Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Testing/Draft space

AfC templates

I've been looking at a list of very heavy talk page editors that we generated over the summer to try and find out exactly which AfC templates currently get used, and so far I've only found these two: {{Afc decline}} and {{Afc talk}}. Can anybody point me to any others that are currently in use (and not just hanging out in the template namespace)? Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should also look at the wording of {{AFC submission}}. Its "decline" wording for example states, "Some issues were found with this submission, and therefore it has not yet been accepted", "The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the page history." That focus on the negative, rather than on what the writer still needs to do to achieve success, sounds geared towards the (admitted multitude of) people who've submitted articles that will never be suitable for inclusion. But we should be most concerned about keeping those people interested in contributing who submitted something worthwhile on a worthwhile topic, and just didn't get the referencing right for example, or failed to add available sources to make the topic's notability apparent to the reviewer. The others will drop away anyway, whether we use stern or encouraging language, because the substance simply isn't there. --J N 466 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for the comments JN. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for draft 2

Some thoughts on the underlying rationale for draft 2:

It's important to communicate that the user hasn't failed, and instead to communicate that they're just not done yet. :)
The Wikipedia logo, with the incompleted puzzle, sends a message that's more consistent with that than the red-and-white x, which communicates failure and rejection. Just like all of Wikipedia is perpetually unfinished, so their draft is unfinished. It would make new writers feel that they're already part of the effort to build the encyclopedia.
It's important to instil belief that the article actually will end up in mainspace; hence a direct reference to "before we put it into Wikipedia mainspace". The present wording, "it could not be accepted", "feel free ... to resubmit" actually subtly communicates that we don't care whether they will resubmit or not. It reminds me personally of statements like "Feel free to contact my superior ... [because you won't get any joy out of them either].

So the wording is a bit more upbeat; it's designed not to discourage those writers who've actually written about a notable topic, but just haven't understood Wikipedia sourcing and formatting yet. --J N 466 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for these edits, I love the direction you're going in! One suggestion: it's hard to read the text at that size, so I would suggest we try and use the puzzle logo without text if possible. We've also seen some evidence that having no icon makes no statistically significant difference, so we might try nixing it altogether. Personally I suspect that having no icon makes it feel more like a regular human message rather than a template, but that's just a hunch right now. ;) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven. I've posted another draft with the plain logo, and a small wording tweak ("before we put it into" -> "to get it ready for" [mainspace]), as well as one without logo. --J N 466 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I like Fred Gandt's version (draft 5) better than mine! --J N 466 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fredgandt 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for working on this! These drafts look just about ready to test – I'd like to start that by the end of today, so feel free to make any last-minute tweaks. I think we should run 2 test versions against the default of both Afc decline and Afc talk: fg's fancy graphical versions and the versions without icons (draft 4 of Afc decline and draft 1 of Afc talk). And I'd like to link to WP:GACR instead of the current grading scheme link on Afc talk. As DGG pointed out, we need a link to a very simple, streamlined, newbie friendly policy page there. What do you think? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging bot templates

Do we chop them up too? fredgandt 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for it! I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make the instructions intelligible for a newbie, because dumping them onto the image page and telling them to supply copyright/source info without any kind of template or guide seems a little... crazy. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first and only (I think) image upload backfired. It ended up deleted with a whole load of fuss and flapping in between. I know very well the nightmare of copyrights and licencing. I'd recommend asking User:Ronhjones to join in. He helped me through it and really knows his stuff. In the meantime I'll happily fiddle about with 'em. fredgandt 01:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amend: My second went well with help from Ron. fredgandt

Pinged Ronhjones. Hopefully, he'll be able to help :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've arrived... Not sure what you exactly want to do, but I'll help out if I can. Note I'm on UK time, so I'm usually off by 2am! (you just caught me...) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron. It's all my fault!

