This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have to say I don't like this form - I'm sure it's far more effective when you don't know which templates etc you're supposed to be using - however when you do it just makes the whole process much slower. It would be good, for those users who aren't too keen on this approach, to be able to set the default to, say, the "plain form" if desired. Is this at all possible? Thanks, Nik the stoned 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=foo.jpg
part of the URL when clicking on the "plain form" link in the navbox at the bottom...
Nik
the
stoned
17:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=
parameters get passed in from somewhere?
Fut.Perf.
☼
17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=
from the originally-clicked-filelink. To be honest I don't think I've ever used
Wikipedia:Upload/old - I'm not even sure I've seen it before.
Nik
the
stoned
10:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: It seems some changes in the built-in MediaWiki handling of image redlinks are being brought in again with MediaWiki v.1.20, which was deployed on Commons today. Not quite sure yet how it will affect the situation here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When using the previous form, if I selected that the file was a company logo, necessary portions of the rationale would be completed with language to satisfy NFCC #2 and other NFCC requirements. This form only has a couple fields that I can fill in and neither of them enter anything for Author or copyright holder info, explaining why it is not replaceable or respect for commercial opportunities sections. Why did we have to fix something that was not broken? And can I please have my old form back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As a new user i was having so much trouble with pictures as the admins kept deleting it for one reason or another (although it was my own work). The new upload wizard really gives you the assurance that you've done things right and it just worked! Thanks...lets just hope a trigger happy admin doesn't delete it again for some reason i cannot understand and then block me from uploading it again!!! (yes I've suffered allot as a new user!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immi2k ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
When users upload files using the file upload wizard, the file information pages often (always?) end with the word "null", for example here. Is this a bug somewhere in the wizard? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I see a lot of files uploaded using the wizard showing someone else's work and tagged with "Evidence: Will be provided on request." in the permission field in {{ Information}}. This is obviously not the right way to do; permission should be sent to OTRS, and yesterday I searched for files containing those words on Wikipedia and Commons, resulting in a large number of files being tagged as "no evidence of permission." Example here and lots of examples here and here. This seems to originate from the upload wizard (step 3: "This is a free work," "This file was given to me by its owner," "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so"). This option seems to confuse users, so I assume that something should be done here. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Stefan2 ( talk) 09:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
All the info you needed under the old system was the article in question and the source. This asks for a lot more information, and makes a lot of it required.
It also means that, if someone uploads a logo with the new system, any curator like myself has to go through and remove the extra information that is often times worse than the default. So both the uploader and the maintenance people have to do more work.
I still don't understand what was wrong with asking what type of image you were uploading before presenting any fields to fill out. — trlkly 05:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. How much research has been done into integrating this type of improved upload functionality into MediaWiki? Or alternately using an extension such as UploadWizard?
I appreciate all the effort you've put into this, but frankly this is a giant hack and generally is quite amateurish. I would like as much as anyone to have a better upload process (and as a result, better uploads), but I do not believe for a moment that this should be the default upload form currently. It is very poorly integrated with MediaWiki because of it's hackish nature and we can and we must do better. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
173.77.183.225 (
talk)
17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This wizard would be more useful if it had a section where categories common to all the images in the batch being uploaded could be entered just once. Uploading several views of the same subject gets very tedious now. (You can cut and paste descriptions and titles, but categories must be done one at a time.)
I'd also like a checkbox to suppress geocoding, say when the image is one I took at home.
Here's the bug: when I upload photos taken with my iPhone 4S (iOS 5.1) the altitude information shows as a fraction (e.g. 24/1), which gets reported as an error when I try to finish the upload. -- agr ( talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
A problem was reported at Wikipedia:Help desk#Heroes Welcome UK. A user tried to upload a fair use image for use in Heroes Welcome UK and got the message: "This is a disambiguation page! The page Heroes Welcome UK is not a real article, but a disambiguation page pointing to a number of other pages. Please check and enter the exact title of the actual target article you meant."
MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js looks for categories with "disambiguation" in the name. Heroes Welcome UK belongs to the hidden category Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation from January 2012. This does not imply it is a disambiguation page but it fools the script. PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that some people using the upload wizard tag images as being under Crown Copyright although I fail to see why this would be the case, for example here. I've seen it at many other places too. Is there something in the upload wizard which might confuse users, causing them to select a wrong licence tag? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The file which I eventually uploaded was File:Consent_of_the_Networked_book_cover.jpg. I was in Google Chrome and nothing unusual happened. It is a copyrighted book cover. When I got to the end and hit "upload" it took me to another page and said that the upload failed for lack of a token. I went back and repeated the process and it told me the same thing. It was bothersome because I had to complete the form again. I decided to try in Firefox doing the same thing and it worked properly. I have no problem now, but there is a bug somewhere here. I like this new upload system when it works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
mw.user.tokens.get('editToken')
to retrieve the edit token, and I can't think of any reason this should work differently across browsers. Also, if it was a general bug, I'd expect to have seen more complaints from other Chrome users earlier. Maybe it was just a one-off error in your browser? I've seen occasional unexpected browser errors about "loss of session data" when editing normally, and this might be basically the same thing. Could you perhaps give it another try some other time, to see if this is reproducible?
