Though in principal I agree, hiding elements in general causes confusion... "where did this option go".

Adding guillom to CC, since he might have an opinion on this from the Multimedia usability project side.

Derk-Jan is right, hiding it completely from the description page of a protected image would probably be confusing. I do understand Liangent's rationale though.

A simple fix could be to replace the link for protected images by a message saying the file is protected, and linking to the upload page *without* prefilling the destination name (that way, the file won't be replaced). It would add clutter to the page, but we have plans to revamp it in the medium term anyway.

Bryan.TongMinh wrote:

I would just not link to the upload page at all and replace the message by "You need to be an XY to be able to upload a new version of this file".

Bryan.TongMinh wrote:

On the other hand, we don't show the link for users are not allowed to reupload at all.

I'm kind of shocked that this bug is still unresolved. This is a pretty awful user experience situation currently. Not only do we offer a "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file description page of a protected file, the upload form is completely unaffected by the file's protection. An unprivileged user will be shown a seemingly working file upload form and only after filling out and submitting the form does the user learn that the file is protected from re-uploads.

This should be a trivial fix. Marking this bug as "easy" and shifting around some of its classification.

Gerrit change 19379

(In reply to comment #6)

Gerrit change #19379

Merged