Template talk:Promising draft

Namespace detection
I've added code to the template for namespace detection so that if the template is used in mainspace it will apply the Category:Misused Promising draft template category so that we can resolve these. Hasteur (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Create category:Promising draft?
It seems this template should add a category:Promising_draft to tagged pages. Are there any concerns or objections? Alsee (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, though in order to get all the pages that are tagged currently with the template to transclude the category, you will need to perform a null-edit in order to get it all to take effect. Also I would suggest that the category inclusion be done as part of the Namespace detection sub-template (i.e. right under the "Misused Promising draft Template" category inclusion with something to the effect of  |Draft =    so that we don't have only have promising drafts in draft namespace. Hasteur (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, if the template exists in usespace or somewhere it is going to be of interest. All occurrences should appear in at least one of the two categories. I was considering the simple option to have all occurrences appear in the new category. At worst, it increases the visibility to clean up any oddly placed instances. Alsee (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tweak phrasing to be less alarming to newbies?


I had a concerned novice editor ask me if his draft was about to be Speedily Deleted, due to the ambiguous phrasing of the template. Might I suggest a small modification?


 * "An editor has indicated that this is a promising draft and requests that, should the draft become abandoned, it not be speedy-deleted as WP:G13 and instead be nominated at WP:MFD."

Thoughts? My goal is just to make it clear in the template that Deletion is by no means a near danger for the active draft editor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Post facto not seeing any problem with the language. Only making note that some of the first "promising" drafts are being brought to MFD and are not faring well. cc   Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, just because it "is promising" doesn't mean it "is good". Primefac (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For reference the discussion that approved this Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66 Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Request to change HasteurBot implementation regarding Promising Draft template
I've personally rejected this request as there doesn't appear to be any consensus building around this request and I think this will lead us down a bad path. Hasteur (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there is community consensus for that (as the closer of the previous discussion pointed out), but if the bot operator is unwilling to respect that consensus, we should amend the template accordingly. I've edited the template message to make it clear that placement of this template will not prevent eventual deletion per G13, and I've added the suggestion that editors can achieve this goal by removing the AFC submission templates from the draft. That's assuming that it's AFC templates that Hasteurbot uses to determine if a draft is eligible for deletion, is that right? I know this situation is not perfect – we want to keep AFC reviews and comments visible – but I don't think I see another way. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An editor is perfectly able to request that a draft not be deleted if/when it hits the six month period. An admin is within their rights to respect that request or ignore it.
 * Besides, un-tagged drafts still fall under the G13 policy (per an RFC a few months ago) so removing the AFC tags will only keep it out of the "G13-eligible AFC submissions" category; telling them to remove all the tags in addition to placing this template just (slightly) delays the inevitable. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If G13 tagging was not done by a bot, or if the majority of G13 deletions were done by admins who look at what they're deleting, then maybe yes. But even then, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, so if someone has disagreed with it, then an admin shouldn't be deleting the draft anyway. Regardless, in the current situation, the template is at best useless (it's not respected), and at worst harmful as it misleads editors into believing that deletion will prevented. Your point about the draft still being technically eligible for G13 deletion is a good one, but then 1) at least the removal of the templates will prevent the bot from tagging, no? 2) editors are still free to individually tag with G13 if they see fit (although again, that would violate the spirit of CSD). – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrators derive their authority to delete pages from the community. The community authorized G13 but then made an exception to it here. Thus, an administrator is outside of their prerogative to delete a page tagged with promising draft per G13. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Goodsy's policy-land grab explictly making items tagged with this template G13 immune. In no way was that kind of immunization ever authorized. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of this template attracting editors to work on these drafts? Is it auto-categorising?  Is the promising draft category advertised?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)\


 * The only editors that the template attracts are "deletionists" who are trying to clean up the effort that is refusing to be cleaned by regular automated editing. In the completely unscientific poll I've done, not a single one of the articles that has been tagged with this actually gets any attention from editors to improve the draft. The only categorization that actually happens is being placed in Category:Promising_draft_articles. It's not my responsibility as someone who opposed the category/template in the first place to be the advertising committee for it. Hasteur (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added “advertising” at Articles_for_creation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hasteur, the decision at the RFC was quite clear on this point: Pages where the template has been applied should go to WP:MFD instead of being deleted G13. If you would like to revisit the issue, feel free to start a new RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you read like 6 lines in on a "would be nice" rambling summary. Not clear, disputed, never implemented to the template, and significantly disjoint from the RFC, therefore I consider that assertion from the RFC moot/void. Hasteur (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hasteur’s position is entirely proper and respectable. I support him in it.  Drive-by tagging with this template in draftspace will save it from User:HasteurBot for another six months, but doing nothing else, and expecting the bot author to reprogram his bot, is not really reasonable.  If you are really interested in the topic, userfy it.  Also, let’s consider something like a WikiProject for Promising drafts, and move the promising drafts out of draftspace.  Hasteur is doing more that his share of the work in managing this ill-consider draftspace AfC system, and developments must work with him, not make his work harder.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think an organized effort to move drafts out of draftspace en mass would be helpful. They can't be promoted or improved, they probably are not all that promising. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your connotations “en mass”. They are to be moved individually. Category:Promising draft articles does not contain masses of drafts. Disagree with the notion that something put in draftspace is committed to the g13 suicide pact.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify - I would take no issue if someone wanted to grab a few of these drafts to their userspace for eventual improvement. I would consider a Wikiproject rather pointless if it moved drafts with the only criterion being whether they had this template/categorization. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, perhaps overly hopefully, that every tagging with this template is done with specific consideration and care. Perhaps a talk page statement supporting the potential should be required. If that were the standard of tagging, it would be a suitable standard for rescuing from automated deletion.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What would happen in this template were to include nobots? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothin', unless bots look for this specific template. Nobots doesn't expand to anything; bots that support it do so by searching pages' wikitext for {{bots or {{nobots (give or take capitalization, spacing, and similar). —Cryptic 22:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Why?
I don't see the point of this, nor do a lot of other commenters as the recently closed RfC about is use and implications at WT:CSD. If you think a draft is promising, wouldn't it make more sense to userspace it to your own userspace and work on it? What's to stop User:HobbitNut99 from slapping this template on every single hopeless draft of cruft relating to Middle-earth? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What's stopping the hobbitnut from slapping this on all their favourite drafts is the template's impotence: placing the template only postpones G13 for anothe six months, so it doesn't achieve anything that any other substantial edit wouldn't do. The main purpose of the template, and probably its only purpose with any practical effect, is as a filter: the placement of the draft in Category:Promising draft articles for the benefit of editors looking for worthwhile drafts to work on. – Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It also may make an admin pause before deleting G13 and consider whether a move to mainspace or another approach is more appropriate. (Comments aren't very successful at doing this because they are not visually prominent.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text change
Given the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts, I propose changing the text of the template from "it not be speedily deleted as WP:G13" to "deletion under speedy deletion criterion G13 be postponed". --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 20:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point of the template: after all, its placement, like any substantive edit, resets the timer for G13 and hence forces the postponement of the deletion for six months. It's a bit misleading to present this postponement as requested, no? – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would something like "An editor has indicated that this is a promising draft, and has postponed deletion under speedy deletion criterion G13." be better? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Well, this strikes me as a bit tautological: I don't see the point of mentioning the postponement as it's not a useful piece of information by itself. A text like "An editor has indicated that this is a promising draft" without anything else would be acceptable, I believe, but I'm not sure I see what problem we're trying to solve by changing the existing wording. Yes, after the RfC admins are free to ignore any requests that the draft isn't deleted per G13, but is there anything wrong with this template stating such a request? – Uanfala (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if the only purpose was to postpone G13, then AfC postpone G13 could be used. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The existing wording gives false hope, as given the environment surrounding draft space, there is almost no chance that such a request will be honored. One more proposal:
 * "An editor has indicated that this is a promising draft. Please read any comments below and help to improve it, or ."
 * --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * That's a fair point, though some (possibly many?) drafts do get reviewed before deletion, so I'm not sure I'll be as pessimistic as you. But I like your new proposed wording, it seems to invite positive action. Can't we have both this suggested text and the existing request for G13 deferral? – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A further proposal
Okay, here's another proposal to try to gain consensus for making this template less misleading. By default, when transcluded on a page, the template would look like:

The template will automatically fill in parameters 1 and 2 (date and user) when substed. If substed or parameters 1 and 2 are filled in, it will usually look like:

If the 6-month counter expires after the template is placed, it will change to:

Hopefully, this brings the template in line with Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts (by making it clearer that this postponement isn't indefinite and indicating how long it's been since requested), but also still serve a non-tautological purpose. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good: definitely more informative and better worded than the current version. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think turning this into basically a G13 counter is a good idea. I also oppose adding an AfC submission button, especially without a move to mainspace option directly preceding it. AfC creep is prominent enough elsewhere. Those placing this are likely experienced editors aware of and able to submit a draft to AfC if they desire, and the same can be said of those watching Category:Promising draft articles. That aside, an optional dating parameter (that could be set up in several different ways) for drafts that will likely either shortly gain notability or fizzle would be interesting but probably would not get much use; I do not support it as a standard inclusion. Most drafts marked as promising will remain so, which makes such information superfluous. Additionally, those interested in who placed the template (and when) can check the page history. Lastly, this template does nothing indefinitely but rather increases the chances a draft will get a second look when it comes up for deletion every six months that it is retained. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, much less importantly, I really think File:Trash Can (2).png should remain. It represents "this is not trash", which is the base message of this template. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the G13 counter is a good idea: if it's not there, the presence of the template might give people the false hope that the draft will not be deleted: with the way most G13 deletions seem to be carried out, there's little chance that the template might be noticed, let alone taken into account. But that's an entirely operational consideration: if at some point the draft namespace starts getting managed differently, then a countdown timer will probably not be needed. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If a G13 counter is going to be implemented, you might as well call AfC postpone G13 so that it ends up in the proper cats (i.e. tracking purposes). Primefac (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea! PrussianOwl (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Reword
I suggest simplifying this to the following:

— Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose that a reason parameter, or something like it, be added to this template, so that a specific rationale can be added to the text of the template-tag when posted to a draft aritcle. I think that's a better solution than using the template and then having to supplement it with the use of the Afc comment template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Userspace detection
If we presume that the purpose of this template is to indicate that an editor believes that there is potential in the page and requests that it not be deleted via CSD:G13, invocations of this template outside the Draft namespace (where CSD:G13) should be out of order as CSD:G13 cannot reach there. I therefore propose that the Template be edited similarly to in order to make userspace invocations also be errors. I am aware I have the permissions to do this, but want a second set of eyes on this so as to remove any persumption of bias. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * G13 also applies to userspace drafts, so it should not be an error to use this template outside of Draft space. RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: As mentioned, userspace drafts submitted to AFC are eligible for G13. If that should change then by all means the change can be made. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect to and, I suggest you re-read the G13 text and think about the applicability. Userspace with an AFC submission template (which will be quickly moved to Draft namespace) or Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.  Neither of those apply in this case as in order for the page to be promising it needs to have more content than just the article wizard placeholder text. Hasteur (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What page are you quoting? I don't see the text about moving to draft space at WP:G13.  RudolfRed (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Date
This template is being tagged with "date=" by a bot, but the date is not included in the template parameters. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh. Not sure the best way to integrate that into the template, if the idea was to include that information somehow. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)