MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

How does this look?

---

Use the form below to upload files, to view or search previously uploaded images go to the list of uploaded files, uploads and deletions are also logged in the upload log.

To include the image in a page, use a link in the form [[{{ns:image}}:File.jpg]], [[{{ns:image}}:File.png|alt text]] or [[{{ns:media}}:File.ogg]] for directly linking to the file.

Images that are for personal use in user space must be properly named, and tagged with {{user image}}. See GWW:USER#User images.

---

The only change is adding the last line. I didn't put too much detail (like the exact naming convention) because it's bloaty and we probably really want users to click on GWW:USER at that point anyways. --Rezyk 22:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I would like to change "Use the form below to upload files, to view or search" to "Use the form below to upload files. To view or search". As it is, it's a bit confusing, I think. Erasculio 22:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The change suggested by Erasculio is good, also perhaps a slight rewording to "Images that are for personal use in user pages" ...? Fox 22:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

How's this?

---

Use the form below to upload files. To view or search previously uploaded images, go to the list of uploaded files. Uploads and deletions are also logged in the upload log.

To include the image in a page, use a link in the form [[{{ns:image}}:File.jpg]], [[{{ns:image}}:File.png|alt text]] or [[{{ns:media}}:File.ogg]] for directly linking to the file.

Images that are for personal use in user pages or user subpages must be properly named and tagged with {{user image}}. See GWW:USER#User images.

---

Fixed some grammar (that which Erasculio pointed out and a little more) and changed "user space" to "user pages or user subpages". --Rezyk 22:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Hits the spot for me :) Fox 22:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Me too. Looks great. Erasculio 22:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd suggest removing the OGG reference. We have no policy about sound files, and until we do they should not be allowed. --Rainith 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I updated the page but didn't remove the OGG reference (not that I support/oppose it myself). --Rezyk 16:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Image cache

Would it be possible/ok to add a notice here about our image cache being slow, to stop new users from reuploading their image alot of times just because it doesn't update at once? - anja 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

/signed - BeX 08:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

/signed -- Gordon Ecker 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- (gem / talk) 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if they read it, Is it ok to delete old revision which are duplicates in situations like this? --Lemming 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something to be brought up on the deletion policy talk page. - BeX 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest putting something like this just above the horizontal line:

There is known problem relating to uploading new versions of images, resulting in the image not updating, or showing the old image in a strechted version. This is due to the updating of image cache on the wiki and should resolve within an hour. If your uploaded image does not update within an hour after clearing your own cache (CTRL+F5), please try uploading it again.

Opinions? - anja 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about:

Note: The internal image cache of MediaWiki prevents new image versions to be displayed immediately. After upload the old image will be displayed with the new image's size instead. If the new image does not show up after one hour and after clearing your local cache (CTRL+F5), please try to upload it again.

I think we should not say that it is a "problem"; it's just the internal MediaWiki system.. poke | talk 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, GuildWiki does not have the same "problem", images there update much faster. I rather think it's a setting from Anets side, or their servers. Therefore, I'd prefer to not refer to MediaWiki, since it doesn't seem to be a common MediaWiki "problem". - anja 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about adding "The current settings of the internal image cache prevents..."? poke | talk 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. - anja 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about getting this finished? poke | talk 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: The current settings of the internal image cache prevents new image versions to be displayed immediately. After upload the old image will be displayed with the new image's size instead. If the new image does not show up after one hour and after clearing your local cache (CTRL+F5), please try to upload it again.

The complete text. poke | talk 11:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "..the new image may.." not will. I'm fine with that wording otherwise :) - anja 11:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Could we add a line saying that all screenshots of Guild Wars need to be tagged with {{screenshot}} because of copyright issues? How about:

If you are uploading a screenshot of the Guild Wars game (excluding images for use in the User: and Guild: namespace), please remember to put {{screenshot}} in the summary box as screenshots of Guild Wars are not released under the GFDL.

I'm bringing this up as a lot of images recently haven’t been tagged with it...... -- Indochine talk 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that problem when tags are missing. I don't think we should make the upload text too full (long texts are never read); also there is a link to our Image use policy, so there should be enough information about our rules.. poke | talk 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think tagging them afterwards is easy enough to not warrant another addition to the already long text. - anja 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User/guild images

Could we add:

(after the policy link)" In short, the image must be named User/Guild <user/guild name> <short description>.<file extention>, so for example, User Example character.png or Guild Zealots Of Shiverpeak cape.jpg."