fredgandt 01:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, this is where we're working, Ronhjones :) No rush, of course. It'll still be here in the morning! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← said this but submitted just after Maryana → Not wanting or meaning to tread on Maryana's toes but also don't want to keep you hanging. basically (as far as I see things here) the aim is to create new versions of the templates overleaf, that will simply and clearly guide users in the process of correctly uploading (and dealing with not), files to commons/Wikipedia. I suggested you becuase you helped me and (as I said) know your stuff. They need to be friendly but not patronizing and accurate but not terse. Also as far as possible not create too many questions for the user so much as answer then in advance of them being asked. Summarize policy in a brief, welcoming paragraph or two. Links a plenty and a nice cuppa rosey! fredgandt 02:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly jumping in at the deep end, images are a minefield, it's taken me about a year to really get to grips with it, and I still make the odd error... The main issue here, is going to be that current links often point to Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All - I'm sure as soon as any new uploader see that, the eyes will just glaze over and they will say s*d it..., even then if they decide to wade in, the choices are so many that they will still get it wrong, either because there are so many templates to pick from that they can't see the wood for the trees, or they just do not know the laws applicable to where the image is located. Maybe we need link to some sort of template selection "wizard" might be a better way, so any user can just run quickly through sets of pages with Yes/No links, finally reaching a page with a very small subset of choices. Another link to add in somewhere, no sure how, is commons:COM:FOP - I always have it loaded up when checking images - you would not believe how many people take a photograph in an outside location, with their own camera, and assume they just upload it here; and it not just "foreign" countries, the US is just as bad (I know that's foreign to me, but then we can do what we like in the UK :-) ) - e.g modern US sculptures are not allowed here as free use (unless the sculptor donates the copyright) - I tagged quite a few and really surprised the uploader. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cr*p! Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All is indeed a scary place. Since software is not a possible solution insofar that we can automatically know which is the most likely group of licences, a wizard as Ron suggests would be a great idea. That however may be outside the remit of the immediate concern. A compromise could be to partially categorize the licences from "File copyright tags/All" into sub pages and provide links (succinctly titled) in the templates overleaf, so that at least the user can go to a smaller group of choices directly.

I'm not really a policy kinda chap though so, I'll concentrate on presentation. Do we think colour coding for degrees of concern is a good idea? "Amber" through to "Red" with varying degrees of boldness? I don't really know which is more urgent, so can't judge well. fredgandt 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. All these links included in the template could help a little.

P.p.s. Are the differences in licencing that exist per country applied to the user depending on what country they are in, or what country the image was taken in, or what country the servers are in etc? This is not clear and might confuse more users than just me. fredgandt 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it's the country of the image - e.g. compare a photo of some big plastic "monster" at a theme park - sort of thing most people would take a photo of...

Disneyworld, Florida - NO. 3D art, it will be post 1976, and therefore copyright belongs to Disneyworld.
Disneyworld, Paris - NO. 3D art. Copyright belongs to Disneyworld.
Legoland, Windsor, UK - YES. 3D art, outside in a public place, even though you pay to get in.

Further wrinkle - if the image of said monster, is only a small part of the image, with just buildings as main part, (de minimis then (1) become YES, (2) stays NO - French law applies to buildings (until copyright expires)! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining Ron. I think I'll stick to programming. That all looks horribly complicated. fredgandt 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you all think a "wizard" would be good, I would be happy to (try to) knock one up - if it don't work out, I can delete it - I have the power... :-). Just a list of templates I don't think will ever work well - an editor needs to be led to a list, with some extra useful advice as well - for instance if we have a nice free image, taken by uploader, no problems, then give them the full choices, but add that the common ones are cc-by-sa-3.0 if they want to be credited wherever it's used, or PD-self if they are just happy for it to be used "as is". Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple paper trail of yes/no questions and links would be awesome.

Then on This image is a photo we have

That's one hellish number of possible pages and choices but of you could do it, in theory a user would end up on a page with a limited and entirely relevant choice of only a few or even just one licence to worry about. fredgandt 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the pages are small, then it does not take long to make! The main issue is getting the right license - I'm sure there are plenty of editors uploading images, then wonder why when it gets tagged - I see it all the time, a nice filled in information template, with a web source, author etc. then they slap something like a {{PD-self}} on it! Then they get huffy when there's a {{di-no permission}} added. I've have a (long) think about it, best start with some flowchart I suppose, I was also thing I might be able to make use of the {{show}} template to reduce the number of pages. I'll be back... My other gripe is that some user do like putting their own names in the information template, and not their user names - it looks like they have used someone else's photo, so I want to try to tell the user to make sure there's no ambiguity. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright status wizard? I wish you all the luck in the world on that. I tried creating a decision tree some years ago, and gave up when, after twenty-someodd questions, I still hadn't adequately distinguished between "free" and "non-free". Some common cases are easy ("I grabbed this from Google Images" is an easy "don't upload"), but there are so many edge cases ("I grabbed this from nytimes.com" is non-free, and thus subject to the byzantine non-free content policy, unless it has a credit line like "US Navy", in which case it's some flavor of PD-USGov, or it's a reprint of an old image, in which case you get into the "has the copyright expired?" tree, or...). --Carnildo (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be correct... I knew it wouldn't be easy, once you dive in, you wish you remembered the life jacket... Anyway, I have made a start (there's more to add - like US Gov images) at Wikipedia:Image copyright wizard. It may well all end up in the delete bin, but hey ho, will try to complete... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:mabdul

In the last two months, the AFC project improved the Wizard and the message and submission templates. We add automated click me to resubmit links (and thus not the complex instruction to paste the subst:submit template), add a link to the IRC help channel and links to the reviewer talkpage. (so the actual displayed tmeplates are really outdated!)

If the wording and the design should get an update, then consider to add some useful links where most submissions have problems with: WP:REFB, WP:42, and WP:WIKIMARKUP.

The AFC decline draft 2 & 3 is a bit confusing for me: why is the Wikipediaglobe added and in draft 5: what has the puzzle peace (in silver!) to do with a declined message? Moreover I don't like the fancy and space-consuming template! It is just a bit too much. The same reason because I don't like the Wikilove extension.

All drafts contain the message The article is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/__ and comments have been left by the reviewer. Which should be defacto reworded, since the submission is either always there, or the AFC bot leaves a message that the submission was moved from A to B.

Regards, mabdul 11:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up, Mabdul! I'm still seeing people who use those old templates (e.g. here, here, and here) and they're very heavy user talk page editors. I'm glad you updated the wizard and streamlined the resubmission process, but there might be other tweaks you could make to those templates – little things like font size, length and layout of message, etc. – which are the kinds of details that are good to A/B test.

As for the current drafts you see, those were made by community members and are very much open for tweaking. If you hate them, you should jump in and fix them or make your own drafts :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it helps to check the history of an article/template. Alpha Quadrant changed the actual AFC decline and AFC talk templates 3 days ago with communication in IRC, although the actual templates on the submissions were changed earlier. I like the idea on doing design mok ups, but the actual wording can be changed in the live version. (and I'm really a bad designer) - moreover I don't see the problem with the actual two designs of the talk-page-notifications. At the moment there - for example - a proposal to remove the "create directly the article page" (the thrid option) in the article wizard. (link to the "last" step in the wizard) As I talked in the IRC to Steven Walling and Ironholds, it would be great to get an improvement in the actual AFC tool for informing related WikiProjects (I was thinking on a drop-down menu like in Twinkle's globalize tagging) for getting help by the projects - especially if the article is declined. mabdul 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space cleanup

Just wanted to let you all know that I pruned this space a bit, so that templates in the late stages of development (like AfC) are here, and things we're just starting to hack on (like ImageTaggingBot and CorenSearchBot) are in their own separate subpages (here and here, respectively). I also moved the discussion that had started about the ImageTaggingBot templates to the talk page of that subpage. So, Fred and Sven, if you're looking for it, that's where it is :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]