User talk:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft

The script does not know if the article and the draft are identical or if one is better than the other, so it doesn't overwrite the existing draft if you tell it to override the warning. Instead, it creates Draft:Draft:title, which is a mess that needs to be manually cleaned up. Should the override option just be removed in this case there any scenario where we should allow that? MB 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I moved this to a new sub-section since it is a somewhat different situation. In this case, it is the content of draft was probably copied to mainspace. What is one supposed to do in this case? Ask an admin to merge revisions of the two pages (article and draft), maybe? If we can figure out some instructions to show the user, we can do that, and then close the draft window in the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I only just became aware of this updated script, thanks for taking it on and making improvements! There are two things that seem like they should be quick fixes:

• The COI-option needs more text pointing editors to the WP:COI and WP:UPE
• I can't seem to edit the text field to make any further changes beyond selecting from the presets. Could this be fixed?

Thanks agin! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rosguill,

1. Adding links to WP:COI: Kudpung and MB knowingly designed the user talk page message, to avoid a sea of blue links. There is a link to Help:Unreviewed new page in the message. You can collaborate with them and make changes to that page maybe.
2. Editing the text field: This too was designed to be un-editable. The intention was for any shortcoming not covered by one the 6 hard-coded reasons, should be added to the 'Other' field. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rosguill, the interface was deliberately designed after much discussion within the best precepts of UX without an editable text window, and MPGuy2824 did an excellent job of writing the js to make it work.. If it were, it would defeat the entre purpose of having selectable reasons plus a field for additional comments or reasons. What you are probably not aware of is that the message carries a link to a brand new, friendly attractive information page in language that new users will understand instead of blasting them with alphabet soup and walls of text in pseudo Wiki legal jargon. The only bug still in the UI that I designed is that the text window has still not been relabelled 'Preview', but I am not a js coder and I don't know how to do it myself. Apart from that, this script and its info page for the draft creator are such a vast improvement already that any further tinkering is probably superfluous. More important is to insist that people who vote on any RfA fully understand that 'Move to Draft' is in no way governed by any existing policy and reviewers are free to interpret it in the best way in each situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• The new selectable reasons are great, but the text window should still be editable. The message is clearly attributed to the reviewer so we should have the ability to tweak the wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

FormalDude it was deliberately designed to avoid patrollers making up their own messages. This was due to the many complaints that the old script was biting newbies. The patrollers have the option to address any other issues in the additional comments field that is there for that purpose. Research into Internet user experience (not specifically Wikipedia related) has demonstrated that if you give people an opportunity to tinker with something, they will. If you don't want your freely selected criteria attributed to you (because they are if you select them, thus they come from you and not the software), just use the free text field. If you belive a system of canned message is inappropriate system, you may wish to contact Novem Linguae, the steward of Twinkle, so that he can make similar changes to the 100s of canned messages(especially warnings and CSD) there, and the coordinator of AfC and its helper script so that they can do likewise. I won't stand in your way because for one thing, I'm retiring very soon from Wikipedia for good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand the reason, but it's going to cause me to never use the notify author option so that I can just leave my own customized message instead. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do either of these mistargeted user talk messages [1][2] indicate a bug or setting we need to adjust? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The script detects (and skips) minor edits, anon edits, and edits having particular change tags (e.g. awb, twinkle, mw-reverted, pagetriage, etc). In the case of Grupo Senda, one of your edits didn't meet any of the above checks. Also, many of the editors got the message, so i think this is working as intended.

