Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reword

I have reworded the warning. I'm well aware that a lot of nonsense comes through this request page, but can we please assume good faith and not bite the newcomers? The upload instruction template, as well as the meta data, is quite daunting. Keegantalk 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users?

I know this was primarily created and used for unregistered users, however, I think we need to remove that wording. Reason being, there are many new users who would like to add images, but cannot because of the increased autoconfirmed requirements. So, this page should also be used for users who aren't yet autoconfirmed, and we should note the page accordingly. Thoughts? - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "Current requests" link

There are presently two seprerate pages for Current requests, the original (Wikipedia:Images for upload/Current requests) a newer page (Wikipedia:Images for upload/Current Requests), and its unclear which is supposed to be used. The links to the archived submissions needs updating as well. 72.74.225.226 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put all requests onto the former and redirected the latter. MSGJ 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Archiving

I'm not really sure if anyone monitors this page, but would automatic archiving work on the submission pages like it does on Redirects for creation? Matt (Talk) 00:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it probably would. If you can sort it then that would be great. MSGJ 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I suspect we will have to change to use level 2 headings in order for the bot to work. Then the main headings (Current requests, etc.) would have to be level 1. By the way, nice work you are doing here! Martin 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the headings would need to be level 2 to be archived properly (at the moment at least, it looks like a feature that would archive other level headers is in progress). Would it be easier if requests were submitted directly to the main page? Having 3 additional subpages seems a little excessive considering the lowish activity this project receives. That way instead of moving requests between subpages, tags to box in the request could be added straight on the main page and the requests would get archived after 7 days without a reply. I've left a message on Misza13's talk page seeing if the bot can archive pages to the month then a two digit year. If not we can always use the four digit year and move the old archives to match. Bot can't, moved archives to 4 digit year.
I've started working on a new wizard that should hopefully make the process less confusing (because most requests can't be actioned). It's not finished, but if you'd like to take a look and tell me what needs fixing (or if anything needs adding, to make reviewing requests easier or deleting if it makes something too complicated), that would be helpful. It's here. The to-do list:

<Up the top of the page> Wikipedia talk:Images for upload/to do

Matt (Talk) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know much about this process but I believe User:Natl1 recently spent quite a lot of time developing the current wizard and subpages, so I would advise thinking carefully before throwing his work out of the window. I see your point about the subpages - but if traffic picks up (which is likely if people see that requests are now being processed) then it might be advantageous. It also gives the option of different archive settings on different subpages. I'll certainly help to check out your templates and wizard. The documentation definitely needs to be written - one reason I haven't helped much here is that I didn't really know where to begin :) Finally, I did make a proposal a few months ago to bring this process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation because (a) it has a similar aim in that it is helping unrgistered users participate more fully in Wikipedia, and (b) we have a lively WikiProject over there with quite a lot of keen people helping out and it should be easy to get some of them to help over here. What do you think about the idea? Martin 08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. I'll leave Natl a message sometime tomorrow. I agree about bringing the process under AfC, the two projects are very similar and it'd be good to utilize the helpers over there. You're right about leaving the subpage system as it is. It'll be useful if activity picks up. Matt (Talk) 09:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've had a think about subpages, and it looks like /Pending is basically useless. Closed is possibly useful, but maybe that could be linked from WP:IfU instead of included in the actual page, to make it so only requests waiting for a reply (either by the user of by us) are actually on the page. What do you think? Matt (Talk) 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I disagree. The point of the closed section is that users can see what happened to their request. So we should make it easy for them to see. These are unregistered or new users so we need to make it as easy as possible. Having them on the main IfU is probably the easiest, isn't it? Martin 09:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But I think I agree with you about /Pending. That just adds one more place where they (and we) have to look. Comments and clarifications could go in the Current section, and if there is no reply after ~7 days it could be automatically archived. Is that what you had in mind? Martin 09:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to look at what they do at WP:RfPP. They have a Current section, and also a Fulfilled/declined section which keeps the most recently processed requests. After that it gets moved to the archives. Martin 09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, so merge /Pending and /Current, but keep /Closed. Do you think anything else needs to be added to the wizard to make the process easier? Matt (Talk) 04:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think your idea was right. Get rid of all the subpages and just put everything on one page. Is that what you proposed? Copy WP:Articles for creation/Redirects rather than WP:RFPP? It would make things simpler. As long as the archive settings are not set so that processed requests do not disappear too quickly. Martin 11:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, keep them on the main page, add the 'hide' tags to closed requests and let them archive themselves. 7 days is reasonable for someone to look over the request (and even if it slips through it'll still be in the archives) and reasonable for someone to see their closed request. Anything you think needs adding to the wizard? Matt (Talk) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know the wizard well enough to comment on this. What do you think needs improving? Martin 10:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I have just found your new wizard. I have to say I like it very much! A vast improvement. Maybe you can come and improve the AfC wizard some day ;) Or maybe sometime in the future we can combine them. Martin 11:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved all the current and closed requests to the main IfU page, changed the level 3 headers to level 2, set up the bot (hopefully correctly!), and changed the wizard so that new requests go on to main page. Hope this is satisfactory. Martin 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work :D. Archiving looks good. I've changed the header for the main page, now everything that doesn't have to be on the main page is on /Header to try to avoid people accidentally replacing info at the top of the page. I've requested that the old pages (/Current, /Pending, /Closed) be deleted. Matt (Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you did a good job on the wizard itself, it keeps the license selection sections, and forces submitters to think more.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt (Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
So when does the new wizard go live? Martin 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
When I've finished the things on the list up there ^. :P I've merged the accepted/declined templates into Template:Ifu as well as a note to put on the users talk page when their request is accepted/declined/commented on. I've basically finished the instructions (which shouldn't need to be changed for the new wizard). It still needs to be looked through for spelling/wording errors etc. I don't think the automatic archiving is working properly, but everything looks right. I think it might've been because the archive header template was two lines. I've made it one line so hopefully it'll work. Yep, I think it must've been the archive header, when I looked at the page just then it's been archived :D Matt (Talk) 09:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the archive header was fine. It's just that 7 days is only just up! (It counts from the last comment on a thread.) I made a proper to-do list at the top of this page. I'll reopen the debate at WP:WPAFC about bringing this process under the AfC umbrella. Nice work you're doing here. Martin 11:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh lol, okay. Matt (Talk) 02:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  • Should we upload to Commons or Wikipedia? (Current instructions are vague.)
Free images should be uploaded to Commons (basically all of the images that come through here are free). If the image is Fair Use (and it's justified) upload here. Linking should be the same if the image is on Commons. Matt (Talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully clarified in the instructions. Matt (Talk) 03:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be better (more straightforward and clearer) to have two different templates: one for accept/decline and one for user talk pages? I see little advantage in combining them. How about Template:Ifu talk for the talk page comments? (I can do this if you like ...)
Yep, that'd be good. I'll add the Comment template into Template:Ifu and fix the instructions/templates. Matt (Talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Added comment template into Template:Ifu ({{subst:ifu|comment}}) and added template docs for all the templates we're using at the moment. Matt (Talk) 03:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What about copyright images used under fair use rationale?
We can upload them too, if someone wants to upload under that (in the new wizard) there's an option for other, which is basically made for Fair Use images. (I thought it might be confusing to have Fair Use as an option because users might submit under that if the image is copyrighted regardless of whether the image is Fair Use.) Fair use images need to be uploaded here on Wikipedia and also need a clear reason for upload. As far as I can see there have only been a few Fair Use requests so far and the users submitting them know what they're doing. Matt (Talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The names of the preload pages in the new wizard are more clear (I hope), as subpages of Wizard/Preload: User:Matt.T/IfU/Wizard/Preload/Attribution-SA. Matt (Talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For requests where we'd need them to email us a permission form we need to provide an actual email address because unregistered users can't use Special:EmailUser. :P Matt (Talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Added a bit about Special:EmailUser into instructions. Matt (Talk) 03:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've finished the changes to the final screen of the wizard, it just needs to be tested. Matt (Talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why can't just stick the form on our talkpage? (Or on this page?) Is there any need for them to email it? Martin 06:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm. OTRS gets all the permission emails, not sure if permission is accepted on-wiki. We'd need to find out from someone else. Matt (Talk) 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need to find out. And if it really does need to be emailed, then can't we get them to email it direct? Martin 10:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Left a message here re. getting permission on-wiki. Most of the time users don't respond with the copyright form. If we don't get them to email the form to us directly we have to upload the image which will probably be deleted when OTRS doesn't get the email. It's easier if we can confirm that permission has been given when uploading the image then forward the permission onto OTRS ourselves. Matt (Talk) 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, finished the template docs + changing the instructions, now the wizard just needs to be tested (it should be safe to submit the request, they'll land up on a page in my userspace). Matt (Talk) 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll give it a test a bit later today. I hope we can sort the email thing out. If they post the form somewhere we can email it. But I'm not too happy about posting my email address for anyone to see! Martin 12:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You could create a gmail especially for Wikipedia, like msgj.wikipedia-at-gmail.com then redirect all emails that you get at that address to your normal email. Matt (Talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ifu talk

