Postpone G13 of a previously unsubmitted draft should suggest submitting it.

[Technical-13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Agro_Housing&diff=next&oldid=463487979

^^ for example should have offered Anne the option to submit the draft for review as well as postponing it.

[hasteur]

I'm going to say that doing both of these at the same time is going to make the process even more confusing.

Either action (Request deferment of G13 or Submitting for review) will insta-matically make the draft ineligible for G13. We should trust the user to make the right decision (of either submitting or requesting deferrment, or even tagging as draft). G13 is applicable to both reviewed and never-reviewed pages.

[Technical-13]

What I'm thinking is that it should offer the interface of Submitting for review AND add the {{Afc postpone|n}} template to the bottom. A new notification template could be drawn up that says that the draft has been spared the clutches of [[CSD:G13]] for now, and has been submitted on their behalf for review.

[hasteur]

Based on Anne's response, I think the view is that this is not needed. But go ahead and ask at WT:AFC and see if this is a needed feature.

Pending a consensus materializing, I propose this issue be closed in 36 hrs (10 PM Friday evening EDT)

[Technical-13]

I'm going to create the option for me to use, the only question is if it should be an off by default or hidden option for those that don't want it or an on by default option for everyone with the ability to opt-out (not that I understand why anyone would want to). This simply offers the option to add the {{afc postpone}} template when submitting for review. Nothing else. There is no reason to not add the template as a marker.

[Technical-13]

Using the following code:
https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATechnical_13%2Fcommon.js%2Fafchelper.js%2Fsubmissions.js&diff=180595&oldid=180584

Doesn't add if draft wasn't G13 eligible:
https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2Ftest&diff=180597&oldid=180596

Does add is draft was G13 eligible:
https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2Ftest&diff=180598&oldid=171793

[Technical-13]

I agree with Anne, it should just do it and not be optional... So, it is done and seems to work fine.

[theopolisme]

Wait..what? Submitting a draft is very different from {{AFC postpone}}ing it (because the ultimate purpose of submit is NOT postponement -- they do very different things). This doesn't make sense to me.

[Technical-13]

Postponement just means that it was eligible. Submitting it is always a postponement if it was eligible,

[theopolisme]

But I think there's a difference between postponing solely for the sake of postponing -- and postponing as a side effect of submitting. I don't know, but I don't think submitting the article should count for whatever tally you're trying to record with the postponement template..

[hasteur]

They are two seperate actions and they should NOT be mixed. Postponing says
that there may be potential. Submitting says there is potential and that
there's a reasonable possibility of passing. Postponing is a good faith
extension of the g13 clock whereas submitting comes with the chance that
the article can be improved for main space.

On Thursday, September 26, 2013, theopolisme wrote:

But I think there's a difference between postponing solely for the sake of
postponing -- and postponing as a side effect of submitting. I don't know,
but I don't think submitting the article should count for whatever
tally you're trying to record with the postponement template..

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/184#issuecomment-25206520
.

[theopolisme]

Yes, what he said.

[Technical-13]

It's simple in my mind. The postponed template should be on any draft that sat around long enough to be eligible. If it was not deleted, then it was postponed, and that information is useful... If the draft is submitted, and it turns out that it gets declined, then sits around for six month, it would be helpful to me to quickly know that it hasn't been worked on in over a year despite the process doing what the process does to try and get reasonable content into article space.