Fut.Perf.
☼
21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
How did this get uploaded with a completely blank description page? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What kind of license is a picture that isnt copyrighted, and it's author is unknown? Maxwell the scribblenaut ( talk) 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I happened to notice this discussion at the Italian Wikipedia. A user has proposed importing an upload wizard to the Italian Wikipedia. The discussion might interest readers of this talk page. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the pointer to Commons is too low down. People are being pointed to Commons after they have entered an image description. This is bad, since most will think "why should I? I've already typed in the info", and those that do decide to go onto Commons will discover that the information they typed is not transferred to the Commons upload form.
To alleviate this problem, I suggest either:
The backlog of free files tagged for transfer to Commons is growing, and (for the most part) needlessly so. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
What could be done to alleviate the issue TT+O mentioned, relatively easily, is to move the image description field out of "step 2" and integrate it with the rest of the detailed questionnaires under "step 3". Exchanging the whole of step 2 and step 3 would have disadvantages in many ways and would necessity a very thorough change of design. As for the general issue of sending people to Commons, those editors who wish to have their input preserved can also choose to have it sent to Commons at the end of Step 3. This is done by about half of all uploaders who have that option (see commons:Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard). Adding to that the unknown number of people who skip to Commons at the beginning of Step 3 or right at the start, the wizard's performance at sending people to Commons is not at all bad.
However, a look at that tracking category on Commons also reveals that sending stuff to Commons has a serious downside. There are still a very large number of copyvios and other bad items among those uploads, and Commons is considerably less efficient at filtering them out than we are here. This makes me tend towards the view that the whole "press people to send all free stuff to Commons" idea may be counterproductive, at least for very new users. We should be glad if new users upload stuff here, because it makes it far easier to keep track of them, filter out the bad apples and recognize links between bad image uploads and bad editing in other areas.
As for the other suggestion, of disallowing free local uploads through the wizard completely and sending such candidates back to the old Special:Upload form, I believe that would be the worst possible step to take – it would negate all the advantages the wizard has brought in terms of enforcing proper descriptions and of detecting bad uploads, and would throw us back into a situation where most files were uploaded with no information at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
File:50 caliber bullet headstamp 1943.jpg was uploaded in March without any file information page. I've now created one by listing {{ shadowsCommons}} and {{ di-no license}}, but what exactly happened here? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tried probably about 7 or 8 times now, but all with the same result. After filling out all the information, I try clicking the Upload Locally or the Upload to Commons, but there is no response. I have tried in both Firefox and in Chrome. I've cleared the cache, full reload, different computers, I've entered the information enough times I have the information memorized, but whenever I click the upload button, the page sits there with no response, no net activity. :( Trying to upload expired copyright, public domain image (published 1890 in NY, USA; author died 1910). I'm not sure what is wrong, I've uploaded image files before without any kind of issue. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest adding some text to this wizard's description such as: "Where possible please upload media to Wikimedia Commons. Images should be uploaded here only if they are not suitable for Commons, but are acceptable for the English wikipedia, such as fair use images."-- agr ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Any reason why there's only about eight options, instead of the thirty or so actual options? Mangoe ( talk) 18:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Trying to upload the official NEIGRIHMS logo. Please approve request
Pl.sahkhar ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears when this wizard tries to upload to Commons it successfully sends the correct licensing and information tags, but doesn't send the location of the image! This means users have to virtually complete the form all over again on Commons, which would be really frustrating for noobs. Any way we can fix this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 22:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting nagged by various people because, in getting US Gov images off of their websites, I do exactly what the text says at that point: I put the url of the image in, because that's the "exact source". What I'm told, by implication, is that this step actually requires two urls: one for the image itself, and one for a referencing page. I'm told that the former is insufficient, and the latter is also insufficient because the websites I'm working with now have lots of images on the same page. The form needs to handle this more gracefully, or at least needs accurate instructions (but I would prefer grace). Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
would like if you can move logo or a hint on how to go about.-- Kevo1cat ( talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
There is room to enter the license, however for files on commons this is useless busywork, would it be an improvement if the Wozzard checked the license and entered the details itself, rather than have users go and find the information from commons and enter it themselves ? I'm not demanding it be done, I just want to know do people think this would be a helpful function.
