Wikipedia talk:Files for upload

Confusing instructions for IP who wants to upload free image
I'm an admin but after seeing a post at Help desk I tried logging out and imagine I wanted a free image uploaded at Files for upload. First click "Make a new request". The instructions now include "Files for Upload was created to allow unregistered users or registered users who aren't autoconfirmed to add new files to Wikipedia". Then click "The image is free and I'm not autoconfirmed". The instructions now include "As you have a Wikipedia account you can login to the Wikimedia Commons even if you're not autoconfirmed." But I don't have an account in this scenario and cannot log in to Commons. Am I missing something? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A fix is in the works. Thanks for letting us know :). -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 08:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For now, I've redirected both 'non-autoconfirmed' buttons to the search page for the wizard. I have a replacement in work in my sandbox but there are currently some issues loading text properly when logged out, on both mobile and New Vector. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 01:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Robot Clerk?
Hi all, I've been reviewing requests at Files for Upload page for a few weeks now and I believe having a bot to help manage things and make the process smoother for both reviewers and requesters.. I would like to gain consensus on such a clerk to see if it's in the best interests of FFU. The tasks I have planned for it are as follows below.


 * Applying a backlog template to the page when there are more than 4-5 requests without a hold, that are less than 7 days old.
 * Informing autoconfirmed users who make a request on this page that they are free to upload their files themselves, but not changing the status of the request in case more help is needed.
 * (Optional) Informing registered users who make a request on FFU, who have a request with a free content license, that they may upload their own image, as long as the license is correct, to Commons. (Likely using )
 * (Optional) Informing users of the robot clerk comment for tasks 2 and 3 on the requestor's talk page.
 * (Optional) Adding a request for a Non-free use rationale if none is provided for a request that has a non-free license in their request. This would require Task 4.


 * Looking forward to what everyone has to say. Thanks. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 13:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be a good idea, I've been thinking about this for a while... - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this venue, but after seeing your post at the AfC talk page, I've now got it on my radar. I'll keep an eye on it and help with requests. As far as your bot proposal goes, I think it's a good idea to have a bot. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There are multiple WP:NFUR/Non-free use rationale templates, so a bot would need to know that, if it is keeping track of that particular issue, otherwise it may miss one of the more specialized versions that was provided with the requested upload -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is true, consensus is to use rat, as it is included in both the pages edit notice as well as the FFU script. File reviewers and uploaders are free to amend the rationale to a more specific one, if needs be. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LemonSlushie, who's lending a hand with the bot? Or if you're considering using your own bot, have you got the source code ready? – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to use my own bot, but with the holidays I’m waiting to have my bot approved before making some source code. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 01:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. I came here from the bot's BRFA. It is not a policy nor guideline, but while a complete code is not necessary, it is a good idea at least some skeleton code should be ready before the BRFA. With a primary code, you will realise what variations/difference scenarios the bot would face. This would also make easier for you to respond to the questions asked at the BRFA. I recommend putting the BRFA on hold while you work on primary draft of the code. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for letting me know. However, I do not see any response to my BFRA. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. BRFA generally takes time, as if not tested properly/thoroughly bot can make disruptive edits in large numbers easily. Someone would respond to your BRFA soon. Also, I recommend you to work on the code till then. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * link to BRFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologizes, I misread that thinking you had left questions for me to respond to at BRfA. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should continue asking the requestors to fill out fair use rationales
They're usually not great. It's not their faultfor example, airlineuploader couldn't possibly know that we're fine with using svgs for fair use files (because it doesn't make any sense, just like the rest of our rules surrounding non-free resolution). The vast majority of requests here are COI logo updatersNon-free use rationale logothat one IP that uploads movie soundtrack album coversNon-free use rationale album coverand that one IP that uploads indian TV show title cardsNon-free use rationale title-card. These template rationales are great, use them. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 04:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

: some advice
I completely ignore the license field. When someone says a file is free and the evidence is not immediately clear, it's because they just picked one at random or don't understand what they're doing. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but it's always good to give them a chance to clarify in case I missed something or the evidence is unclear. One of my first uploads on Commons (which I'm now admin on) was actually free in the source field, but I guess the patroller saw I was a new user at the time and thought "this must be a copyvio" and tagged it. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? - uselesscontributions } 08:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)