FamilySearch Wiki talk:Patrolling

Patrolling review
After reviewing the patrolling steps and some of the content we have received in the wiki, we are looking at modifying some of the patrolling steps, including adding an additional item or two to the process. This discussion page will be used to document the issues and work toward making the right decisions about the needed changes. Please add your comments concerning the proposed changes to this discussion page.

Proposed new step to the patrolling process
Some advertising or other inappropriate information has been added to the wiki through the use of the discussion pages that are attached by default to every page. When a new page is created, the discussion page is automatically there for use. It is proposed that all patrolling of new articles will include a review of the discussion page. This can be done visually by looking at the "Discussion" link under the "View" navigation available on the right side of the screen. If the word "Discussion" is in red, then you know automatically that no content exists on the page. If the word is in black, then you know the page contains something. It may be that the user saved the page without any content on the page, or it may be that something was actually added to the page. There is no way to know for sure without viewing the page.

Please add your comments to this proposed change here on the discussion page. We will be implementing this change within the next week, so your comments are needed right away. Thanks! --Fran 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add the Information template to uploads
The following was added to the Forum thread discussion about attributing the uploaded images to the person who submitted the file for approval:

I propose that the images uploaded to the wiki have the Information template added to the page and the four fields filled out (if known) at the time of upload. The four fields are: Description, Source; Date; Author; Permission.

One reason for using the template is related to managing the images and maintenance regarding the lack of attribution details. Here's a few examples:


 * Federation of Family History Societies logo image (see File:FFHS-link.gif). This image is missing the author and the maintenance category "Images lacking an author" is automatically added to the page. This helps our Maintenance Support team identify images that need additional details added to the page.
 * The Video-x-generic.png (see File:Video-x-generic.png) file has details in all four fields. Therefore, no maintenance category was automatically added to the page.
 * Bournemouth 01.jpg (see File:Bournemouth 01.jpg) is another example of an image that has all details related to attribution provided... and results in not having a maintenance category added to the page.
 * The Openmohaa icon.png image (see File:Openmohaa icon.png) is missing the description and therefore the page has the category "Images lacking a description".
 * The Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society Logo.png file (see File:Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society Logo.png) is another example of an image that has provided all attribution details asked for in the template. The source for this image mentions that Dorothy Oksner submitted the image for use in the Wiki in behalf of the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society. The source section is where the person who submitted the file for approval would be listed. I'd also suggest linking their name to their wiki user page.

When the template is used on every image page, then the maintenance categories would be added to the page if needed. Only then would it be easy to see a list of all images that do not have descriptions, or are lacking an author. If you visit both of these category pages today you will only see a few pages listed. That's because the Information template has not yet been adopted into the process for submitting and approving images for the wiki.

Since there is a concern about attributing the image to the person who submitted it for approval, perhaps we need to modify the template so that when the "Source" field is blank, the category "Images lacking a source" will be added to the page.


 * See Wikipedia's help article about the "File" page for more details.

--Fran 20:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Fran, there was a category built into the template for those lacking sources, it is Category:Files with unknown source. There are now a couple of files in this category which is now set-up. --Steve 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to check for duplicates
There was a discussion in the Forum about the length of time to expect for processing image upload requests. The discussion also included the suggestion that there is a need to check for duplicates before images are uploaded. See the Forum thread for details.


 * When a duplicate image is identified it can be tagged with the the duplicate template followed by the name of the duplicate file that should be kept. e.g. . --Steve 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)