Template talk:Draft at/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 9 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Template:There is a draft for this article → Template:Draft at – This is an awfully wordy title for what could be (and I guess already is!) a very useful template. The more succinct {{Draft at}} would seem to get the message across... (Note: {{Draft for article}} would also be a viable alternative.) Incidentally, this template will also be useful for placement in Redirects generally, so I also intent to create a redirect for this template specifically at {{R with draft}} for use in redirects. For added context, see also this related discussion at WT:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose Not wordy. It says exactly what it should. Simply "draft at" is utterly confusing; what draft?. Also I have not seen the benefit of placing this template in a redirect page since draft is a temporary working place. Once the article is moved to mainspace then the template becomes useless and burden. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure what your last point is. But I've given an alternative name: {{Draft for article}}. The current name is unnecessarily unwieldy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That one is worse than the former, because it doesn't flow with the context. There's a draft for this article at {{FULLPAGENAME}} has no problem whatsoever. So this may just be a solution looking for a problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The current version fails WP:CONCISE – yes, that's for article titles, but I'm not seeing why it shouldn't apply to titles across the board. Also, there will still be a redirect at {{There is a draft for this article}}, so moving it to a more logical, concise title will not "disrupt" anything. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You admit that you know the policy you're quoting doesn't apply to template, but still want apply it so as to support what you like?! Also why should we need a redirect when the current title works fine? Instead of move and redirect, just leave it as is, which is even easier. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER. Every editor who has been around more than about a month knows that, although the title policy does not literally apply to non-articles, we apply it anyway, unless there's a truly compelling reason not to. We do this, because having radically different naming between namespaces would be confusing and counterproductively. Similarly, the style used in the Manual of Style complies with the Manual of Style; our disambiguation rules are applied to internal pages that need disambiguation; our guidelines for categories of mainspace articles are applied to ones for internal pages; etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per IJBall's comments about unwieldyness. Every time I've needed to use this template, I've had to go to talk pages where it's linked and copy the template name since it's too long to remember. {{Draft for this article}} is also a possible name, and is just a more concise version of the current name. -- Alex^TW 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is kind of what I'm getting at – with its current title, it's actually difficult to remember, and it's also a pain to type out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support "draft at". Much easier to remember. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Draft at" (or "Draft for article" or "Draft exists" even). —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as concise. I don't buy the idea that it's "confusing" or that it inspires a "draft of what?" question. No one sane is going to think I mean "There is a draft of my cookie recipe over here" or "Click here for a draft of my new résumé" if I put this in mainspace. There's only one sensible meaning it could have. Given that the intent of it is to be used in an editnotice when someone tries to edit a redlink for a non-existent article, it's essentially impossible for it to be taken any other way, and it's wording already clearly indicates this. The only human beings who'll ever be aware of this template's name are those who already know what it means (or show up at the template page and find out), because they're using it to point people to existing drafts. Readers and noob editors (those who are not working on editnotices) are not exposed to the template name. Furthermore, this could easily be updated with a namespace test, to use a different word than "article" if you open, say, a non-existent WP:Portal or WP:Book for which a draft exists. Given all the new, ongoing portal activity, if I were to start working on something like User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Portal:Cue sports, I would want to use this template at Portal:Cue sports in the interim, because such work might take weeks and I wouldn't want to end up with a huge, extended edit conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Draft at" per IJBall. - Brojam (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Pinging MSGJ and Ahecht as the creator and contributors to the template respectively. -- Alex^TW 02:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Purpose of template

As specified on the documentation, this template is designed for use on edit notices and system messages and uses {{fmbox}}. It is not currently suitable for use on articles, talk pages, etc. which have different stylings. Technically, it would be straightforward to have different formats of the same message. But perhaps there should be a discussion (e.g. at WP:VPR) to see where editors think a message like this can be appropriately posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but documentation isn't policy, and article (or rather, redirect, as this message would only be required for redirects) messages don't require a specific style; {{Film draft edit notice}} is definitely an example of that. Why would we want different formats of the same message, when we can just use the same template? No work required. -- Alex^TW 08:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because we try to do things properly on this website and produce professional looking output? The only precedent I can think of for redirects is {{Redirect category shell}} which uses mbox. Perhaps User:Paine Ellsworth can point to other examples? But the one major thing that people seem to be overlooking is that this message is not seen by readers or even most editors because you will be taken to the target of the redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I still don't believe there's a need for two styles and templates for exactly the same message. And we're aware of that, that came up in the original discussion that lead to the RM; IJBall had commented I've been looking for something like this that can let editors who go directly to redirects know there is a draft article, in the same way that going to an empty article like Blue's Clues (2018 TV series) tells you that there's a draft article in Draftspace. -- Alex^TW 08:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, Martin, in that it would be wrong to bastardize a template designed for a specific usage. This template seems to work well when used inside the Rcat shell as shown in my Sandbox1; however, that's no reason to use it like that. Can this template be converted to mbox? should it be? Those are questions for the creator and other involved editors, I think.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Maybe not in exactly this same format (as shown in your Sandbox), but something like this, or this template "used inside" another template – these details are prob. above my paygrade. But if something like an {{R with draft}} template can cut down even a little bit on editors (esp. IP's) "converting" redirects to inappropriate articles, esp. when Drafts of said articles already exist, then it serves a useful function. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. An {{R with draft}} template would be even more useful if it could be designed to point to Draftspace templates (automatically), or 'parametered' to point to Userspace drafts as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

An R with draft rcat would need a maintenance category as in Category:Redirects with draftspace articles or similar. Either an editor or a bot would need to maintain such a category. I think I could design the rcat and category; however, I haven't the time to maintain them, nor do I know much about bots. Just had a thought about a way to use R with possibilities to show a draftspace article. Let me massage that a bit.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a stipulation to {{R with possibilities}} that shows modified text when a draft article exists in draftspace. It is illustrated at the Watchmen (TV series) redirect. The following text was added: "This is a redirect from a title that is in draft namespace at [[Draft:{{PAGENAME}}]], so please do not create an article from this redirect. You are welcome to improve the draft article while it is being considered for inclusion in article namespace." Userspace drafts would still have to be moved to draftspace to get redirects to show this message. Is this more helpful? Also, the maintenance Category:Redirects with draftspace articles or something similar, which would only be populated if the draftspace article exists, can be added if that would be helpful.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's helpful! Something is better than nothing – at least it's a start! I still think an {{R with draft}} template would be useful/should be created, but if that needs further discussion, I understand. (I'd just like to be made aware and looped into it if any further discussion does take place!) Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor IJBall: if a new rcat were to be created, you would still have to find the redirects and tag them with it. At least this way we can use an rcat that is meant to tag redirects that have a possibility of becoming articles. The new category has been created and implemented in the R with possibilities rcat. At this point it's already populated by five redirects. This should accomplish a way to deter people from creating a new article from a redirect that has a draftspace article, and a way to track redirects that already have draft articles.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support a new rcat template specifically for redirects that have drafts. It should also allow users to input the page name of the draft in case it is different to the redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There is also a possibility of an unintrusive notice on the target section of the redirect. But I doubt this cross-namespace redirect would gain consensus for use. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Which do you think would be the appropriate forum to have a wider discussion on the appropriateness of the proposed {{R with draft}} template?... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the TfD template

I have withdrawn the nomination and would like the TfD template removed. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done already by JJMC89. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)