Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Testing/ImageTaggingBot

There's a draft in here
 License tagging for  Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate the license status of images. This information is required for :. Although your upload is appreciated, without the correct licence information this image may face deletion. Please choose the correct licencing tag from the lists on these pages, and add the appropriate tag to the image file page (instructions below). If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Once you've found the correct image licence tag, click on |this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. Thank you for your cooperation.
 * All licence tags.
 * For public domain images which are free to use and have no copyrights.
 * For images which are freely licensed. That is, they are copyrighted but free to use.
 * For copyrighted images with specific licencing that may allow use on Wikipedia.
 * For images of subjects in USA.

Alternative
 License tagging for  Thank  you  for uploading  an image to Wikipedia. Image copyright tags must be used to  indicate  : the correct  permission  for using  the image, otherwise it  may  have to  be deleted. Please choose the correct licencing tag from the lists on these pages, and add the appropriate tag to the image file page (instructions below). If no tag fits the situation  of your image, chances are it  cannot  be used on  Wikipdia. If you  have any  questions, please contact Media copyright questions. Once you've found the correct image licence tag, click on |this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. Thank you.
 * All licence tags.
 * For public domain images which are free to use and have no copyrights.
 * For images which are freely licensed. That is, they are copyrighted but free to use.
 * For copyrighted images with specific licencing that may allow use on Wikipedia.
 * For images of subjects in USA.


 * You'll note that I have absolutely no idea what the USA tags are for! \o/ for me!  fredgandt  04:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Ron I possibly now know roughly what the USA specific licences are for (but possibly not).  fredgandt  20:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is awful. First of all, the giant copyright logo needs to go. Both the choice of image and the size are bad. Whatever you replace it with needs to be much, much smaller. There's a reason that all of the templates Wikipedia uses have small images, and that's because not all users have large screens. Secondly, the message is confusing to me, and I work primarily in files. It needs to be rewritten by someone who knows files better. No offense, but by your own admission, this isn't your area.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I think the way to go with these warnings is actually not to try to teach the user everything they could possibly need to know about licensing. That's just not possible, especially given that if you all – Wikipedians with moderate to high expertise in files – have a hard time with licensing, you can imagine how a newbie is going to feel when they're saddled with all this policy. Forgive the cheesy marketing parlance, but what we need is to completely shift the paradigm of what an image license/tagging warning is. Steven and I have some ideas of how to do that, and we'll try to get them onwiki today. I also just go the go-ahead from Coren to draft new copyvio warning templates for CorenSearchBot, and I think those will probably follow a similar tack. Watch this space and let us know what you think! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the draft Sven.  fredgandt  19:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a reasonably experienced editor, I  have uploaded hundreds of files to Wikipedia/Commons, but  I  still  find the process daunting. Fortunately  none of my  files have ever been deleted. Taking  the above template a an example, I  find it  is TL;DR. It  should be short, to  the point, and sufficient  to direct  the user to the page where the instructions are. That  said, perhaps a Commons-style upload wizard would be the answer (this may  have been discussed in  the past). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

An additional suggestion
I'm all  in  favour of friendlier tags, but  I  find the proposed solution  above to  be quite contrary  to  what is hoped to  be achieved. Perhaps not for discussion  here ( and of not, where?) is that  while many  new images are uploaded to  Commons, Wikipedia editors should be notified of incomplete licences/FUR on  their Wikipedia talk  pages; is it possible for a bot  to  do  this? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if it's practically possible (theoretically it should be easy) for a bot to make cross-wiki notifications. We might ask BAG. Anyway, at least the editor will get an email notification about their talk page message on Commons, even if it's more ideal for them to get a notification on their home wiki. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   05:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought this up  above because  I had noticed recently  a spate of images  had uploaded to  commons had been disappearing  from  Wikipedia articles I  occasionaly  edit. The email  feature  is not  selected by  default and  many  home Wiki  users are not  even aware of this option. I'm  not  sure about  BAG -  perhaps it  would be best  to  ask  a known global bot creator if  they  can come up  with  something or perhaps the WMF could help as this would be a global  utility. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Testing?
Can I ask how long this test is going to continue yet? And also, according to what criteria will the results be evaluated? What kinds of reactions of uploaders will be counted as a "success"?

I'm asking because I'm actually quite wary of some of the messages employed. Congratulating a user with "It was really helpful of you to upload", when in an estimated 80% of all cases these images are in fact objectively not helpful at all, strikes me as potentially extremely counterproductive. I have a strong suspicion these messages may be actively harmful. (In fact, even the old messages are probably too soft, and my experience suggests they were always quite ineffective, but the experimental ones must be considerably worse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)