For collage images, there are complex license compatibility rules, which are harder to work out than making the image itself, I just do not bother checking very much as it's too hard to understand and too poorly documented. When the files are all from commons, having the option of multiple fields to enter sources, and then having the wozzard check the licenses of those files and enter the information, warning of problems, would mean the image can be fixed at the time rather than discarded later. This would help many artists I believe. Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Any chance we could get an update that includes as smooth an upload to Commons as it does locally? It's a little annoying to have to go through another upload page, even if it is automatically filled in... -- Nathan2055 talk 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I tried to upload two small jpgs (82 KB and 320 KB) and after clicking upload the wheels just keep going round and round and the page still says "Uploading..." . I deleted the second larger image in hopes this would speed things up, but the image has been uploading for about two hours. I'm using a Safari browser. What could be keeping my image from uploading? Thanks! -- Alibasye ( talk) 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME - ITS STARTING TO FRUSTRATE THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!
I complete everything, press upload NOTHING happens!!?? Im trying to upload an organizations logo. image spec etc all good. Someone rescue me please!
☻Ÿ 22:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti ( talk • contribs)
Is there a way the Commons can get a box on their own (or at least something bigger than what they have now)? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The wizard sometimes inserts {{ other}} in the Licensing section without any parameters. Do you know why this happens? See Special:PermanentLink/497379019 for an example of this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not clear from the help associated with the upload wizard, what is the copyright status of graphs made by the uploader from data that has been transcribed into a spreadsheet by the uploader from tabulated data created and previously published by others. Is the graph then 'entirely my own work' or 'fair use of copyrighted material'. Could this clarification be added please. Stringybark ( talk) 00:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Further, can Wikipedia clarify the copyright situation as above, but with regard to these more detailed queries:
Stringybark ( talk) 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Im Pressing upload upload and NOTHING!!!?? - Does this work?? I need to load some pictures on my article?? Getting fustrated. ☻Ÿ 23:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti ( talk • contribs)
Possible or not? I can't see an option for multiple free files to be uploaded at once. Thanks Jenova 20 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Presently the wording for one of the free use options is: "This file is from a free published source.: I took it from a website or other published source, where its author has explicitly placed it under a free license, allowing free re-use by anybody." While technically right, based on a conversation at WT:MCQ, the concept of re-use should be spelled out to explain it is both re-use in publication, and re-use within derivative works, with or without attribution. That way we know its two requires that should be met; many sites allow the first but not the second, but just saying "re-use" leaves it vague. -- MASEM ( t) 23:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Complicated, probably intimidating for a new editor, but as an experienced editor I must say I found it extremely useful. Good stuff! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I just rea a comment at Wikipedia:Help Project/June 2012 survey (Comment was: "I wish Wikipedia had a review section for pictures BEFORE they are uploaded, just like we have for new articles") and I think think this is a good idea, as an opt in "Please someone review my uploaded image" option. The image would have to be first uploaded for it to be reviewed. I would watchwish a page where requests for reviews are made. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason I cannot upload from an iPhone? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say what a treat it was to use this image uploader! It's not the first time I've tried to upload a simple image - in this case a logo - to wikipedia. And typically, it takes days to figure out all the various things. This uploader was designed extremely well for someone (like me) who's not in IT, and who's not here 24/7. Whomever came up with it should get a raise! :D -- Charlie Inks ( talk) 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I filled in all the boxes to upload a website screenshot and the final upload box never became available for me to click. I filled in everything and checked twice. I wish it would declare what is wrong if it does not like my work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, i want to update the information so kindly provide me with the edit request.
Regards krishna Pune
Krishnavyukta ( talk) 09:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
<label for="id-of-control">
.<iframe>
has a message-event that allows cross-site-scripting. A working example was developed by
de:User:Schnark in
de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/screenshot.js (The counter part that has to be loaded at Commons (in the iframe) is at
de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/ajaxProxy.js). There should be an easier way in-between for files so they don't need to be JSON encoded (
posted as
File object), at least in some browsers.Oh, why I am actually here? It's because I had a glad look at commons:Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard and found that half the files are either copyvios or out of project scope and attempted to find the reason.
I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so. is useless if it just places {{ subst:OP}} on the pages like the option The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself.
If one of the OTRS-options was chosen, and no ticket id was inserted, I think no license should be added. Often it turns out that the uploader did not contact the copyright holder, the copyright holder did not agree publishing under a free license or that they want a more restrictive one. It's unfortunate for re-users if they pick-up the wrong license.
All in all it's a useful tool and a logical user interface. Thanks for your work. -- Rillke ( talk) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
if ('Commons:AjaxProxPage' === mw.config.get('wgPageName')) { importScript('MediaWiki:UploadProxy.js') }
)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have to say I don't like this form - I'm sure it's far more effective when you don't know which templates etc you're supposed to be using - however when you do it just makes the whole process much slower. It would be good, for those users who aren't too keen on this approach, to be able to set the default to, say, the "plain form" if desired. Is this at all possible? Thanks, Nik the stoned 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=foo.jpg
part of the URL when clicking on the "plain form" link in the navbox at the bottom...
