Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Archive 1

Archive 1

To keep things circular

Here's a link to the proposal that started all this. Silverseren^C 05:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Project tracking

This project could track the articles being worked on and completed by members by using templates somewhat like the ones used by the GoCE backlog elimination drives. This project would keep the tracking indefinitely, and after some number of abandoned drafts completed and moved to main space, barnstars could be awarded. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A bot would be good for that. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What would the bot do? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Check for inactive accounts and userspace articles, which are no redirects, nor JS/CSS pages and report them here (for further investigation). Pages which already exists should get into a separate list and either deleted after content was merged. mabdul 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and the bot could check if the page was already existent (deletion log). mabdul 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot idea seems to be about finding draft articles to be worked on by project members. That is a good idea, but not my idea. My suggestion was about having project members sign up to work on a particular article, and then when it was completed, mark it in their list as completed. Perhaps I can provide an illustration of what it would look like. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We could start a bot request for it. But the number of pages, I will warn that probably would be over 1000 at the first run and at the next may drop dramaticly by half to a quarter. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) (Revised on 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC))

Also, it could just be in a category like Category:Possibly Abandoned Drafts. Tomorrow, I will do a request.

• Example:

Abandoned Draft tracking example This example would show Gaskets and Learnalot as completed drafts made into mainspace articles, and the Barcelona article being worked on by Dthomsen8.

While there is no problem with project members working on and adopting some of the drafts, I would like to note that the main purpose of this Wikiproject is to get outside people to adopt them. It's not supposed to be just an internal thing. We'd be swamped if it was. Silverseren^C 23:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to motivate project members with tracking and perhaps barnstars when there is enough activity. But just like copyediting, some people would join the project, and others would just do some articles. I am supposing that somewhere there will be a list of articles to do. What should be decided is if templates like the ones used by GoCE should be created. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to using similar templates to GoCE. Silverseren^C 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets have some variety to other projects. I think more of this:

I am making a subpage for the proposal. Participation please at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drives. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to start a drive for august. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done made. Its at WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drive. But since its a bit pre-maturely done, the next will be in november, to get more people, spread the word, get people to know what to do, and more. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Donator pages

This is a suggestion to be able to navigate better, by author page. For each author of a page, we make a page for that contributor. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain more what you mean? I'm afraid I don't completely understand what you're proposing. Silverseren^C 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think that he mean to create "folders" so Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/User XY/daft 1, but I doubt that this would improve the situation. Better: Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drafts/Draftname would be better and somewhere an index page. If the index page gets too big, then split it into topics. mabdul 09:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. For now, i'd rather just wait until we get more drafts and people start adopting them. Silverseren^C 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability

This could get complicated, we could end up with ones where the subject fails notability. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Similar to the expressed proposal above: move the drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drafts/Draftname and if it is definitive not notable then move the draft to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/NN/Draftname or so. mabdul 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We already have one that does fail notability. No big deal to move it to a section for drafts lacking notability. Treat it normally. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sry, but am I allowed to ask one? CSD? mabdul 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You never know until it is fully explored, but based on what's in the articles, I'd say Rob Klotz, Bellatrix (musician), Mikael Johnston, Lluis Ribas de Pouplana, & Brandon Armstrong (Actor) look likely. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on the sources really. Bellatrix does seem to have a claim to notability. So it all depends on if there are actually sources out there to support that claim. Same for the others. Silverseren^C 00:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at all of the articles, where notability was not immediately clear, I took a closer look and read the articles and looked through the references and took a guess at where they might end up regarding wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My gut feel is that someday the project will need to deal with this issue. There is a difference between building / working on an article vs. trying to establish notability when there is a significant question of such, or where notability issues are the reason the article is not in mainspace. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We could use WP:MfD. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more general solution, we put a template. It would be for problems like Notability, not, Wikify, and more. It would also categorize it. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone like my page?

I moved a terrible article to my userspace at User:Ryan Vesey/Valasca and organized it a bit so that someone could get enough knowledge to identify the subject and do some research. I also have some external links. I don't have time to improve the article so I was wondering if anyone would like to take it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, you move it here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Valasca (PAGENAME) and then you replace userspace draft by Noindex. You don't ask for someone to adopt your draft here. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for "logo"

I am requesting a graphic for this WikiProject. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a couple ideas File:Nuvola apps kdict.svg, File:Nuvola apps klipper.png, and File:Nuvola filesystems folder txt.png Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I put in a request for a userbox here a while back, but never got any response. Silverseren^C 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I know of an editor who likes to make userboxes, I will make a request at his page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm That Turned created this

This user is a participant in WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.