Despite that policy link being there, incorrectly named images are still being uploaded. I think seeing a link named image naming policy will detract them clicking on it because reading a policy might be "daunting" or unnecessary. Unless we get a change in policy, this may help users with the naming convention. -- Brains12 • Talk • 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We really should make it more obvious, I agree. While I dislike putting stuff in bold and big letters, it might be needed in this case :P And also adding that naming scheme might help - anja 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Forgot about this..) I agree with the bold, I don't like putting that everywhere (especially when used with <code>), so if you think that's unecessary, just pull it out. Although, if people would read the unbolded text in the first place, they would be directed to the image policy link, so maybe it is needed? I dunno. -- Brains12 \ Talk 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

More so, people are forgetting to correctly tag their images. Perhaps we can mention that as well and make it a little more obvious? Perhaps a note on the Special:Upload page? --People of Antioch talk 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to develop a bit of a form, where the name and tags are made for you based on inserted info? Calor 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tags, in my opinion, aren't as important as naming - tags can be insered almost immediately using something like GWWT, whereas incorrectly named images need to be reuploaded, and the reinserted into the correct page. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Brains, but it seems to be getting a little ridiculous with the tagging and all. --People of Antioch talk 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be possible to write a custom upload-form as a mediawiki-extension (or rather, I'm pretty sure it would be possible), that would let the user select between a few options and then auto-tag the image, and correct the name of the image if it wasn't already correct, giving the user a note of this. — Galil 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? :) -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Free time? :P At least at the moment. I'm supposed to be writing an essay (emphasis on "supposed to" cause in reality, I'm not though but I guess I should start on that pretty soon... :( ) — Galil 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Make it so that when you click upload file, you first have to click on a drop down box which will say something like User, Guild, other and then it will put the appropriate prefix. — ク Eloc 貢 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki has very limited ways for extensions to modify uploads. Making the upload a wizard is "impossible" unless you want to patch MediaWiki itself, which I try to avoid. Either way, how about something like this? It's running on my local wiki at the moment. Upload form, confirmation. I've added some checks (obviously), so it doesn't add "User username" if it's already there, and if you both type "{{user image}}" and select "User namespace", it doesn't re-add it. — Galil 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How aout something like the Wikipedia upload wizard - where you select the type of image it is and the wizard adds a tag? Could this be modified to include Galil's name changing thing? -- Indochine talk 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that wizard is that it wouldn't work here since we've got a too old version of MediaWiki for Special:Upload to accept the parameters in the URL. Not sure which version it was implemented in, but it would work on GW2W (using version 1.11, this wiki uses 1.9). The image-naming would still have to be handled by an extension though. — Galil 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition; it would be possible though to have an extension that inputs the URL-parameters into the boxes. — Galil 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Galil's upload thingy may work nicely. Could that be implemented here? -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It could, with a wiki maintainer's assistance. I just have to finish it, ponder about it, fix some issues, optimize it, then it'll be good to go (seeing as for every update, we'd need a wiki maintainer's help). There are only two issues of it that I've encountered so far. Firstly, it can't fix names on guild-images, since I can't very well guess what the guild's name is. It can decline these images to be uploaded though. Secondly, images uploaded by anons for the user namespace won't be renamed, since an anon obviously shouldn't fill his/her user-space with images and having Image:User 123.123.123.123 hello.jpg uploaded would just be wrong. For that reason, it declines anons from uploading images for user namespace usage. ;)

