Wikipedia talk:Drafts

Drafting redirects

I wanted to ask if it's allowed to draft redirects in this way, as this isn't covered in this explanatory essay (this essay currently allows creating drafts of articles, disambiguation pages and new pages for non-article namespaces). Also, some redirects were created by first drafting them in draftspace and then moving them to mainspace. I've nominated some of these redirects at RfD. Should they be kept or deleted? Xoontor (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of a prohibition, it's allowed. If someone had created Elon Muck as Draft:Elon Muck, moved that to Elon Muck, leaving us with Elon Muck and Draft:Elon Muck as redirects to Elon Musk, I don't see that as a problem. —Alalch E. 23:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If drafting redirects is allowed, then the fact that drafts of redirects can exist should be stated in the first note of the essay. Currently, the note reads:

Including disambiguation pages; very rarely, new pages for non-article namespaces such as the Portal:, Template:, and Wikipedia: namespaces are first incubated in the draftspace.

If drafting redirects is allowed, it should instead say:

Including disambiguation pages and redirects; very rarely, new pages for non-article namespaces such as the Portal:, Template:, and Wikipedia: namespaces are first incubated in the draftspace.

But I'm not really sure if drafting redirects should even be allowed, since there's not much content to "draft" in a redirect. I don't really mind if someone prefers to draft a redirect for their own convenience, but in most cases, I think draftspace redirects created due to drafting redirects unnecessarily clutter draftspace and should be deleted. Xoontor (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Xoontor (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll need to think about that a bit. My first reaction is that if page Natt Palbert is a redirect to The Gahs, because non-notable person Natt Palbert is the bassist of the band The Gahs, and there is also Draft:Natt Palbert, also existing as a redirect to the band, that is a neutral situation. An editor who believes that Natt Palbert has become notable can turn either the mainspace or the draftspace redirect into an article. It's as if there is no difference between the draftspace redirect existing or not. So I am not feeling the "clutter" concern. —Alalch E. 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: I'm having trouble seeing how some of the redirects I nominated at RfD, such as Draft:Three-point-one-four-one-five-nine, Draft:Superman 'Starman', or Draft:Lobotomy Dash, could be turned into articles. Additionally, in cases like Draft:Fire in the hole!, we already have an existing article at "Fire in the hole", so what article is there to draft? On top of that, the draftspace redirect Draft:Fire in the hole! points to Geometry Dash, while the mainspace redirect Fire in the hole! points to "Fire in the hole". I think that this is is another reason why draftspace redirects like this one should be removed – they need looking after.

While some redirects (like Draft:Buttercup or Draft:Libet's Delay) might eventually turn into articles, I don't think there should be a redirect there if these articles weren't drafted there. Also, Draft:Pixel Peeker Polka was moved to Pixel Peeker Polka and that redirect was deleted at RfD. Given that the mainspace redirect was deleted, I don't think we should keep the draftspace redirect. Xoontor (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: I'd appreciate it if you would respond and tell me if you have changed your mind or if you still think that those redirects should be kept. Xoontor (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Xoontor Thanks for the reminder, and sorry for not replying earlier. I've been on a trip for the past 10-ish days, I've only got a phone, and have disconnected a fair bit from ongoing conversations. In my previous reply I did not mean to say that a draftspace redirect needs to come with possibilities and that a lack of potential of turning a redirect into an article is reason to delete the redirect. I meant that they are not a hindrance. But it was a bit of a strawman line of argument in retrospect (not consciously). From a distance, I now think that you could be basically right. But I disagree about the note not mentioning such redirects means that they're disallowed. Listing is non-exhaustive when PAG list ways of how one might do or use something. We can't infer prohibition from a lack of a mention. If something isn't expressly prohibited, it's allowed. If a policy/guideline says, "you may use X for A, B and C", this does not exclude the possibility of "you may use X for D" (it could be an open question). This is the best I can do for this discussion ATM; it might benefit from someone else's input. @Joy: Do you have any thoughts on these draftspace redirects? —Alalch E. 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification for wording of this essay

Recently an editor moved an article to draft saying in an edit summary "Needs a complete rewrite" and when I asked to to explain further, they wrote "If I believe something is a notable topic but the current state of the article is not good enough to be in the mainspace, I draftify it". Subsequently, when I pointed that their reasons don't meet WP:DRAFTREASON, and explicitly go against WP:DRAFTNO (the article they draftified was created over a year ago), they quoted the section preceding the reasons (WP:DRAFTIFY) "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is acceptable for mainspace", as well as that this entire essay, being an essay, is not binding, therefore their reason for draftificaiton is valid. Are they correct? Should any wording of this essay be clarified? And on a sidenote, maybe it should become a policy? It is a bit weird that the action of draftification, done quite often on Wikipedia, with its own namespace, seems to be supported only by an essay. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for not informing about this (talking about "an editor" behind their back isn't nice, telling untruths while doing so is even worse). Not that I expected any better by now... Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not want to name you, to avoid embarrassing you. But sure, diff way. You draftified an article that was over a year old, in clear violation of the RfC and this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - Wikipedia. And when I asked you not to do so again, your reply was: "Your opinion is noted and ignored." Not cool. Well, now we can review the specific case study. Who is right? Fram or me? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you said "That you are moving articles between namespaces without any valid, policy-backed up reason to do so. Please don't do this again." That I inadvertently ignored one policy on that one article (which was already back in the mainspace by the time of your comment) doesn't mean that my other draftifications where "without any valid, policy-backed reason" as you claimed. And that is the part I noted and would ignore. I agree that WP:DRAFTIFY doesn't trump WP:DRAFTNO, but that's hardly your point either, is it?