What do people think? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'm gonna go add it to my page now. And, remember, we can always have more than one userbox if other people want to make something different, we're not limited to just one or just one type of wording, for that matter. Silverseren^C 05:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good enough, the thing is that there are no mention of being "abandoned" but its fine. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New Category

There is now a category at Category:Stale Userspace drafts which list pages with the {{userspace draft}} tag that have not been edited for over a year. It's already quite sizable - feel free to pick through it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:59, 25 Elul 5771 / 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job. This would be easyer now for us to get the Stale drafts. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you check to see if the editor is still active and don't just take them outright. I have a few drafts that I haven't edited in more than a year, half because i'm waiting for more sources to be created and half because I haven't gotten there yet (school, ect.), but I plan to. Silverseren^C 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, couldn't the template code check if the user isn't still active? I mean is there such a (mediawiki-programmable) possibility? mabdul 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, on-wiki. ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:35, 25 Elul 5771 / 19:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have a question. Per what you said on your talk page about WP:STALEDRAFT, would it be possible (would it be proper, I guess I shoud be asking) to have a note added to the category about this Wikiproject, since a lot of userspace drafts deleted under STALEDRAFT would actually be perfect for this project, as long as they are articles that don't exist in mainspace and can be presumed notable. Silverseren^C 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - though feel free to re-word it as needed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:35, 25 Elul 5771 / 19:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag

Is there a tag to tag suspected abandoned drafts? If the user hasn't edited in a while, tagging with the UW won't do much good. a {{suspected abandoned draft}} would be good, that self populates a hidden category for that purpose. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible abandoned draft for you all

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rollercoaster2428/Robb Alvey is at MfD right now. Please comment as to whether this stale draft has any potential. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Transcluded section

Note: This section is transcluded from the Article's for creation talk page to allow for a single discussion threat rather then having one here and one at AFC.

{{Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation|transcludesection=AFCHFeature}}

Clear !voting

So the proposal of Excirial was successful, what you think? Where to place the links? In which kind of format? Newest to the top? On which page? mabdul 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What proposal? Silverseren^C 01:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nefu Da Boss

User:Nefu Da Boss made one edit in April 2012, creating his/her user page. That page appears to be a user space draft (the user's name is also the name of a rapper, I gather). I've placed this project's donation template on User talk:Nefu Da Boss, but since the editor has not been active since April, I don't foresee any action from him/her. I'm not sure if you all have a policy on taking stale drafts from inactive users, but I thought I'd point the page out to you. Cnilep (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

He apparently moved it into mainspace at Nefu Da Boss. I did a search for sources and came up with nothing. So i'd say no to moving anything to this project, because there doesn't seem to be any possibility for improvement in the article. Furthermore, the mainspace article should probably be deleted for lack of notability. Silverseren^C 06:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nefu Da Boss. Cnilep (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible abandoned drafts of interest

• User_talk:Hongdx/home, biography of Hyesoo Chae, which I don't see replicated in mainspace, last edited Feb 2011, last contribution by editor the same day.
• User:Steinar259/sandbox, Icelandic handball player, editor contributed only 1 day some months back, not replicated in mainspace
• User:Serock13/Windsor Upper Dam, quiet save for maint. activity since 2009
• User:Saksham Pratap Singh/sandbox, clan, mainspace article is tiny compared to this, single-edit editor

--j⚛e decker^talk 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD for abandoned drafts

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts to determine if a new criteria should be added to WP:CSD for abandoned drafts. 64.40.54.125 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:Incubator

This project has been mentioned in a current discussion at WT:Incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Draft" namespace now exists

Given that other editors are much more likely to find a draft of this article (for example):

if it were, instead, here:

I suggest that all of the articles collected by this WikiProject be moved to the new Draft namespace. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree and have moved over the articles under this WikiProject to the Draftspace. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

New Draft Feed

An RfC has been started to propose a Draft feed system. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Copied Drafts

