Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts

Archives

Potential tags

As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#General_discussion, there's some new ideas on the potential tags. We currently have low/mid/high but it seems like there's interest in a "NS" (non-starter) category too and a rename to "Some"/"Promising". It's all just a matter of the template wording. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A possible abandoned draft

A few months ago, I was thinking off what article to do next and came across Linden, Gloucester even though red linked, It had a draft from an IP address back in Feb 2016 and never came back to it as seen here: - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Linden,_Gloucester&oldid=705501130 and I waited if it would be done but it looks like it became abandoned, So it could be a possible candidate for the Wikiproject? D Eaketts (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:D Eaketts absolutely every controbution to wikipedia is free for you to edit. Roll away. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac, Thank you for replying I will definitely take a look at this article and move it to a new sandbox draft ASAP. D Eaketts (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are these salvageable?

I was looking through the backlog of the week, stale userspace drafts, and after promoting a few to draftspace or CSD-ing them, I came across these two drafts, and I'd like to ask your thoughts on them:

Thanks, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonderful to see someone else working on these lists. I'd also previously noticed New Testament theology and did some checking on the topic. I think it has potential but needs some work. Creator made two edits 13 month back and never came back, so he's unlikely to finish. I've moved it to Draft:New Testament theology and commented on it's talk. Hopefully someone picks it up.

I also recall seeing the second page before. Looks translated, poorly. I'm not 100% clear what it is trying to say, but looks interesting.

Always happy to dialog here or elsewhere on how to handle abandoned pages. Legacypac (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use applicable speedy deletion criteria first

The second of the instructions for dealing with stale userspace drafts says "If you find a draft that is clearly on a non-notable topic and has no conceivable potential for an article, nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion." At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mo De Lon/The Wet Spots, SmokeyJoe makes the point that applicable speedy deletion criteria should be used in preference to MfD as it is quicker and easier. Any objections to this being added to that instruction? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been meaning to fix that. Use CSD before MfD if possible. [1] should make this clearer. Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A walk through the dustbin

I have been walking through the alphabetical listing of abandoned drafts with the following methodology. I check the contribution history of the author. If the author has made any edits in the past year (in CE years 2018 or 2019), I leave the draft and any other drafts by the author alone. (If the author still edits, even occasionally, the draft is Someone else's problem and is partially invisible.) I check the history of the draft and see if the draft has been edited by any other human in 2018 or 2019. I haven't encountered this situation, but this calls for editorial judgment, whether to ignore the draft or interact with another editor. If the editor has been inactive in 2018 and 2019, a cursory review is in order for plausible references and for a credible claim of significance. I submit the draft to AFC for review. Normally I then move it from user space into draft space using the AFC script feature for the purpose. At this point, I can do one of two things. The first action is what I have done hundreds of time in the past few days, and that is to decline the draft with a very brief saved explanation, and it will become eligible for G13 in six months. The second action, which I have done occasionally, is to leave the draft submitted for review, and to provide an explanation that I think it needs review. That is what I have been doing. (Any sneezing is the result of dust raised from the dustbin). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Is it fresh AfC submissions you're declining, or are you going through the abandoned drafts list? A draft can't be declined if it wasn't submitted in the first place. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joining the club of the confused. Looking at pages like Draft:Barbados Fire Service, what you seem to be doing is finding pages in other editors' userpace, then moving them to the draft namespace, placing the AfC template and submitting them for review and then rejecting them. Is that your workflow, and are you really, really sure this is a good idea? – Uanfala (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've asked for input from more editors at WT:User pages#Sending all userspace drafts to AfC?. – Uanfala (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is correctly and creatively using AfC tools to evaluate WP:ABANDONED pages for possible inclusion. Even a page that is not mainspace ready, moved to an appropriate Draft title, now has a chance to be built on if someone tries to start that title in Draft or Mainspace because they will find it. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lurking editor

In the case of one draft, whose author had not edited for more than a year, I moved the draft from user space to draft space and left it submitted for review. The author used the "thank" feature to thank me for my edits to the draft. The draft was then rejected as containing copyrighted material, and then cleaned of copyrighted material, and is in draft space. So a few of the inactive editors are lurking with watchlists enabled; there is positive evidence that at least one editor is lurking with an enabled watchlist. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This process is pretty much in line but slightly different from this long standing project Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. A positive thing. You will find some useful acceptable pages which makes wading thru the junk rewarding. You will also find a lot of highly problematic pages that need deletion. CSDing pages should of course also be part of the prpcess with U5/G11/G12 the most common reasons. I suspect a lot of copyvio lurks in stale drafts so setting pages that should not go to mainspace on a path (AFC review and reject) that can lead to deletion if no one picks them up is a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Items to be merged

Greetings from WikiProject Merge, we have a category of potential intrest for the project with lots of drafts with merge tags, often because they want it to be moved into the main space but do not know the proper procedure. If anyone want to help go through this category that would be great!Trialpears (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Stale userspace drafts

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to help with Category:Stale userspace drafts. It's at around 35,380 and the current backlog target is 25,000. I was wondering if anyone would like to help reach this target, considering it's been a backlog for years. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New bot report for images in rejected drafts

In case this WikiProject is interested, there is a new bot report for images in rejected drafts: https://heber.toolforge.org/drafts/filter. This is mainly intended to help find image copyright violations which might be left to linger after the draft has been deleted. MKFI (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenèe nichole guthrie bates hìèŕs

@jenèe bates hìèŕs 2601:CF:300:9A30:78C8:861:F3EF:F834 (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]