https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59245

--- Comment #7 from Steven Walling <swall...@wikimedia.org> ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It seems more simple to continue the current behavior of using {{draft}}
> rather
> than codifying it into an automated process that could conflict with future
> uses of the draft namespace.

Jared, 

There are significant disadvantages to using a template, in my estimation.
These include:

- The template would need to either be preloaded using a form or added to new
drafts by hand. This would indubitably require a bot or another tool which
would require maintenance. 
- Adding templates in to page content is part of what makes the "Articles for
Creation" process confusing to new editors. Part of the source of an article is
their draft, and part of it is metadata that they should not remove. This
creates more of a burden on an already confused new person. 

I am in favor of exploring an automated notice in read-mode that is
sufficiently elegant but also noticeable. It seems that's what the community
wants too, if you take a look at the discussion TTO linked to. All I objected
to in my first comment was using the PageNotice extension to accomplish this
design goal.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to