Articles for creation Project‑class

This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

2007 2008 2009

Hello. A few days ago, I requested a file upload under fair use to a book cover, but I found out today I am qualified to upload without needing to go through the request procedure, so I uploaded the file myself. I also removed the request here (it can be found in the history of the page). Is that fine to just to remove my request by deleting my own request? Sorry I am rather new, so I want to understand the procedures correctly. Thanks :)Scchan (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the wizard have another choice besides "image exists on wikipedia" / "image does not exist on wikipedia" ? Some images need to be updated. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an 'I'm updating an image that already exists on Wikipedia' option. Matt (Talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the "I'm updating an image" path just takes you to the same screen as if you were requesting a totally new image. Is this necessary? To update an image that's already here, why does the requester have to worry about the license and all that? Shouldn't we just direct them straight to the final part? Sure, their request won't have any licensing information and such, but is that necessary when all of that is already in order? Just a thought. Hope this shakes some watchlists up. :) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful having it as an option. It's definitely a viable possibility (an unregistered editor did pose the question, after all) and, while rare, I'd sooner keep it open rather than turn away a few people who may not see their desire fit into the binary opposite of the other options. An updated image (especially those made by users) could have a different license, and we should allow for that option however uncommon, especially because there's no harm in having it as an image. All that being said, however, the "The image I want uploaded already exists on Wikipedia" option isn't particularly helpful. It seems to me that maybe a third option would be to refactor that page to give the option for replacing an image, as those are in fact "already on Wikipedia." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few days ago I submitted a request to upload a picture of August Dillmann which I scanned from an old book of his; I waited patiently for confirmation, only to find out that the whole request disappeared from this page. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.234.191 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it seems we overlooked your request. It was automatically archived by a bot after seven days - thanks for bringing it to our attention. The image is now uploaded at File:August Dillman-1894.jpg. AJCham 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Great, many thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.234.191 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted logos for several professional wrestling promotions two months ago, but two of them were apparently overlooked. Looking though the archives, you might want to mark those with unreviewed submissions like WP:AFC does. There seems to be a pretty big backlog from as far back as July 2008. 71.184.42.179 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the above issue, does anyone know if it would be possible to have the bot only archive threads which have responses? AJCham 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the bots for archiving run on a time based system. It could be a good idea to recommend that people who request an image leave a message after six days, notifying us that it still hasn't gotten a response. That way it doesn't get lost. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are archived unresponded requests back till May, when also the templates must have had a different format or use as we have boxes nested inside each other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a request on november 11 for William Kreutzer, Jr. and it seems to have been archived without action. Does anyone look at such old requests, or should I submit it again? 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following line to the FFU header, under the "If you..." section:

• Are requesting that an image be found for a certain article, but do not know where it is, please see Requested pictures.

I get the impression that many of our submitters are asking us to find images for them, and therefore don't post links to pictures. Assuming they actually read that header, I would hope that this addition would steer them to the proper page for such requests. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Millie Brown (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be looking for Articles for creation, which is where unregistered users may submit articles to be created by registered users. This, however, is a talk page, and not the proper place to put such submissions. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a page be set up for backlogged requests?

• Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/Backlog

Then a bot scans the archived request logs for any that are unclosed (after this is done once, it need only scan the newest logs since the last scan), copies them to the backlog. Closed requests from the backlog are archived to the current archive log.

This should probably also happen with the AFC redirect/category request logs.

Many requests have been archived without even a reply.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this issue has been somewhat resolved already...see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#FFU archiving. Feel free to comment there on any additional changes you'd like to see. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that would archive unclosed discussions, which probably should either be closed, or moved off to a backlog page. Though the one year period should make someone close it... 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#FFU Archiving Fixed. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The archivals are not behaving as expected from the "fixed" fixture. Unclosed unreplied requests are being archived soon after coming up, per September and August archives, which is not the 1-year the bot is supposed to wait. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick hainey is 18 Years old from Llandudno (North Wales)

He attends Llandrillo College studying Media Production. He works part time at a Cafe in his local town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickhainey (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick. This is the wrong place to post this. First of all, this is Files for Upload, a location where autoconfirmed users assist non-autoconfirmed users in uploading images. What you are looking for is Articles for Creation. Secondly, your sumbission to Articles for Creation has been declined per lack of sources and lack of notability. Sorry. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if all of the requests for upload have suddenly vanished. One of them was [4], which I put forth 2 days ago. From what I can tell, "Official Crimecraft Box Art" was archived as accepted, but all the sections following it were accidentally included in the archive! I am still relatively new to wikipedia, so I do not know how to fix this... It doesn't even show up in the history! Can someone help? --Tuniof (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it [5]... --Tuniof (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]