This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6(Talk to my master) 00:05, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
I must say this file upload page needs a bit of attention. As an infrequent editor, I have not made enough edits to allow me to upload files. I quite understand the need to reduce abuse, but the way this page is presented leaves a lot to be desired.
there is nothing obvious that says I cannot upload; I only find this out after meticulously preparing a file, filling out all the info, copyright and licensing I press the Upload button and discover I am not eligible to perform uploads. This is very frustrating. If I was locked out of the form at the start with a polite message of explanation, it would not raise expectations of being able to upload.
the user error is really quite badly worded and assumes everyone to be a transgressor. I have tried to make a contribution in good faith to improve an article and here is what I read: "Due to upload abuse, adding or replacing files is limited to users who have achieved a threshold number of edits and account lifetime, and have a confirmed email address in their user preferences. Please find something constructive to do until you reach this threshold. Please note that spamming unproductive edits to reach this threshold will cause your account to be completely blocked from editing. For more information, please contact an administrator" I rather feel that I am being talked to like a spammer when I have done nothing wrong. "Please find something constructive to do" is really a bit sarcastic, and the rest of it is all about punitive measures - nothing explains how many edits are required or how to earn trust. This is extremely off-putting to new editors. Please do not assume everyone is here to create havoc.
The rude warning is presented in broken HTML which leaks onto the page. it needs to be fixed. I would post a screnshot but I presume I'm not allowed to upload JPEGs.
So can someone please change this to make it more use-friendly and use less confrontational language. Thank people when they try, don't punish them!—Unsigned comment byProtocoldroid (talk • contribs).
Hey. The reason you can't upload is because your account does not have a confirmed email address. You can go to Special:ConfirmEmail. It'll send you a confirmation email, and you can click the link in that email to confirm your account. At that point, you should be able to upload images. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:58, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the broken HTML, I have created the MJ testing account so I can trigger the warning and view the problem for myself. I'll have to wait four days for the account to be autoconfirmed for that, though. The manner in which the restrictions are implemented (the "AbuseFilter") does not allow the restrictions to be checked until after you attempt to upload something. It's just a limitation of how the filter works. I will see about adding something to the upload form detailing the restrictions, though. As for the wording, unfortunately before we implemented these restrictions the vast, vast majority of uploads by newer users got immediately deleted for one reason or another; it was extremely rare for a newbie to actually pay attention to and follow the policies regarding image uploading. So we are naturally distrustful of new users who immediately try to upload images, and the wording reflects that. It may seem harsh, but it's grounded in our past experience. —MJ—Council Chambers 18:15, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think that makes the page even more unwieldily than it already is. That is massive. Everyone knows, for example, that nobody reads really long online Terms of Service before clicking accept. If you make the upload page too long, then eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns on the effectiveness of the information you've placed there. I think that entire upload text needs a page 1 rewrite. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to draft up a suggestion. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:41, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it needs an overhaul (and have felt so for quite a while), but I don't have time to work on it myself. I'd be interested to see what you can come up with. —MJ—Council Chambers 18:44, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
I've posted a draft here. All of the same information is there, only I cut down on what I'd say is over-the-top wording, as well as redundancies (for example, the current upload page talks about file deletion 4 separate times). Regarding the over-the-top and redundant nature of the text, I would imagine that was the product of continuing to add more and more to the upload text without really evaluating what was already there. I would also imagine that all of the bolding, red boxes, red letters, etc were added in response to specific issues that had happened right before that formatting was added. I don't think any of that was really necessary.
So what this draft accomplishes is three-fold:
It links to the relevant policies without being hyperbolic about them or trying to over-explain. I was able to cut down the text by trusting people to understand that they should click the links to the policies we've provided to them. If they don't, and they don't upload images correctly, then the consequences are mentioned in the upload text and on the policies.
It makes the instructions for uploading more prominent. In the current upload text, you need to scroll past multiple warnings/the wiki yelling at you in order to get to the instructions to fill out the summary box. Now, you don't have to scroll to get to the instructions. It's right there. Making the instructions more prominent can help reduce the need for talking about policies anyway. Even if users don't read the parts of the policy pages that talk about sourcing and licensing, the users have the instructions right there on the upload page anyway. I think that could be very helpful in having more sourced and licensed images get uploaded.
It lowers the barrier for entry without compromising the intent of the page. This is a big one since it can have a positive impact on the user experience. Rather than having a page that looks like it's yelling at people, and probably deterring people, we can instead have a page that simply lays out the fact that there are policies that need to be read, and then provides instructions.
