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

The result of the discussion was: move to User:Thinker78/Draft MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification[edit]

Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft article submission isn't an article at all. This is one editor's interpretation of a discussion at MOS related talk page. It should be moved to the user space for Thinker78 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely oppose the motion of NewsAndEventsGuy to delete my page from draft space. I provided them with the reason I created the draft, which is to seek community input to work on a modified guideline in the Manual of Style, so I think their proposal is not helpful to Wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy has had many disagreements in the past with me, this is not an editor who was just patrolling and decided to object to this inclusion. But I will assume they had good faith, even though I don't understand how their deletion proposal is helpful at all.

Further objections to the deletion are:

1. They didn't cite any Wikipedia policy as a basis for their proposal.
2. Even though the essay WP:DRAFT states, "Drafts are pages in the Draft namespace where new articles^{[note 1]} may be created and developed, for a limited period of time.^{[note 2]}", it is an essay, which is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Even a guideline is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
3. WP:NOTBURO states, "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
4. As I stated previously, the reason why I moved the page from my personal sandbox into the draft space is to seek community input to work on a modified guideline in the Manual of Style. I found it to be a much better place fit for purpose than putting a work on progress in the talk page of the Manual of Style, specially if it has various formattings that are not compatible with the format of the talk page; regarding my sandbox, I know it can be viewed by others and is not exempt of Wikipedia's guidance, but I do various unrelated tests there and it wouldn't be the best place to have discussion on my talk page if my work on progress concerns the community as a whole. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easy now, I didn't call for outright deletion, only that this WP:PROPOSAL be developed like other WP:Policies and guidelines. It could be at the pump, or userspace, or an essay, or (best of all) at the MOS talk page that is the subject of the essay. At any rate, it isn't an article, and does not belong at articles for creation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROPOSAL, "One path for proposals is developing them through steps [...]", it doesn't say proposals must go through those steps. And it points out to the policy I linked previously, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (WP:NOTBURO) and this in turn points to what I linked to also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I still don't understand why did you start this process to take out my page from draft space, because your request certainly looks like excessive bureaucracy pointing out to technicalities. I am using a lot of formatting in the draft I made—it is not just a simple idea with just text—and that is not compatible with putting it over at the Village Pump or the talk page of the Manual of Style. And I believe my proposal is best explained with the formatting I am using because it is a complicated idea that I intend to simplify as I progress in developing it, and for that progress I am hoping for community input as well. Thinker78 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the draft is not in the process of article for creation, I am simply working on the page in the draft space and I won't submit it to review in said process. I am not cluttering the queue nor I am in the queue for article for creation. The input I seek from the community is mainly from those interested in the Manual of Style guideline discussions. I did not put the proposal in its talk page for the reasons I already stated, namely, the formatting of the draft is incompatible in a talk page, there is more liberty editing in a dedicated page in draft space than in a talk page, and that I wanted to present it there when it was more simplified. Thinker78 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to User:Thinker78/Draft MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification. It's entirely fine for editors to have drafts of stuff in their userspace (including things that will later be WP:PROPOSALs). The only issue of any kind here is that the "Draft:" namespace is for article drafts not for drafts of other things. Honestly, this should just have been manually moved instead of taken to MfD. We don't need to invoke tedious process to fix the obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never properly transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy It's perfectly reasonable to work on something like this in Wikipedia – especially, there's no gain from deleting it – but most tools that work with Draft: space assume that drafts are drafts of articles, rather than drafts of something else. The User: space can also be used for drafts and has laxer rules/processes; it would make a lot of sense to host this draft there, rather than in Draft:. --ais523 08:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment leaning on, by order: 1) move to a subpage somewhere at WP: namespace; 2) keep at draft:; 3) userfy. I think that there are clear advantages on bringing a global discussion to a "neutral ground", instead of doing it at a user's space, su "userfy" is the last option. I am not sure Draft: is the best neutral ground, but I am not sure either where that would be, maybe a section the the relevant MOS's talk page? Or a subpage of that talk page, with a call from there, because this a bit large? - Nabla (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is (or should be) super-simple. Userfy until the author is satisfied, and then present to the Village WP:PUMP .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like one possibility. - Nabla (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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