What happens if a Draft is copied to article space rather than just moved. Do we convert it to a redirect or is there speedy delete tag.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@PRehse: The correct thing to do is redirect it using this code: "#REDIRECT [[NEW ARTICLE NAME]] {{R from move}}" This is to prevent broken links. Thanks! 98.74.160.226 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The draft would need to be history-merged into the article. This can be requested at WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. SD0001 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Stale Userspace drafts

I see Category:Stale Userspace drafts has over 40,000 entries so I am pitching in to nominate drafts which are not salvageable for deletion. I am posting this as a courtesy as this WikiProject is mentioned on the category page. Is there a category that one can place these abandoned drafts into when they have usable content and can be reviewed before being moved to an article? PNGWantok (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A CSD Topic Concerning this Project

I just thought I would notify anyone who is interested that there is a conversation over at WT:CSD concerning the speedy deletion criteria for abandoned draft/AfC articles. If your are interested, head over there and post your comments. Thanks! 98.74.160.226 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a 4-day delay period for G13 deletions

It has been proposed at WT:CSD that a four day delay period (between tagging and deletion) be introduced for deletions of abandoned drafts under CSD G13. This enables interested users to review these drafts and untag the ones that are salvagable. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stale userspace drafts

Category:Stale userspace drafts now has ~47k pages in it. I'm going to try to skim this down (finding ownerless pages, short, no-content pages, etc) but any help is appreciated. Also, any ideas on how to make maintenance on this category easy in the future? ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:15, 15 Av 5775 / 06:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing it a well as well (October 2009 is now about 200 than the old almost 2k articles). In the future, they aren't going to be around much as most pages will be in the draft space with automatic 6-month up or out timeline. In theory we could just mass move articles to draftspace (I've done that for some halfway decent articles), tag them and let them get dealt with in six months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avicennasis: What do you think about organizing it as a drive with us focusing on a particular month's old drafts to clean out? It's up to 49k now. At the very least, it may be worth organizing with some graphics about the number there and cleared out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm mixing up two things. There's Category:Stale userspace drafts with 46,881 articles and Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard with 49k articles. We're talking two different things. Ok, I made a skeleton at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. I'm starting on the first 25 pages or 25000 articles as that's all AWB allows me to get. If someone else shows interest, I can ask for a bot to split the pages further and to get the second half. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts is complete. There's 46,635 there (about 20 more than when I started), so some work to do. Plenty of abandoned articles to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft

I find it semi-ironic that this project doesn't use the Drafts category so all drafts are located at Category:NA-Class Abandoned Drafts articles. Would people support moving drafts to a separate draft category? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for old stale pages in draft namespace

Hi, I'm trying to formulate a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Draft_articles_without_an_AFC_banner for draft space articles that haven't been edited in say two years. Those obviously wouldn't have a AFC banner since those would be G13 eligible otherwise. This is sort of the equivalent of the Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard articles from long ago. Depending on the volume, would people here be interested in running it as a drive to work through? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Request_for_old_stale_pages_in_draft_namespace (see there for more info), but for watchers of this page, I have a bot-generated report at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. Hopefully you'll find this useful. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quetion

Does "Only move article drafts to the namespace that were written by inactive or retired users" mean :

1. Only move article drafts to the article namespace that were written by inactive or retired users
2. Only move article drafts to the draft namespace that were written by inactive or retired users
3. Only move article drafts to thearticle or draft namespace that were written by inactive or retired users

I and many others have been routinely moving userspace drafts to the Drafts namespace for several years now, labelled "preferred location for draft articles" . DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there's also the option (before Draftspace was common) to move the draft into your own userspace so would removing "to the namespace" help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If that is the intent, it should read: "Only move article drafts to the Draft userspace, the article namespace, or your own userspace if they were written by inactive or retired users" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this better? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: The actual meaning of the text is (I beleive) the following: Only move pages to the "WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/" sub-space written by inactive or retired users. This text was added at a time when we did not have the draft namespace, and drafts used to be moved to a subpage of the project page. You can still find some redirects out there. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of project

I'd like to propose a reorganization of this project. I think the project should get into organizing hanging userspace and draftspace drafts that are probably not worth deleting at MFD but aren't mainspace worthy.