It's not obvious at first glance why only OneL got the message for Fireaway. I'll investigate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a different template or message should be used for non-page creators. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I guess that should make it a bit more obvious. Feel free to tweak the wording of the two proposed messages on the ticket. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like to wrap the entire script in $(function() {, and any config variables coming from the user I like to do via window.userScriptNameVarName. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've sorta done the second part of your suggestion (window.mtd.varName instead of window.varName) now. I'll take a look at some of your scripts for how you implemented the first part. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lately I've been using classes to not pollute the global namespace, like in User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple.js. But in some older scripts I haven't gotten around to upgrading yet I am still using the function wrapper technique, like User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserRightsDiff.js. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first part also got done after Chlod found it to be an issue below. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I try to draft an article edited less than 60 minutes ago, I see a message saying Draftifying isn't appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, as this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago. It may be better to say Draftifying may not be appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, as this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago. since many times those edits that were less than 60 minutes ago were simply maintenance tagging, categories, User:Citation bot, etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is better to be more conservative while deciding to count an edit or not while counting last edit time. In any case, the script ignores edits by some tools (like Twinkle, AWB, and pageTriage) and a few situations (like undo, rollback, revert) for this check. I can look into ignoring all bot edits during this check too. That said, your suggestion is a small change, and if it gets more support on this thread, I'm happy to make the change. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if the page move script could be used in the mobile version of Wikipedia. Maliner (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've never tried it since I don't use the mobile version. Can you try it and see if you are facing issues? After that we can figure out if the issues are easily fixable or not. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I usually use my mobile phone to edit Wikipedia, and it is not available on mobile devices. For this reason, I am not using this script, as every time I need to open the desktop version to use the page move script, contrary to a simple page move option that is available on mobile devices. I will be happy if this script is available to mobile users too. Maliner (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Maliner: (pinging, since I moved the discussion) Let me do some research and get back to you on this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: I always provide valid move summaries while moving pages to draft space, which I think is enough to explain why their page has been moved to draft space as this script is not available to mobile users at the moment (if I am not missing anything). And as far as notification to the page creator is concerned, I think they always see a green notice showing their draft's ___location while revisiting their moved page; for example, see Burhan-ul-Haq Jabalpuri. I know this is not enough for someone like you. But this is the only option available to mobile users at the moment, unless you want me to type manually the move summary again at the creator's talk. Maliner (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest adding {{Draft article}} to newly-draftified articles instead of {{AfC draft}}. It still includes a "submit for review" button but does not assume the creator has opted-in to AfC (which they are of course not required to use) or knows what it is. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the status quo (Template:AfC draft) is fine. Happy to hear other opinions though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MPGuy2824: Any thoughts on this? – Joe (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MPGuy2824: I've submitted a merge request with this change: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/mpg/moveToDraft/-/merge_requests/1 – Joe (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Joe, I've never done a merge on gitlab before, so I'm holding on that until I figure out the right way to do it. Don't change anything related to the merge request till then, please. Your changes looked ok, so I've applied them to the enwiki version of the script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I object to the shortsighted and poorly thought out change. It's not helpful and it'll lead to people not even reading or understanding what's wrong with the page that was moved to draft space. We don't want to push people off Wikipedia, and this change WILL because more garbage will get sent to AfD instead of being given the chance to be improved and worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way Joe, I appreciate your efforts lately. You've helped to remind me why moving to draft space is so important and I actually have increased the rate at which I move to draft space as a result. It's important to normalize the helpful and useful habit so that editors aren't chased off the site by their work being sent to AfD or deleted because they couldn't figure out our guidelines within seven days. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Josh, this page doesn't have a lot of watchers. Since you feel strongly about this change, consider starting a thread at a more watched discussion page (WT:AFC or WT:NPPR). I'm happy to comply with any consensus reached. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which is why this was missed. A change like this is fairly significant and I'd think Joe should require consensus before such an implementation. Based on the issues, and the strong feelings I have about it, would you be opposed to a fork if this is implemented? As mentioned, I do believe the change Joe is proposing is damaging to the encyclopedic efforts, which is why I'm very opposed to using it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

if this is implemented Josh, this was live on the enwiki version of the script a day before your oppose message. If I get a 3rd oppose (after yours and NL's), i.e. a 75% supermajority, I will be undoing the change. I asked for a discussion (in a place where editors frequent) so that there is a consensus (either way) that I can point to, instead of repeatedly doing/undoing changes to the script depending on when supporters/opposers come here to vote their opinion.

