![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
While there are a number of responses on both sides, the main arguments for removing the process is because of the large amounts of proposed pages with no hope of being created, and the time sink this creates with volunteers having to sift through all the content.
The main arguments for keeping the process are that it allows drafts to be curatred before creation, removing a burden off an already overloaded NPP system, and because there is no reasonable alternative process for the drafts to go though.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the G13 applies only to AfC drafts, this would effectively kill G13 as well. If yes, do you propose any replacement?
{{subst:submit}}
. I have been working on Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming. However, several rejections prompted me to give up on the article. Therefore, I forewent on improving it anymore and asked others to work on it themselves. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a follow-up to the discussion in the above threads, I've been thinking of a template that can be put to every page in the draftspace to indicate the type and the status of the draft. What I've in mind is something like this:
Draft classifier | Main: Wikipedia. Notability: unclear. Subject: Culture. G13 applicable: No |
---|
What does anyone think? -- Taku (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm not seeing a strong opposition, I will be running a RfC on this template tomorrow or so. Here is a draft of a RfC User:TakuyaMurata/RfC: Draft classifier. Please feel free to edit it if you can think of any. -- Taku (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't work much with drafts but noticed something.
If a draft is created via Wikipedia:Articles for creation then the user is taken to Wikipedia:Article wizard and eventually Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission. There "Create new article draft" preloads {{Afc preload/draft}} and the draft ends up with {{AFC submission|t}}
which when called with |t
gives detailed author advice and a submit link (example).
If a draft is instead created via Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts then "Create draft" preloads {{Article wizard/skeleton}} and the draft ends up with {{New unreviewed article}} which gives no author advice and has no submit button (example). The page is just dumped in Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard which currently has 37,000 pages (and the article wizard wasn't actually used here). Shouldn't {{Article wizard/skeleton}} add something more useful for drafts, or not be used as preload in drafts? Maybe it was only intended for mainspace? It's also used at Wikipedia:Administration#Draft namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)