Obviously this is open for tweaking, assuming we even want to go with it, but I'd strongly encourage going with this. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:54, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. A few things:
I'd like to see a reference in there to "Wookieepedia is not a free host or webpage provider" and at least one, preferably two links to alternative sites for free hosting. In my experience giving someone alternative options up front is far more effective than just linking to a policy that says "you can't do that".
With regard to categorization, we shouldn't encourage people not to do so. We actually do warn people for not making an attempt to categorize their uploads, though such warnings are of the friendly nature and rarely (never?) lead to blocks. It would be better to simply acknowledge that we have a complicated system here and say that uploaders should ask for help if they can't figure it out. But there shouldn't be any wording suggesting that it's optional.
Otherwise, I like it. Anyone else want to chime in? —MJ—Comlink 00:49, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
I've added #2 and #3. I think #1 is excessive, however, especially with the re-addition of the template making the text pretty long again. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:18, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with part of this rewrite because it's encouraging people to do exactly what we don't want them to do; namely, utilizing the constructs of the basic Wikia TOU-approved upload form. We don't want them to copy the Summary box and redundantly paste it into the same preloaded Summary box, because then you get misuse of the template and misplaced fields, like this, which has become an annoyance. We want them to use the preloaded fields already there. The reason we get improper uploads like that is because people are using the Wikia upload form that the TOU is needlessly forcing upon us. When people use our upload form, images are uploaded correctly. If you replace the "To best follow the policy, copy and paste the following code into the 'Summary' box:" bit with a line explaining that the preloaded fields should be filled out as completely and accurately as possible, I'll be mostly satisfied. However, I do still want to see an instantly visible notice, even if it's toned down a touch, saying that "your file will be deleted (red text works best) if you do not provide a proper source, etc." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:56, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
I'll play around with the text. What you want it to say is already said there, but I can tighten the wording so it's as clear as possible. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:02, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we figured out later that it only appears with JS disabled. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 04:37, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
I'd bold this, Brandon, to be on the safe side: "Please make sure that your upload complies with Wookieepedia's image policy. If your file upload does not include the correct description, source, and license, the file will be deleted." I honestly didn't see it until I reread it again. JangFett(Talk) 13:43, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
There's bold red text in there, so it should be noticeable. I'll play around with the formatting a bit, though. My main concern in bolding all of that is that the next line is also bold. If there's too much bold text, especially one right after the other, then the bold text loses its value. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 14:16, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Looking at what you have, the spacing between each line is fairly good so I doubt it would look overwhelming. JangFett(Talk) 14:23, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, don't get me wrong, my concern isn't about overwhelming a person with bold text. It won't look like it's screaming at them or anything. My concern, if I just bolded the entire sentence right now, would be that the more bold text there is, the less important the bold text may seem to a reader. It risks people not reading it. So I'll play with the formatting and text to see if I can accomplish the core of what you're looking for without having too much bold text. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 14:31, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps you could do: Please make sure that your upload complies with Wookieepedia's image policy. If your file upload does not include the correct description, source, and license, the file will be deleted. JangFett(Talk) 14:36, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, lots of reponse & discussion, good to see folk are looking at it. As long as it is (a) easy to use and (b) nice and welcoming, I'll be happy! Protocoldroid (talk) 14:54, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
After several hours of working with Brandon, who also worked with Grunny, to get all of this hammered out, we've eliminated the possibility of the annoying double "Summary" header showing up. There's still one unlikely and unavoidable scenario where the licensing template will appear outside of the Summary box, but it doesn't create the double header like before, so I can live with it. I like Brandon's proposal overall after helping him tweak some wording, and I agree with him that the red text regarding the file deletion looks best the way he has it. It's perfectly noticeable without being overwhelming and intrusive, and he's underlined it to give it a little bit more emphasis. So hopefully, this should all pretty much be good to go. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:21, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tope for all the work you've put into this as well. And thanks Jang for looking over the change/compromise on IRC (aka, the red underline rather than full red text). I've also added one final note about deletion at the bottom of the text on workspace. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:47, July 21, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your efforts on this. Much appreciated!Protocoldroid (talk) 00:11, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Since no further concerns have been raised and this seems to be a resolved issue, I've gone ahead and implemented Brandon's proposal, which can be seen here: MediaWiki:Uploadtext. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:26, July 31, 2014 (UTC)