I've been tweaking this template because it wasn't working properly. The same parameter was being used for accept/decline as well as the image name. It's now using a named parameter image= when you want to specify the name of the image. But it's still not working perfectly. If you look at User talk:162.40.160.113 where I just used it, you'll see that the code of the switch is being pasted in instead of just substituting the relevant part. I'm not sure what's going on there. Martin 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe this has always happened and I've just never noticed! So I guess it is working correctly now. Martin 12:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard

If no one objects should we start using the new wizard in a day or two? Matt (Talk) 07:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the namespace File be used in the title of the image? Otherwise I can't see the purpose of the square brackets and the colon. Martin 09:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
YesY Done Matt (Talk) 21:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So yes, in answer to your question, I fully support. Martin 10:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I moved everything over. All the talk pages are redirected here too. The links might need checking though because I had to change most of them manually to point to WP:IFU. Matt (Talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wizard Feedback

(moved from individual talk pages) Urm.... fair use? Stwalkerstertalk ] 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done thanks, Matt (Talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I upload an image that already exists? I want to use it in a different article! Stwalkerstertalk ] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done. Cheers, Matt (Talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand these two points ... Martin 11:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I asked Stwalkerster to go over the wizard pretending to be a new user, he left some feedback on the talk pages of individual wizard pages. Because I redirected all the wizard talk pages here I moved the comments here. Matt (Talk) 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation

We had full support and no objections to the idea of IfU joining the AfC wikiproject, so I am pleased to declare it officially. I will make some changes at the project page to reflect this.

We keep track of pages using the {{WPAFC}} template, so it would probably be a good idea to do the same. Adding {{WPAFC}} (no parameters required) to image talk pages will automatically add them to Category:Image-Class AFC articles (as yet empty). Putting {{WPAFC|notarticle=yes}} on template talk pages adds them to Category:Articles for creation templates. Martin 11:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome :D Matt (Talk) 04:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What do we do on Commons though? They don't have the {{WPAFC}} template over there. Matt (Talk) 04:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
They all have a corresponding page over here. For example File:Sundog by P. Shepard.jpg is on commons but I've added the banner to its talkpage. Martin 08:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. Matt (Talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)