1. Aligned with the staledrafts projects, drafts where the editor has not been active for quite a while would be tagging with the Abandoned drafts project. Currently I've been blanking these pages but this may be a better use.
2. The project would tag them by into, say, Category:Abandoned Drafts reviewed in March 2016 within Category:Abandoned Drafts by month (the name matters). We would review the old drafts from 2011 and remove the mainspace ones.
3. The only quality that would really matter is Draft or Userspace which for this project probably actually matters a lot. Otherwise, I don't think we need to continue the tags after they go into mainspace to keep this more streamlined.
4. Following the suggestion of two editors, @A2soup and SmokeyJoe:, would also drafts with low/mid/high/top/unclear potential (either that or use the same importance tag, I don't care).
5. We can probably also set the template to create the dual category of both Category:Abandoned Drafts with high potential reviewed in March 2016 and so on.
6. I would also suggest that the talk pages also get tagged with all relevant WikiProjects. Some projects (for example, Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles) have been very active in coordinating and consolidating drafts so if there's others like that, it would help.
7. From there, we encourage people to work on it and say after a year, we go back and review and update the category on the drafts. If they are actively being worked on, fine; if the potential drops, fine; if it seems like it's really not going anywhere, anyone could take the page to MFD for deletion.
8. I would then encourage that the AFC project also consider including the Category:AfC postponed G13 stuff into here (some are at four postponements which is basically two years).
9. A final advantage would be that if we set up article alerts on these pages, this would essentially be the equivalent of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron but for drafts. While I may hate it, the idea that a half dozen editors watching the alerts page know that a draft from this project has been taken to deletion would be helpful to have.

Thoughts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan. Plans are good. RE #4. I suggest a review score, much like article rating. Just a suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Would quality could be Draft-LP, Draft-MP, Draft-HP, Draft-TP, Draft-UP and no separate importance to cross reference? Or a separate sub-review? A draft-stub, draft-start, draft-finished or something? I think that's adding a lot more complication than is needed. I'd rather just getting us started on this and if there's enough volume to support breaking these out, fine, but projects often die on minutia like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, do not get hung up on minutia. I was thinking just three levels: Crap (to be deleted); Borderline; Clear potential. This is not counting things moved directly to mainspace. It seems like there is an awful lot of crap -categorise it, let it get reviewed, and delete in due course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We are still going to CSD a lot of the crap on sight. We should promote the good stuff on sight. That leaves the marginal stuff that has been going to MfD, being redirected with a cross name space redirect, or blanked. Active members of the stale draft project should decide what path. It is hard to understand how editirs with no experience or interest in processing stale drafts can crediably set up a workable process. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I really like it in general, but I can't support MfD deletion of userspace drafts as described in point 7 unless it is written into policy that userspace drafts deleted as part of this project can be automatically undeleted on request, ideally at WP:REFUND. Also, Legacypac should be pinged for feedback, since this proposal will affect their work a lot. A2soup (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Point 7 on MFD was more of a comment than anything set in stone. The goal here isn't to list these things for MFD, it's to figure out what's actually usable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm moving this to Template talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to get the technical side working. The request there is for someone with some experience to (1) rename the note 1 date parameter to go into a Category:Abandoned Drafts reviewed in March 2016 category structure; (2) setting up the importance parameter (no reason to reinvent the wheel, it's the same concept of importance to this project); (3) be able to cross-reference month and importance; (4) instate Draft and User classes for quality (they all go to NA now and that's not helpful). I don't think there's a need to break out draft/user by month by importance but that's pretty standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update Drafts can now be tagged by Category:Abandoned Drafts articles by potential and by month. The scale is currently Low/Mid/High and Unknown. If people want to tag the front of this project, that would be a start. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: When I tag a draft, should I remove the {{Userspace draft}} template? I feel like I shouldn't, but if I leave it, the draft will stay in Category:Stale userspace drafts. A2soup (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd just null edit it with "tagged as Abandoned"? I do a cross-check of the backlog project and remove pages that have been edited as I'm firmly of the belief that this is just supposed to be a first-round preliminary check and if the page is kept, move on and if it's untouched in a year, it'll come back to that category again. There must be something to do, even if just an extra line somewhere and that's enough to remove it. I think the question then is, are the date categories static or roaming? I'd prefer we empty the 2011 ones and re-tag those pages with the current month but maybe only for non-draft pages per SmokeyJoe's point above. Else this will just be another version of the AFC pages or Wizard pages or other projects and unmanagable possibly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned drafts now in mainspace