would you be opposed to a fork Legally, I cannot, due to the license that is used for any edit on Wikipedia. My advice would be to hold off on this for a week at least. I say a week because I'm hoping that the Village Pump (Idea lab) discussion will either peter out or gain some sort of consensus by then. Also, presenting a choice of two scripts that basically do the same thing would just be confusing to reviewers, especially if the functionalities diverge a lot over time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hey man im josh: Which is why this was missed. A change like this is fairly significant and I'd think Joe should require consensus before such an implementation – ??? I proposed this for discussion four months ago and nobody except Novem commented until yesterday, after the change was made. Proposing changes on the talk page of the page to be changed is the 100% normal way to do things and, given that the original choice of template was the product of zero discussion, I had no reason to expect that changing it to the 'default' template for drafts would be seen either significant or controversial.

Anyway, I think that since AfC is explicitly optional for most editors, you would need to demonstrate a positive consensus that creators of draftified articles should be pushed (or forced?) to use it. Your indignation here really puts lie to your contention that this is about helping new editors to improve articles. If this was about that, i.e. empowering them to recognise themselves as editors of the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", on a par with the rest of us, then you would be want to be transparent about the options available to them: AfC or direct move. But it's not, it's about ensuring that the reviewer cadre retains control over what gets to be in mainspace and that newbies know their place. The reviewer's judgement of "what's wrong with the page" is not a subjective opinion that they can choose to disagree with, it's a requirement they must accept and satisfy. And your plan to respond to a high-profile community discussion about whether draftification is a good idea by deliberately draftifying more articles sounds a lot like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Are you sure you want to go down this road? – Joe (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MPGuy2824: Currently, Special:Draftify log includes any and all moves from mainspace to draftspace, meaning that round-robin moves (which involve moves to subpages of Draft:Move) are included, even if the final target is in mainspace. Is this intended behavior? JJP_Master (she/they) 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

JJP, I wasn't aware that many people used that feature. I'll look into it and see if there is a way to only show moves made by this script. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. Was wondering if we can get the warning message Draftifying isn't appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, since this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago. removed? Too many false positives. A gnome will add a category or someone will make a copyedit, and it triggers this giant message that the article is now immune to draftification, which is incorrect. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edits made with a few tags (e.g. AWB, Twinkle) and minor edits are ignored when calculating the last edit time. Unfortunately, HotCat hasn't started using change tags yet. If you still think it is an issue, what would you suggest as an alternative? Would "since this article might have been significantly edited less than..." be better? That way the draftifier would be free to check the history for themselves and ignore the warning if they feel that the edits in the last 60 min weren't significant. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the idea that an article becomes immune to draftification if there's been an edit to it within the last hour is questionable, and would be in favor of complete removal of the message. I assume there is a different message for WP:NPPHOUR, which would warn if an article has been created within the last hour, and would of course be in favor of keeping that message. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a compromise, maybe simply notify that there's been an edit within the last hour, in yellow instead of red, and without trying to say that that edit now makes it prohibited to draftify. Something like Careful! This article has been edited within the last hour. [link to history somewhere] –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should wait until there are more responses at the discussion you recently started at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Is WP:DRAFTNO #5 too strict?. Since this script isn't exclusively used by NPPers, there is no separate check for "created in the last hour". The check for last (non-minor) edit in the last hour covers that condition for now. If the discussion is closed and point #5 is removed from the list, then I can make the necessary code changes.

BTW, previously draftifiers used to ignore the warning more when it wasn't red, bold and large. This is usually followed by them getting a stern message from an admin. Not sure about yellow (due to MOS:CONTRAST concerns), but any color other than black and blue should do. We can discuss that later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Personally I just check the edit history and when it's simply someone adding a category or something extremely minor, and the author or someone else isn't actually working on improving the article to make it more fit for main space, I'll move forward with the draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I moved Draft:Bongofari back and it deleted some of the author's content, see Special:Diff/1274577957. They may have added it between me starting up the draft move modal and me submitting it, I'm not exactly sure, but it got deleted when it got moved back to draftspace. May need reproducing to see, perhaps on the test Wikipedia instance, figured I report it here. Thank you! Chew^{(V • T • E)} 03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I does take the script some time (5-10 seconds) to do the various steps that are necessary, and it looks like the creator's edit was done during this time. My guess is that this is a rarely occurring problem, but I'll leave this section here in case I'm wrong and other people do face the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

