Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/2011

Please use proper collapse templates
A few months ago, the FFU page switched to a new archiving system, where ClueBot III would only archive requests if they had been accepted or declined. (See this discussion) The switch addressed the problem of backlogged requests being archived without being processed. This was done by adding the bot's "Archive now" template to ffu a and ffu d, so that when these templates are substituted (as the Reviewer instructions dictate), they are immediately flagged for archival. This keeps the FFU page free of completed requests while maintaining those that haven't been answered.

The aforementioned system relies on this page's volunteers using {{subst:ffu a}} or {{subst:ffu d}} at the top of a section when closing a request. However, many editors are using outdated templates such as afc-c, or not substituting ffu (see this major fix I performed). So please, when closing a request, use {{subst:ffu a}} (if accepting the request) or {{subst:ffu d}} (if declining the request) at the top of the section. That way, completed requests are archived promptly, and the page is kept clean. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 18:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When we made up these templates the idea was to make it easy for reviewers, rather than difficult, and substing was not required. Can't the bot do these convert and subst jobs too?  Bots can relieve our job instead of adding to it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would theoretically be possible to make a bot do the conversions and substs, but ClueBot III doesn't take search parameters, so that bot itself cannot do it. It wouldn't be hard to use AWB or some other system to add the bot's "Archive now" string to completed requests that didn't have it...that may be advisable if reviewers are attached to the old templates. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 21:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am still attached to ifu a and ifu d with ifu b. It seems I am doing most of the accepting! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, just saw this. I still use afc-c|whatever, and I manually archive it based on the size of the page on a regular basis. I never archive open tickets, however, and I haven't heard of any problems so far. Err, I'll have to ponder this one. 07:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I've been doing a couple of these lately and it's been bugging me, I just added a summary of the collapse templates to Template:Ffu/doc/table. Since that page is transcluded into the FFU editnotice, this provides a reminder for reviewers along with the other syntax. Otherwise, one needs to go to the reviewer instructions for the collapse template syntax and then check the editnotice for the response template syntax. Also, perhaps we can request that these templates be automatically substituted by another bot? It seems all we would need to do is to add them to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted and User:AnomieBOT will take care of it, but I'm not sure if there are any unintended consequences of doing that. Zachlipton (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The afc-c template series is also used by WP:AFC/R. Automatically substituting one for another would effect one of the two. Personally, if we go that route, I'd discontinue the image specific ffu templates. The afc-c templates can be used logically in both places, the ffu templates, which say "image" in them specifically, cannot be used in both places. All that being said, I archive manually based on the size of the page. I tend to allow for 50 or so at AfC/R and half that number at FFU, not counting open requests. I'd do 25 for each, but AfC/R sees massive and often rapid traffic.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The FFU page seems fairly clean right now. Whatever reviewers are doing, it seems to be working. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 04:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.228.4.174, 18 April 2011
The picture listed with your site called Port Ryerse is not from this village. I have good pictures I could send

64.228.4.174 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer. You would need to register to upload files—see Uploading images for details. — Bility (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Crazy formatting on editing screen
When trying to edit FFU, the sidebar was overlapped on the edit screen. This wasn't the case on the edit view for other screens. I also used &useskin=vector in the URL to see if it was just on monobook, but that didn't help it. Running XP + FF5. Killiondude (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Same issue, both IE9 and Fx5 on Win7, using vector. sonia ♫  23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess something at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Files for upload is messing up when the software tries to place the edit notice at top of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's probably because the tables at Template:Ffu/doc/table (transcluded in the edit notice) are a mess. Trying to sort them out now. Ucucha 22:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Not closing tables can have weird effects. Ucucha 22:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! CharlieEchoTango ( discuss ) 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ucucha. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

John Zizioulas
Hello! At the greek wikipedia there is a photo of this person which is neither in commons or in any other wikipedia. Because I don't know how to upload an image and also don't feel like creating an account can someone upload it either in commons or here?--46.246.166.248 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

low quality
Under what condition should we decline images for upload because of low quality? I mean, if images are marked as pre 1923 (and thus as photos really old - nearly at the beginnings of the photography), THERE WAS NO BETTER QUALITY, so we shouldn't (i my eyes) decline images because of th quality. In other cases (such as - say - 1970 and newer images we should decline them... mabdul 05:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarify file must be online
I don't work at FFU but after a post at Help desk (permanent link) I suggest making it more clear that the file must be online somewhere, and perhaps add a "File must be accessible online" option to the decline reasons at ffu. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, but how we should do upload it, if it is not online? An SVG can be uploaded, everything other is unlikely. We don't have access to the private computer of the person. mabdul 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the helpers know it must be online. I meant telling the new/unregistered users from the beginning that it must be online. Files for upload doesn't say it. In a test I had to click through four pages before getting a form where one of the fields said url, and even then it didn't say clearly that the process would fail without a url. Files for upload/Header could simply add a statement that the file must be online with a known url. And if a new user still fills out the form without the url then a decline made with ffu could have an option to say clearly that the problem was a missing url. In you used the "corrupt" option which confused the unregistered user. I see another editor later changed it  to the "blankreq" option which is better but still doesn't seem optimal. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added a parameter to ffu there. Maybe the wording isn't perfect, but this could be changed later. Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  11:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)