Is there any actual interest in keeping track and still tagging Abandoned drafts that are now in mainspace? I know AFC does it and it has close to 60k pages from their project but this project has nine (the actual drafts are tagged NA). Do we really need to keep track of the pages that were donated in Category:Abandoned Drafts from July 2011 which are now in mainspace? I think the project could be leaner without including them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would really like to see it. It is a very good way to count. If someone thinks you are just trashing everything, knowing how many good things were found is pretty helpful. If someone thinks you are just putting crap in mainspace, it is good to know how many were deleted and how many are continuing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's actually two questions. One is the keeping of the page and the second is the keeping of the category for when they were donated to the project. The second one I don't think is particularly relevant (the three 2011 categories look more sad than encouraging). It seems like unnecessary categorization for future reference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't participated here because until fairly recently I was unaware of this project. However, along with others I have been systematically postponing and improving g13-eligible abandoned AfC drafts, and keeping track of those subsequently moved to mainspace. I agree with SmokeyJoe that categorizing is a good way to keep track of successes and show that your project is worthwhile. I know it's silly, but for me personally I find it motivates me to keep going. Ricky81682's point about the efficiency of the project is a good one, though; if project members are concerned about that, maybe after the pages are in mainspace it would be possible to have a bot (or someone periodically using AWB) change the categories to something like "Previously abandoned drafts from 2011". That would get them out of the lists you are trying to work on, and still allow them to show up in the statistics. Another question: Since they were all abandoned drafts, should the pages I worked on be added to the categories, even though I didn't know about the project at the time? I was with you in spirit, and I did keep track of when I "adopted" them... but it's okay if the editors here think they are outside the scope of the project.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll bring this up at AFC too. My thoughts are that AFC and Abandoned Drafts should be split in workload. AFC is for reviews alone, people interested in improving on drafts can look here (AFC can donate pages as well) if there's a repeatedly postponed AFC page or something that looks like it's been abandoned. Otherwise, I don't want this to become a "here's every page at AFC, let's dump it here along with all userspace drafts too" mess. One huge advantage is that article alerts here will have CSD notification including the G13 notifications so that will be a giant advantage for the people here. My thoughts are still again including the mainspace stuff but I still treat this as "here's a draft that no one person has taken on, if one person takes it one or it's in mainspace, then we can remove it from here entirely" rather than a storehouse of various drafts. It's basically a way to make draftspace more workable to me than AFC alone can do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to catagorize based on source. There is a masterlist somewhere already and Section 1 is at 100% cleared. Let's see how many red links CSD, redlink MfD, blanked, moves and redirects there are in that section. A way to count would be adding the keeps to a category. Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've started an audit of Section 1 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts/01. It started with 1000 drafts, has been cleared completely and is a good sample of the other 42 sections of the stale draft lists. We outright deleted 656 out of 1000 stale drafts. We also blanked or redirected (poorman's deletions) many of the remainder. . Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The obvious problem will be that the first months will be gigantic so I expect and hope we use the date parameter as a rolling backlog mechanism. Check on it in a year and move the date from March 2016 to March 2017 rather than just have it populated when it was started and just pile up there. Else it will be virtually impossible to manage within a few months and we've solved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

AfC does more than just reviews - they also work with active new editors, giving advice and leading by example in improving drafts. The problem is that there aren't enough reviewers to take on drafts where the original editors don't make an effort to do some of the work. Thus the declined submissions go stale even though some have potential, and may fall into the purview of this project. By the way, this project's goal states that it is about "userspace drafts". Does the wording need an update?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably does need many updates lol. My suggestion is along the lines of working on drafts when the original editor has left, which I think is distinct from what AFC is focused on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this WikiProject should confine itself to DraftSpace drafts. Processing UserSpace drafts is far more complicated. When the processing here is working, I would think that only then should abandoned userspace drafts be moved, under a wider authority, to draftspace to be processed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

They don't necessarily have to be moved but that's been the main project goal here for years. There's a lot more of those than pages in draftspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)