Oh, and thank you for not wanting to embarrass me, I'm really really touched. In return, I'll point out that "in clear violation of the RfC and this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - Wikipedia." is, well, not an "and", as the RfC = the link. Fram (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not mean to imply I have concerns with your other draftifications; I haven't reviewed most and the ones I've seen seem fine. I explicitly meant the case of the 1 year old article being draftified for reason that is not one of the three major cases seen at WP:DRAFTREASON. "Needs a complete rewrite" might warrant a WP:AFD per WP:TNT, but not a draftification. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

2007 CUHK student newspaper pornographic section incident

Yeah, draftifying an article that was created in 2023 runs afoul of the 90 day draftification rule. We're not supposed to do that.

It's also not great to re-draftify something already approved at AFC.

However, poor translations are one of the common reasons for draftifying articles. According to the {{Rough translation}} tag on this article, it appears to fall into this category.

The article also has some problems with tone. For example, using the first person: I also responded to questions from the audience.

I'd be interested in promoting WP:DRAFT to a policy or guideline, but draftification is a touchy subject. About half the encyclopedia thinks AFD is less bitey, and the other half thinks draftspace is less bitey, and many many words have been written about it. This makes it hard to find a version of this page that everyone agrees with and which would be easy to promote to a policy or guideline. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is that if someone draftifies something because it is not ready for mainspace, they must be saying that it is a new article WP:LIKELY to be deleted at AfD or runs afoul of WP:BLP or has a serious WP:NPOV problem. More frequently articles new and old that are draftified for this reason are simply of low quality and need improvement. We should not be doing such draftifications and I invoke WP:DRAFTOBJECT when I see them. In the case of 2007 CUHK student newspaper pornographic section incident, Piotrus is in the right and Fram should stop being disruptive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTMOVE edit

Idk what edit summary Rename - can be article name - move cant be move to different name space but with same article name (diff) means. My view is that rename and move are interchangeable within Wikipedia so that's why I removed 'rename'. Maybe I'm thinking rename in this context meant changing the draft article from Draft:Foo to Draft:Bar while moving meant Draft:Foo to Foo (draft to mainspace), but like I said earlier those two are commonly used interchangeably. JuniperChill (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Move and Rename are used interchangeably. Except, Rename isn't used fora namespace change that doesn't change the page title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Promotion to Guideline?

Is this page, currently labeled as an essay, sufficiently normative that it should be promoted to guideline? I note it's currently linked from policy at WP:ATD-I. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I would support efforts to promote this to a guideline. I don't think this essay is perfect, but I view the status quo as seriously untenable. Articles are being draftified, drafts are being re-published, move wars are happening, people are being blocked, people are getting insulted, and everyone is either saying "per WP:DRAFTIFY", or "that's just an essay", or doing whatever based on their own experience/gut feelings. The scattershot nature of our current approach is doing more damage than an imperfect guideline would do, and future disputes over the guideline would be more productive in refining it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about WP:DRAFTIFY: What should I do if I accidentally violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT?

I draftified the article Koshala Literature Festival because it was obviously AI-generated, but I didn't realize that the article should not have been draftified since Chayan.bfc (the creator of the article) had previously moved it back to mainspace. (I even listed the fact that it was draftified before as a sign of it being a low-quality AI-written article and still didn't reconsider moving the page). I can't undo the move now because I placed {{db-r2}} on the redirect left behind in mainspace and am not sure what to do. Should I ask a pagemover to fix this? Or should I just wait for an admin to delete the redirect page in mainspace and allow for the author to fix the article and possibly move it back? Thank you for responding; any help is appreciated. (If there is a better place to ask for help, please let me know.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 A page mover can move it back if you feel that is correct. I will if you ask me on my talk page. A pragmatic approach is to let it ride, on the basis that the error will have a potential encouraging effect on the creating editor to do better. Obviously you know (now?) that AFD is an option insted of returning to draft, whether DRAFTOBJECT applies or not, and you may choose to apply that if oyu wish, as may anyone, when the draft becomes an article. This applies even if it has been accepted at AFC

Thank you for putting your hand up. We all make mistakes, this mistake too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think the best option here is to just leave it as-is; if the draft is moved back to mainspace without substantial improvements, I could point it out and/or start an AFD discussion (like you said), or just fix the problems if I can. I don't think that a simple draftification screw-up is important enough to justify a round-robin page swap. Besides, as soon as the redirect in mainspace is deleted, the article will be able to be moved there again by non page movers. I think I'll just  Self-trout and move on. Thanks for responding and offering to help! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can stop worrying now, since the draft article was G11'd by Jimfbleak for being AI slop. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 I have accidentally acted against DRAFTOBJECT several times. Be aware, but also be unconcerned. It is an essay, and a useful one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)