User talk:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js/Archive 2

Edit summaries
Is there a way to make the edit summary changeable when using this tool? I would like to be able to put the reason for moving to draft in the edit summary where it can be seen by all instead of just the talk page message to the creator. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, are you talking about just the user talkpage edit, the page move itself, or all the edits made by the script? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm talking about the page move itself, where it says "(Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script))" It would be nice to be able to change "undersourced" to whatever is appropriate, such as in articles that are unsourced and contain nothing but an infobox. Natureium (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Natureium (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppress notification?
Hi! You've probably answered this a dozen times already, but ... is there a way to suppress notifications to the article creator? I'm thinking of a situation where an editor has created about twenty articles with insufficient sourcing, where of course if I decide to move them to draft I don't want to leave twenty notifications, but one hand-written one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've made a modified version of this script at User:Enterprisey/sandbox.js (permalink and diff) - related to a recent ANI discussion. Thoughts on adding the feature to the main script? (It's checked by default, and most scripts that interact with user talk pages have similar checkboxes anyway.) Thanks for your work on the script! Enterprisey (talk!) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the patch Enterprisey! - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Big thanks to both of you. Since I posted this, I have ended up doing a few manually to avoid sending the notification; the extra work and the mistakes I made made me realise just how valuable this script is. So thanks again! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Draftify log
Please see this post on my talk page. I sometimes use this script when reviewing new pages. However, I do not want the script to try to create a draftify log in my userspace. An admin salted the page: See here. Is there a way to configure the script that prevents it from trying to create a draftify log without the use of creation protection? Also, please ping me when you answered this question. Interstellarity (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can anyone here me? Interstellarity (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason not to have a log? It's meant to make it easier for others to review your work... - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the log optional? I thought the edit summary search was sufficient. Was it discussed somewhere other than this talk page? czar  16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * if you want to add this, some code that you could use at the start of the  function:

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought there was some further discussion re logging from a couple of years ago, maybe at NPP or a guideline talkpage, but I haven't yet been able to actually find any - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is also the case for me: I do not wish to have a Draftify log at all when I use the script, as it gets annoying for me to click "Skip" every time the prompt asks me to log draftication. Jalen Folf   (talk)  16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

✅. add the line   to your common.js to turn off the logging. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Interstellarity (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftifications should be logged. Consider for example this move by Interstellarity. It fails the conditions written at WP:Drafts.  It is, essentially, a backdoor, non-transparent mode of deletion.  If the author (typically the sole watcher) is intimidated or inactive, unilateral draftification is a de facto deletion.  After six months of no edits, it will be deleted per G13.  There is a long history of “unsourced” being proposed and rejected as a CSD#A* deletion criteria, and “undersourced” is both subjective and a long way short of that. New article draftifications involve considerable trust, and without a log it is quite difficult to review the draftifiers draftifications. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Using a userspace subpage wasn't ideal for such a log anyway – users could opt-out by getting the page salted as per the above, or by not using this script for some or all draftications; or make it more difficult to review by manually editing the page. I've added a new draftification log tool to the latest version of this script – User:Evad37/MoveToDraft – which will show all draftications, including from all users if you don't put in a username. It doesn't (yet) show deleted pages as red links, and may have one or two other bugs, but seems to work well enough in my initial testing. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I am surprised that people don't want to keep logs.  Reviewing your own logs is very good for your own self-review.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Message issue
Special:Permalink/922004841 currently says

on line 295. However, this is shown when there is an error with retrieving the page pagetriage status, not the wikitext. Can you update the message? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DraftiTy???
Hi. Just noticed this... is the link in the more menu supposed to be "DraftiFy log" or "DraftiTy log"? If it's supposed to be the former, you might want to fix line 1110 and the documentation page. Cheers, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Don't close the modal if the "Move page" step failed
I'd suggest removing the  part in the "Move page" step. A move fails if the draft page already exists. What I want to do instead is to choose a new title.

The reason this would be a much better option is that removing the modal makes me lose the work I put into writing a custom edit summary and custom explanation to the author (a generic "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace" is usually not the best explanation).

– Thjarkur (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if this happens you'll now be returned to the form where you can choose a different title - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fix typo
(from section above) Yes, "Draftity log" (the link you see from the "More" menu in the Vector skin) is a typo. Evad37, please change it to "Draftify log" at User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js as soon as possible. Also, please fix the typo in the section header at User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Two fixes
First, make the script automatically add to all pages it draftifies. This is so that the number of edits by JJMC89 bot can be reduced.

Second, if it notices that an article has already been draftified by someone else, then it should abort the draftification instead of moving the draft to the same title but with a number suffixed at the end. This has happened at least two times:


 * Amkgp and Onel5969 both attempted to draftify Cimahi railway station, so Onel5969 ended up moving the draft to Draft:Cimahi railway station 2 immediately after Amkgp's draftication.
 * John B123 and Amkgp both attempted to draftify Dambulla Viiking, so Amkgp ended up moving the draft to Draft:Dambulla Viiking 1 immediately after John B123's draftication.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Script now adds that template, and does a check for move conflicts. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Default edit comment
The default edit comment used by the script is "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace". Can we replace this with something more in line with WP:DRAFTIFY and New_pages_patrol or require editors to supply their own reason before proceeding? ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. The current edit summary and notification text is way out of line with policy; what makes an article "undersourced" isn't defined anywhere (except for BLPs) and neither of the guidelines above mention lack of sources as a reason to move a page to draft. I think this is confusing to new editors and contributes to reviewers misusing draftspace, if they follow the text of this tool rather than the policy. Something that allows the review to choose from the list of criteria at WP:DRAFTIFY, and better explains to the creator what draftspace is and what they need to do to return the article to mainspace, would be much better. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I had also previously raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 31. The two responses there agreed that the default wording is not optimal. Insertcleverphrasehere suggested, 'a change to some variant of "Isn't ready for mainspace" would possibly be better.' --Paul_012 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Isn't ready for mainspace per WP:DRAFTIFY" would be a big and easy improvement over "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace". Ideally the editor would also explain what part of WP:DRAFTIFY is being invoked. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ I've updated the script's user interface to request users check their draftifications are appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, and that they add to or replace the default text the script generates (which I also updated). Eventually I would like to redo the interface with OOUI, and perhaps make it more like a wizard, or at least check if the supplied draft title exists, and automatically show a preview of the notification texts (that updates as you type). But that will have to wait until I have more time - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Broken?
Is the script currently broken? I can't see the Draftify option next to "move." I have the script installed: see User:AnUnnamedUser/common.js. It worked just yesterday. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A Mediawiki change deprecated a part of the code., would you be able to do as you did with XFDcloser.js? czar  22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

- Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)