Other than that, the only issue would be that it would be bound to me keeping it updated as policies/template names change. When I saw wikipedia's upload guide that Indochine linked to though, I figured I could restore the form to it's original appearance, and simply make the extension accept the input parameters from the URL, then we could make a similar page to that one (Guild Wars Wiki:Upload/GWW:UPLOAD perhaps?), which would then replace the upload link in the toolbox. That would only make the image-naming bound to me. The only problem I see with this is that the image naming itself would be bound to user input too, as it would have no idea if an image is intended for use in the user namespace unless the user him/her-self would include {{user image}} in the description. — Galil 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, while I'm writing an extension anyway, is there anything else that bothers us? :P — Galil 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can unregistered users uplaod images anyway? I thought only registered users could. (And I'm not sure if Anet would be willing to update the extention every time it was needed.. perhaps you should ask at GWW:TECH before you start writing it.) -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'm overly worried about this is that an anon incorrectly fills out the form. I hope I'm not asking too much, but would it be possible to have a short category description after each option? Calor 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checked, an IP can't upload files. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that ANet thing too actually, which is why I want to have as little with this thing to do as possible. ;) Seriously though, I'd rather not hard-code any variables, such as template names and image formats. I'm thinking of making MediaWiki:ImageNameParameters or similar act as a config, where it will grab all such info instead. That way the update wouldn't be a problem in the case of template names or policy changes, at least. — Galil 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about images that were uploaded via red links? poke | talk 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the only problem with the wikipedia-approach... It would work with checking the referrer to see if it's from the User namespace or not, but I'm not a fan of ugly work-arounds. :/ — Galil 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about a client-side solution? poke | talk 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're thinking about javascript, it would work. Until we encounter someone running NoScript or who just have turned it off. — Galil 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Catching half of the uploaders (which may be realistic?) still leaves us with about half the work, so it's worth it imo :) - anja 18:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be more realistic, I would assume we'd catch at least 85% of them with javascript. :P So I guess it could be worthwhile. Easier on both ANet and me. — Galil 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I doubt half of the people have JS disabled in some way. We'd probably get closer to 75-80% of people with a JavaScript application. Calor 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, unless someone beats me to it, I'll start coding in 4 days or so. I have about 7 days worth of studies to finish until then so I kinda don't have time to before that. :P — Galil 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't push you otherwise, can we? Study, do well, then come back and take your time on this. Thanks, Calor 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some time tomorrow, so I'll think about it. poke | talk 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already seen GWWT:NOTICE#+ button, right? Calor 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I need some opinions if I'm ever going to finish this script. As it is now, it's a separate form that pops up on top of the upload form. This form is grabbed from Project:Upload, and lets the contributor set where the image is intended to be used (User namespace, Guild namespace, General usage), as well as two checkboxes for GW screenshots and ANet images. When the user clicks "Submit" in this form, it fills out the form below it and dissappears. The script then does nothing until the user clicks the "Upload file" button. Then it checks the options the user set in the first form and validates the file name and tags. When possible, it automatically corrects the filename and tells the user about this. When not possible (guild images), it simply tells the user to rename the image to conform with the image use policy and gives an example of a good name, while refusing to continue until the naming is correct. It also automatically adds any tags the user removed from the summary, it won't tell the user in question about this though since I find it unnecessary.

The way this works have both pros and cons. The pros would be that having the form's layout in a wiki-page opens up it's design, content and such to contributors who don't know javascript. The only parts of the form that are defined in the script are the actual inputs, but they are placed on Project:Upload by various variables (%GUILDIMAGE%, etc). It also keeps rather invisible from the end user until it's actually needed. The cons are (ironically enough) the same as the pros. Since it's in an external page, visiting the upload form returns two pages in practice, though this is only a minor con since it only grabs the actually needed parts of the page, and as such it takes less bandwidth than a small image would (could go as low as 260 byte, my test page is 263 bytes). Also, since the script is so invisible after the initial settings have been set, it's impossible to change them once they have been set (like from user image to guild image), without reloading the page. It can also be annoying for people who don't like forms appearing on top of stuff.

So the questions;

1. Would this be desireable?
2. Should it behave similar to how my extension did? That is, only extending the already existing form?
3. Should it deny people from uploading incorrectly named images, or just warn people about it?

I might come up with more questions as time goes. — Galil 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Short Answer - Yes
2. What you've shown looks good, but what are our other options?
3. Depends on what format is used. I'm all for warning, but firmly warning, that the image will probably need to be reuploaded if image naming conventions weren't followed.

Calor 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After a long and firm discussion (probably 3 minutes) with Anja and Poke, we came to the conclusion that it was better to make it such as my extension to avoid unnecessary complexness (is that even a word? :S). And guess what, it's done. Poke just requested to see it in action first, so I'll wait til he gets online (since someone has to add it to the system anyway :P). — Galil 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like progress... I like it! --People of Antioch talk 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the script is implemented and working fine :) I think we can remove some parts from this page now. poke | talk 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-implementation discussion

Seeing as most people seem to miss the new controls, how about we move the new controls above the summary box? I'll admit it looks butt-ugly, but at least then they might be noticed a bit more easily. — Galil 11:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably be better, or we disable the upload button until at least on click on the summary textfield or the radio buttons are done.. Or the plain red background :P (btw. I loled at "Bläddra") poke | talk 12:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think disabling the upload button would be such a great idea in the cases where no summary is needed. Like when reuploading an already uploaded image. Also, it was purple background with red border! :P (And why do people keep commenting on "Bläddra"....) — Galil 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then something like [--UPLOAD BUTTON--] [ ] check this if you want to keep the summary empty, and the button disabled until you activate/focus the textbox, the radio buttons (note that the default - empty - values can also be clicked) or the checkbox is checked. poke | talk 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make it overly complicated for not so experienced contributors though? Also, it would probably end up being one of those things you just click by habit to make the upload button work. — Galil 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for moving the new controls up above the summary box, but please no disabling or such, as it will just irritate experienced users :P - anja 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Anja and Galil. Just stick it above the summary box. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)