Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates/Pages Not Needed?

Are these pages/templates safe to delete?

Pages:

Templates:

 Done Matt (Talk) 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
None (anymore?) Matt (Talk) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning templates? Don't think they're needed, no one intentionally submits false requests and if they did we'd assume good faith anyway. If needed we can leave a note on their talk pages ourselves, it'll probably be listened to more than a template.

Matt (Talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not needed. I'm surprised someone thought about creating such a thing. Might need to take these to TfD though. The ones above can probably be speedied under T3. Martin 11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagged

G6'd the articles, T3'd the templates, TfD'd the warning templates and RfD'd Template:Ifu-li-req. Matt (Talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting as necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks :D Matt (Talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ifu talk

I undid your edit here, Msgj. It seemed to mess with the table in the reviewing instructions. Not sure why though. Matt (Talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked yet but I guess it's because the instructions contained transclusions of the template, and transclusions don't work when you substitute the parser functions. I'll substitute it instead and it should be fine. Martin 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have fixed it now. Martin 09:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Template:Ifu isn't working properly though :( Matt (Talk) 09:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with it? Martin 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't work if you don't subst: it, if you do it returns back accepted regardless of what you've told it to do. Matt (Talk) 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be the same with Template:Ifu talk when I tried to use it just then, it defaults to accept no matter what you've told it to do. I reverted them just until it's sorted out. Matt (Talk) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I knew it would only work if substituted. If you want to transclude them then just revert me. But the other one is confusing. I'll have another look when I get a chance. Martin 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It's okay, they should be substituted. I reverted because of the defaulting. Matt (Talk) 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post at Template talk:Ifu talk. Martin 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wizard Example Confusing?

The first request came through from the new wizard today/yesterday. The examples seem to have confused the user so instead of typing the appropriate values beside the titles they copy and pasted the example, replacing the image name where appropriate. By having the examples there is the wizard confusing users? Would having a note under Example saying 'Please don't copy and paste the example, fill out the form using the instructions above' work? Matt (Talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Think we need a bigger sample to make any conclusions ;) If it keeps happening then we should reconsider. But in my experience from AfC the examples help rather than confuse. Martin 08:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put it on the to-do list because it does seem to confuse users. I think it would be wise to change the title of 'The image can be uploaded for another reason' as it seems to be the one that users are clicking on and then getting confused on. Maybe something like 'The image's license constitutes fair use'? Matt (Talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Added a note about copy+pasting examples. Hopefully it'll work. Matt (Talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing archives

Requests from August to October are currently missing from the archive box. Many of these unreviewed requests were lost when the main page from former were deleted (Wikipedia:Images for upload/Current requests and Wikipedia:Images for upload/Current Requests). It might be a good idea to mark which archives still contain unreviewed requests. 72.74.215.207 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. When reviewing the backlogged requests there weren't any from August - October, which is why there aren't archives for those months. When the pages from the old system were deleted they were blank and all requests from those pages were either archived or left on the main IFU page. As far as I know there are no unreviewed requests in the archives (all of those old requests were archived before the automatic archiving system meaning all those requests were moved by hand). If there's any requests that haven't been reviewed that you've seen, please bring them up here. Regards, Matt (Talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's still some unreviewed requests from the July archive. 72.74.195.83 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific requests you'd like me to look over? I've browsed through that archive a bit and it looks like most (if not all) of the requests that are there are either missing a URL to the image or aren't licensed suitably for Wikipedia. Regards, Matt (Talk) 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I've just been copying and pasting text and icon images from other user's posts. Is that what everyone else is doing as well, or are there some templates that take care of comments and such? Looking through the archives, looks like a bunch were deleted... so what's the deal? Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The main ones are Template:Ifu and Template:Ifu talk. There are also the ones which collapse the reviewed requests: Template:Ifu a, Template:Ifu d and Template:Ifu b. Hope that helps, Martin 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Spot on!-Andrew c [talk] 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Better yet, Wikipedia:Images for upload/ReviewerInstructions. Sheesh.-Andrew c [talk] 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hah, sorry, the link is hidden quite well, any ideas for a better placement? Matt (Talk) 07:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IFU Pages

Hi. I've posted a list of the IFU related pages here, please consider watchlisting them - the more eyes on them the less chance of vandalism staying on them very long. Cheers, Matt (Talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Busy

This page is getting busy. The process seems to be working well though. MartinMsgj 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Recently uploaded section

Do you think we could have a few more pictures on here, as this brightens up the IfU page nicely? MartinMsgj 11:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Another couple would fill up the blank space between the current recent box, and the archive list. Should these template talk pages be redirected to the main IFU talk page? I think it'd be good to have all the discussions in one place. Matt (Talk) 08:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the number of pictures per row will depend on the user's screen resolution, but we could try adding another couple. Martinmsgj 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
For me now, the gallery is taking up two rows. We could add the perrow="6" parameter but that might mess things up for people with smaller monitors ... Martinmsgj 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
2 rows for me too. Could we try perrow and see how it goes? Matt (Talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No I don't think so. Now there's a huge gap for me as it can't fit next to the table of contents. We could try perrow=5 but then people with smaller monitors would have the same problem. I think we leave it undefined. Maybe we could have ~8 images there, so it's two rows for everyone? Martinmsgj 09:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm. Looks like 5 would fit in, but that's true about people with smaller monitors. 8 might work. Matt (Talk) 09:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ifu talk template

I propose the following changes to this template:

  1. Remove the header. Personally I find this less than useful. It is easy to enough to write your own title, and if someone has submitted a lot of requests, you often don't want a new title before each message.
  2. Substitute all parser functions to reduce the space it takes up. (And I'll try not to mess it up this time ;)

Martin 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Could you do the substitute thing on {{ifu}} too? It takes up a bit of room on the main page. Matt (Talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Seems to be working. Martin 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ifu template

This one will now default to accept (like Template:Ifu talk). Should we make the file name a named parameter because now it is not necessarily the second unnamed parameter? i.e. {{subst:ifu|ImageName}} will not work currently. Martin 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess so. That'd be the same for {{ifu talk}} too. {{ifu talk}} already works like that *box*. Matt (Talk) 08:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Template talk pages

I can see the rationale of keeping conversations in one place, but on the other hand Category:Template-Class AfC project pages is a useful way of keeping track of all the templates in the project and now they are missing from there. Martinmsgj 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could they be manually added to that Category? It's unlikely many people would see a discussion on a Template talk page, and keeping all IFU related discussions in one place is less confusing that having heaps of places where discussions are going on. Matt (Talk) 09:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
How about we add a sentence to the banner which requests that discussions take place on this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that basically the same as just adding the category and keeping the page redirected? There'd be no discussions on the page, just the banner directing people to this page. Matt (Talk) 09:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests from registered users

It occurs to me that most registered users have no need to request anything here. They can go straight to Commons:Upload. Their global account will automatically log them in there, and any registered user can upload images there straightaway (it is not restricted to autoconfirmed users as it is on Wikipedia). The only possible exception is when uploading non-free images with a fair use rationale - these can't go on Commons - but these cases are fairly rare. So I propose

  1. A change in the wizard to direct registered users to the Commons upload form.
  2. A new option in the template which we can apply to requests from registered users.

Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One problem is users not knowing how to upload. Commons makes this more confusing. Another really confusing thing for our contributers is the copyright situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but
  1. The wizard on commons is not really any more confusing than the wizard here. If they can submit a valid request here then they are likely to be able to upload it themselves over there. And there are plenty of help pages on commons.
  2. It's very common for users to say that an image is their own work, but it can be difficult for us to verify this. If they upload it themselves, this problem is completely eliminated.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
2 would reduce our problem's considerably. I think your suggestion about redirection to the commons upload form is a good idea. We need to have a commons:help:upload document though. In one case when trying to get help on the commons, I ended up back in the en-wikipedia and uploaded to the wrong project! Something to write if I had time. The problem with the wizard, is if you try to do something slightly different (even WP:IFU) you cannot quite figure it out. eg uploading something that is public domain, but is not your own work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The help page your looking for is commons:Commons:First steps. Since the entire purpose of the project is uploading files, they have much more extensive help for uploading then here on wikipedia. --Yarnalgo talk to me 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That has a heap of documentation, which will really slow down our contributors if they read it. I could imageine that most want to upload and go and include the picture straight away. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded the IFU Header and Main Wizard page, and added two more Wizard pages, Wikipedia:Images for upload/Wizard/Non-Autoconfirmed and Wikipedia:Images for upload/Wizard/Autoconfirmed. They encourage users to upload to commons if they have an account but it's not autoconfirmed and users that have an autoconfirmed account to upload the image themselves, either to Commons or Wikipedia. Matt (Talk) 09:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

/recent

Can we get a link like this on the /recent subpage, so that it is easy to see what is happening there? History My first attempt at this did not look good, with the appearance on a separate line to the view talk edit links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Andrew c just added the navbar to it, which is nice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ifu license explanation

Most of the IFU requests need the alert on the lack of license, and what contributors should do about it. This would do good in a template - prehaps :

{{ifu lic}}.

What do people think? I would also expect MSGJ would support another template for telling registered users to upload themselves on commons for free images.

Comment: Please could you upload it yourself at Commons:upload? Since you are registered and the picture is under a free license, that is the best place for it. Post back here if you have any problems.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made three templates, please improve!

{{ifu nolic}} :[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|20px]] '''Comment:''' Please could you upload it yourself at [[Commons:upload]]? Since you are registered and the picture is under a free license, that is the best place for it. Post back here if you have any problems. :[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|20px]] '''Comment:''' As this is a non-free image, please could you complete the "non-free use rationale" below? See [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] for instructions. Thank you. — <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }}</syntaxhighlight>

Comment: Hi and thanks for your request. Please provide a link to a page proving the image's license. We need this to be able to upload the image. Generally the webpage the image is on will have the license information on it. Regards,
Comment: Please could you upload it yourself at Commons:upload? Since you are registered and the picture is under a free license, that is the best place for it. Post back here if you have any problems.
Comment: As this is a non-free image, please could you complete the "non-free use rationale" below? See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for instructions. Thank you. —
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. But maybe it would make more sense to add them as options to the {{ifu}} template. Mind if I do that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind if they are suboptions, as long as I can remember, perhaps {{ifu|nolic}} etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ifu|license}}, {{ifu|commons}} and {{ifu|nonfree}} would be easy to remember. Though most of the time we wouldn't need to ask for the non-free rationale, generally the non-free template fills itself out with appropriate information.
A couple of wording suggestions:
License: Hi and thanks for your request. Please provide a link to a page proving the image's license. We need this to be able to upload the image. Generally the webpage the image is on will have the license information on it. Regards,
Commons: Hi and thanks for your request. As this is a "free" image and you are registered, please login to the Wikimedia Commons (using your Wikipedia username and password) and upload the image there. If you have any problems uploading the image to the Commons please reply back here. Regards,
Matt (Talk) 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added nolic and commons to the ifu template, but I have not done the documentation yet. After a while if it settles down with no new standard warnings, the docco can be solidified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Did you decide against adding {{ifu nonfree}} as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This one was more complex, I will try it out on User:Graeme Bartlett/ifu first before mangling the template:ifu! Remember I have limited template editing experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
OK I have worked out about the {{!}}. So nonfree and rat are parameters to ifu template now. I also added a bunch of other decline reasons. So please get in and edit them. One thing is why does it look OK when used with subst: but hopeless without subst: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)
Well done for working out about {{!}}. I think it might look better just using <pre> like the one above, so I might try that. The reason it doesn't work without substituting is that all the parser functions are substituted. Without doing this, the entire code of the template is pasted onto the page and not just the option that you want. This makes a real mess of the wikicode on the page! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is strange that it now works with pre, it did not work when I tried before on my template sandbox, sticking the pre section on every option and not just the nonfree option. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No idea either, because this version seems exactly what I did. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesters Talkpage

Hi. When accepting/declining/commenting on requests make sure you let the user know on their talk page using the {{ifu talk}} template. It lets them know that their request has been updated and should increase the chances that they'll come back and sort out whatever issue there is. Cheers Matt (Talk) 09:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

When contributors succeed them selves

When contributors follow the advice and succeed on uploading to commons or even all by them selves, it is a bit harsh to decline the contribution, and slightly dubious to say it was accepted. We could have a different option to say user succeeded in uploading, using a different happy colour than green, perhaps a darker green. The template could be called {{ifu s}}. I will giv e it a trial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit pedantic, but we could just reword the green one to something like "This image has now been uploaded" and then it would fit both cases? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Or just "This image has been uploaded". "Has now been uploaded" still kind of sounds like someone uploaded it for them. Matt (Talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Change the wizard EditIntro pages

A lot of people put the subject's Wikipedia page in the link to license info section when they fill out the form. I think this is because the instructions use a Wikipedia URL. It would probably be helpful if all of the EditIntro pages were changed to use, say, www.example.org instead. Comments? -- kenb215 talk 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely support this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, for the seven pages listed there. If I missed any let me know. -- kenb215 talk 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ifu w

I think there should be a "withdrawn template" to go along with {{Ifu a}} and {{Ifu d}}. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Say {{ifu w}} ? I could make it for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
sounds good.
I suggest:
! style="background-color:#B8B8B8" | [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|withdrawn|14px]] This image for upload request has been withdrawn. <span style="color:red;">Please do not modify it.</span>
70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold and merged all these templates into one {{ifu-c}} which takes the a, d, b etc. as a parameter. I've incorporated the new "withdrawn" template, and all the existing templates continue to work as normal. Hope this is okay! Another point: I can't really see any purpose in substituting all these templates - why don't we just transclude them? It will save some typing anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lame

Could this qualify as one of the lamest edit wars in history? I actually think the IP was trying to help, although strictly speaking they shouldn't edit others' comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There was this [1] and he didn't refrain from evading the block with another IP User:75.47.153.191. I noticed the editing of comment before all this, but didn't revert as the change was very minor. —SpaceFlight89 12:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing the wizard

How do you edit the wizard page, such as the text above the edit box here[2]? —SpaceFlight89 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For that particular page, the preload is at Wikipedia:Images for upload/Wizard/Preload/Other and the editintro is at Wikipedia:Images for upload/Wizard/EditIntro/Other. A full list of IfU-related pages can be found on Wikipedia:Images for upload/Reviewer instructions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks —SpaceFlight89
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_upload/2009&oldid=1176174012"