community consensus was found for it. Your first point doesn't make sense either. It is still uncontroversial PROD, if you object to any DPRODDED draft, then simply develop the draft to become meaningful article, move it to mainspace and remove the tag, the same way it is done for sources in BLPROD. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for drafts that, if they were articles, would not fall under BLPPROD; support ONLY for drafts on living people that would otherwise fail BLPPROD. There's absolutely no reason to apply a sticky PROD to all drafts, and as noted above it's fairly BITEy to users for whom English may not be a language they can communicate well in. (There have been a few instances in -en-help where users seeking help have "keyworded", missing most of what was being said and responding only to certain words in the message.) That said, biographical drafts do still fall under WP:BLP, and so those can and probably should be allowed to be sticky PRODded if they have absolutely no sources (or ELs that can be made into sources) whatsoever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jéské Couriano: You missed the requisite points raised above. This is not meant to apply to all drafts. It is meant only for draft that:

  • is repeatedly resubmitted
  • with no improvements,
  • has no chance of being in mainspace, and appears to
  • has no sourcing for uninvolved editors to show notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To which I'm saying that those limitations are bullshit. In essence, I'm saying "apply BLPPROD standards to biographical drafts instead of making a sticky PROD standard for all drafts". Note that my argument in favour of MfD'ing unacceptable drafts above comes with caveats more along the line of those suggestions you just threw at me. I agree with the other Opposes in that this is something that seems too half-baked and, as pointed out below, the time period the grace period provides is ludicrously short, considering most drafts tend to get abandoned due to real-life concerns. The only sticky PROD debate we should be having is whether to apply BLPPROD to drafts, not whether to BITE newcomers who may not speak very good English or who (almost invariably) have real-world commitments that make this sort of PROD so bitey. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - 3.Once [a] draft is tagged with DPROD tag, then it cannot be removed unless if the person wishing to remove it has thoroughly rewrote the article and moved it to mainspace. is fairly self-evidently ridiculous, but I'll explain the fundamental flaw (among the many flaws): Deletion bar improvement should not be turned into a unilateral decision by a single editor but should remain a community decision that is made through a discussion to determine consensus. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sticky and PROD don't belong together, especially not in draft which is supposed to be a safe space for article development. ~Kvng (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is for article development - you got that part right. Deletion procedure is for junk/promo that is not going to be an acceptable article. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for this to work it would have to have objective criteria, things like "no chance of being in mainspace" and no evidence of notability are very subjective. The process doesn't make any sense at all. If I take a draft which has been sticky PRODed and add two sources which demonstrate that the subject is notable then I can't remove the tag. Not unless I'm also prepared to completely rewrite the article and get it ready to move it to mainspace before the clock expires. Having recreations subject to G4 doesn't make any sense either, and we don't apply it to other types of PROD. MfD is not being inundated with deletions of hopeless drafts and if it was then something closer to normal PROD would make more sense. Hut 8.5 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I appreciate the good intent of this idea, but I think it has the problem of setting a deadline for something that doesn't need a deadline. The main proposal above is in large part about the problem of drafts that keep getting resubmitted, but the proposal here is about drafts that are just sitting there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the current template for restricted use looked a bit simple and needed to be more obvious than it currently is.

^{[Username Needed]} 08:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive backlog of very old article orphans. I propose that we have a clean-up of these unnecessary articles where the community gets together and clears out as much of the very old orphaned articles as we can. What do you think? ^{[Username Needed]} 08:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orphans ≠ unnecessary at all; that's what I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean deorphaning the very old articles than yes I agree. However, being an orphaned article does not mean it is not notable. I have deorphaned multiple articles that are Good Articles, and there are currently a few orphaned Good Articles as well. It just means that there are not links to it. However, you might mean articles that are unnecessarily orphaned? I'm also confused as well based on the other comments and my additional edits to my comments. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you mean "adding the article as bluelinks to other articles" correct? Because that is how you remove orphan status. If so, I can pitch in and help such a drive. Also, I don't see how you need an RFC to do that. Maybe set up some sort of drive organization page to encourage people to help. That's about it. --Jayron32 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i mean deorphaning. When I say "Clearing out the articles" I meant clearing the orphan backlog. Specifically the feb 2009 backlog. ^{[Username Needed]} 07:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but your use of "unnecessary articles" was ambiguous. I have seen the idea around that long-term orphans are ripe for deletion, which is often not true at all, as others have said. Some articles are likely to remain orphans, but still be fine. Of course many can be linked to & so cleared. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you want to clear out the oldest backlog. I've participated in a backlog drive for orphaned articles in 2014. Maybe that could be used as a reference. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that certainly needs cleaning-up is the organization and categorization of the clean-up pages. I found a set of pages I'd never seen before with tagged pages by topic, and after doing quite a few yesterday now I can't find it again, after a fairly long search. The "by-date" categories don't encourage good editing by those with knowledge of particular areas. There is a lot of wreckage of long-abandoned initiatives and projects that ought to cleared away, or at least delinked. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Are you referring to WikiProject Cleanup Listings? Or it could be in one of the cleanup/maintenance categories. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was the "by category" page from that. Very handy. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment you normally do not get an alert when someone edits a file in your user and user talk areas except when they edit your talk page ("leave a message").

Is there a way/an option to get an alert any time someone edits any file in your user area and user talk area including subpages?

If there isn't, would it be possible to easily add that feature, perhaps as an option?

I don't think "just add all those files to your watchlist" would be an answer. There are reasons why you wouldn't want to clutter your watchlist with those files. And since you do get an alert when your talk page is edited even though you could "just add your talk page to your watchlist" I would say that seems to be generally understood.

Thanks.

Basemetal 10:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered filtering the watchlist result on User space? Alerts should be low-noise and user subpages can generate a lot of edits. Watchlists are for monitoring higher volume pages there are filtering options to remove clutter. -- GreenC 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And those filtering options only affect files in user space. How do you do that? I've looked through the Watchlist tab in my Preferences and I could see nothing that does that. Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could try making yourself an index of pages you want to monitor, and then subscribing to "related changes" from that page. For example, see Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Basemetal. You can subscribe to an Atom feed from that page, although I don't know the details of how to set that up. I know that's not exactly what you're looking for but it might suit the purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I'll try to understand what you're saying. Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I've wondered about, too. Userpages in some ways represent that person and/or their work/contributions. If someone vandalizes my userpage and I weren't someone who checks my watchlist regularly, I would want to be notified. Sure, bots/vandal fighters catch a lot of these, but not all of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Basemetal 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related tickets: phab:T3876 and phab:T166924 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a group of 10 people to govern all of Wikipedia what are your thoughts