Wikipedia talk:Files for upload

Archiving

Shold we just delete, or archive? ffm ^yes? 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should archive this page like WP:AFC.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why's that? Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use an archive for examples and records of decisions made.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about expiration?

Some people never answer any question we ask them. Should we make them have an expiration date? ffm ✎t 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A week is how long we'd give an uploader of unrationalized Fair Use images, we can wait a week here and then expire them and have them be archived. 68.39.174.238 17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

I've noticed that some fair use images have been uploaded through this page. I just wanted to send a reminder to the editors helping out here that any fair use images uploaded need to have rationale added as well. So please remember this when uploading. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Should images releaced under free licences be uploaded to Commons? So far, this is what I have been doign, and I see nothing wrong with it. Just curious what others thought. ffm ✎talk 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They'll end up their eventually... 68.39.174.238 17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Keegan^talk 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Yes it probably would. If you can sort it then that would be great. MSGJ 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Reviewer information needs to be written (current one isn't that clear on what images can be accepted and how to upload). Merge Wikipedia:Images for upload/Templates into the guide
Revamp IfU templates
~~Change the last step of the wizard to put requests directly on the main page~~
Add in a field (in the form + instructions) for the author/copyright holders name
Change last step to submit using level two headers, change instructions to not leave that blank, change URLs to autofill the header box
Add about submitting under the correct license at the last step (you've selected Creative Commons etc. to go back click here..)

Matt (Talk) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, so merge /Pending and /Current, but keep /Closed. I'm trying to think of an easier way to close a request, because removing it from /Current, saving the page, opening /Closed and editing it in is quite a long process. Would having them on one page (but two headings - current + recently closed) work okay having the same archive time? 7 days seems reasonable for users to see their closed requests and for helpers to look over a current request. If a current request slips though it will always be on the archive and not lost forever. What do you think? Matt (Talk) 04:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]