When a user draftifies an article using this script, {{Draft article}} is added to the page. One of the buttons in this template is "Publish now", which encourages new users to move to mainspace, effectively reversing draftification. I feel like the script should add the template without showing the button, because reviewers wouldn't usually move pages to draft unless they're problematic, therefore new users shouldn't be encouraged to move without AfC review. Thoughts? Frost 14:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have a feeling that this will be a controversial change. I'll wait (for at least a week) for watchers of this talk page to chime in. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its been a month and no one has objected, so lets get it done. I'll remove the param from the template call for now.

The toggle option is harder to do, so I think I'll wait to see if enough people request it. Editors are informed via a talk page message that they can move the page back if they want, so its not like we are hiding information from them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done The script has been updated. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well I objected (below), but never mind. I'll just add a step to my workflow that removes nomove=yes when I draftify articles. Thanks for the script, which is incredibly useful. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a pain point which might dissuade use of the script. Let me expedite looking into how to add a toggle option. I assume that you'll be ok with the default as the move button being hidden, right? You'll have to tick (or untick depending on what wording I go with) to make sure that the button is visible. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most happy with the default as the move button being hidden, and happy to untick/tick as necessary. I'll still definitely use the script whatever, as it is much better than any alternative. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting comment. Prior to this change [3] just over a month ago, the script used to add the {{AfC draft}} template, which only has one option Submit the draft for review! I never used to like that, because I considered that it presumptively forced editors to go through AfC, which, when the revised article was decent, unnecessarily clogged up that pipeline. Now that the script uses {{Draft article}} instead, which gives the option of either submitting for AfC review or publishing it into mainspace (of course, with NPP as a backstop), I am much happier! So I at least prefer the current behaviour.

A middle ground might be to have an additional toggle in the user interface (maybe a tickbox Suppress move to mainspace option or some such) that triggered the nomove=yes wikitext for cases in which the draftifier thought that publication would be better served when it incorporated an AfC review. For example, when the article was draftified because of LLM-generated content, or because the editor is quite new. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm confident that almost all or most articles draftified by new page reviewers have issues and don't belong in mainspace until they're fixed. I think introducing problematic articles in mainspace is a bigger concern than clogging up AfC. These comments from a related discussion [4][5][6] sum it up for me, and I agree with adding a toggle. Frost 11:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Got this request off-wiki from Chaotic Enby.

Basically, the script sends a message to the editor whose page was draftified with the following sentence: "When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back." The last part of that sentence doesn't apply for to a COI-editor issue, since such editors are excluded from WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I'll leave this request here for a while, in case some watcher sees an issue with removing that phrase if COI is one of the reasons for draftification. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: the reason given in the message is "possible conflict of interest". We would like editors to know that, if they don't have an actual conflict of interest, they are still able to move the page back. However, if editors have a declared conflict of interest, that part is redundant. My idea is to make one or ideally both of the following changes:

• Change the end of the message to OR move the page back if you don't have a conflict of interest. if "possible conflict of interest" is selected
• Add a separate option for declared conflicts of interests, which removes the end of the message entirely.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems like this script conflicts with User:DannyS712/SATG.js (doc) when both are installed, likely because User talk:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft/core.js replaces the screen0 global which SATG also uses. Perhaps core.js should be wrapped with an IIFE to avoid leaking variables into the global scope? Chlod (say hi!) 08:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was able to reproduce this with the following steps:

1. Start the MTD script, and close it after a few seconds.
2. Start the SATG script: The screen appears blank.

  Done I fixed the MTD core.js file in the way you suggested and am now unable to reproduce the problem. Thanks for reporting (and helpfully providing the solution as well). Please test this out yourself too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Works perfectly now. Thanks, @MPGuy2824! Chlod (say hi!) 09:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply