User talk:Equazcion/sandbox2/2013 9 10 October Oct

Declined → Not ready
TL;DR: Could we not-ready submissions instead of declining them, please? The intent is to have the newcomers work more on them, not to give up.

One name for status ”assumes” the submission would not ever be eligible, while the other name ”assumes” it could be possible to get it published with additional work. I like the spirit of the latter more. (This is another instance of similar thought process.) At Wikinews, there is a need in urgent work, while news is still fresh; at Wikipedia, the need is smaller, and the change could be merely friendly. I suspect that the newcomers' reaction would be less frustrating and more collaborative, were the change made; it would be nice to many, while we would barely see a difference in our workflow.

Such change may require community discussion. I would like to encourage your feedback here. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'declines' already offer advice to  the creator as well  as the opportunity  to  resubmit. IMO, adding  a 'not  ready' category  would be simply  to  add more bureaucracy  to  the process and/or instruction  creep  for the reviewers whose task  is already  complicated enough. Stay  tuned however, because there are new proposals coming  up  that  will  simply the system  even further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that for "some" of the decline reasons, this is actually a very good proposal. We would have to make a list of stuff that should say "not-ready" as opposed to "declined".  Stuff that is clearly notable, but just hasn't had enough sources put into the draft would be good not-ready candidates where-as copyvios and spam and blank would be better as declined.  Those cases we want the writer to give up and walk away because it could never be appropriate and would be CSDable if in article space. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And they'll be 'CSDable' when we get  the draft  namespace for AfC submissions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, it's good to leave a supplementary message along with the decline template. If I am worried that a user might be discouraged, I sometimes add "Please submit this article again after (whatever fix needs to be done)", or "Wikipedia needs an article on this topic;, I hope you will resubmit", or something like that.   One problem, which has been pointed out in previous discussions, is that it isn't always possible to tell from the initial submission which subjects will turn out to be notable and which will not, so we end up encouraging people at first and then discouraging them only after a lot of wasted work has been put into improvements. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, there's the rub! I hope that  what  is now cooking  in  tha back  kitchen will address some of these issues. 'Sigh' -  if only  we could get  some of the regulars to  collaborate here as a small software development team instead of each  of them  going  off at  half-tack  on their own ideas, otherwise we'll  be getting  another top-down  solution  forced upon  us by  the well-meaning  WMF. Next think-tank  RfC coming  very  soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative, may it be reasonable to change the color and icon of the existing declined templates (AFC submission|d, and whatever is added to users' talk pages) from red to blue, and from a cross mark to a brush and a pen, with the same intentions in mind as I described in my first message? Gryllida (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)