Nik
the
stoned
17:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=
parameters get passed in from somewhere?
Fut.Perf.
☼
17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
?wpDestFile=
from the originally-clicked-filelink. To be honest I don't think I've ever used
Wikipedia:Upload/old - I'm not even sure I've seen it before.
Nik
the
stoned
10:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: It seems some changes in the built-in MediaWiki handling of image redlinks are being brought in again with MediaWiki v.1.20, which was deployed on Commons today. Not quite sure yet how it will affect the situation here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When using the previous form, if I selected that the file was a company logo, necessary portions of the rationale would be completed with language to satisfy NFCC #2 and other NFCC requirements. This form only has a couple fields that I can fill in and neither of them enter anything for Author or copyright holder info, explaining why it is not replaceable or respect for commercial opportunities sections. Why did we have to fix something that was not broken? And can I please have my old form back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As a new user i was having so much trouble with pictures as the admins kept deleting it for one reason or another (although it was my own work). The new upload wizard really gives you the assurance that you've done things right and it just worked! Thanks...lets just hope a trigger happy admin doesn't delete it again for some reason i cannot understand and then block me from uploading it again!!! (yes I've suffered allot as a new user!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immi2k ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
When users upload files using the file upload wizard, the file information pages often (always?) end with the word "null", for example here. Is this a bug somewhere in the wizard? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I see a lot of files uploaded using the wizard showing someone else's work and tagged with "Evidence: Will be provided on request." in the permission field in {{ Information}}. This is obviously not the right way to do; permission should be sent to OTRS, and yesterday I searched for files containing those words on Wikipedia and Commons, resulting in a large number of files being tagged as "no evidence of permission." Example here and lots of examples here and here. This seems to originate from the upload wizard (step 3: "This is a free work," "This file was given to me by its owner," "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so"). This option seems to confuse users, so I assume that something should be done here. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Stefan2 ( talk) 09:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
All the info you needed under the old system was the article in question and the source. This asks for a lot more information, and makes a lot of it required.
It also means that, if someone uploads a logo with the new system, any curator like myself has to go through and remove the extra information that is often times worse than the default. So both the uploader and the maintenance people have to do more work.
I still don't understand what was wrong with asking what type of image you were uploading before presenting any fields to fill out. — trlkly 05:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. How much research has been done into integrating this type of improved upload functionality into MediaWiki? Or alternately using an extension such as UploadWizard?
I appreciate all the effort you've put into this, but frankly this is a giant hack and generally is quite amateurish. I would like as much as anyone to have a better upload process (and as a result, better uploads), but I do not believe for a moment that this should be the default upload form currently. It is very poorly integrated with MediaWiki because of it's hackish nature and we can and we must do better. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
173.77.183.225 (
talk)
17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This wizard would be more useful if it had a section where categories common to all the images in the batch being uploaded could be entered just once. Uploading several views of the same subject gets very tedious now. (You can cut and paste descriptions and titles, but categories must be done one at a time.)
I'd also like a checkbox to suppress geocoding, say when the image is one I took at home.
Here's the bug: when I upload photos taken with my iPhone 4S (iOS 5.1) the altitude information shows as a fraction (e.g. 24/1), which gets reported as an error when I try to finish the upload. -- agr ( talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
A problem was reported at Wikipedia:Help desk#Heroes Welcome UK. A user tried to upload a fair use image for use in Heroes Welcome UK and got the message: "This is a disambiguation page! The page Heroes Welcome UK is not a real article, but a disambiguation page pointing to a number of other pages. Please check and enter the exact title of the actual target article you meant."
MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js looks for categories with "disambiguation" in the name. Heroes Welcome UK belongs to the hidden category Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation from January 2012. This does not imply it is a disambiguation page but it fools the script. PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that some people using the upload wizard tag images as being under Crown Copyright although I fail to see why this would be the case, for example here. I've seen it at many other places too. Is there something in the upload wizard which might confuse users, causing them to select a wrong licence tag? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The file which I eventually uploaded was File:Consent_of_the_Networked_book_cover.jpg. I was in Google Chrome and nothing unusual happened. It is a copyrighted book cover. When I got to the end and hit "upload" it took me to another page and said that the upload failed for lack of a token. I went back and repeated the process and it told me the same thing. It was bothersome because I had to complete the form again. I decided to try in Firefox doing the same thing and it worked properly. I have no problem now, but there is a bug somewhere here. I like this new upload system when it works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
mw.user.tokens.get('editToken')
to retrieve the edit token, and I can't think of any reason this should work differently across browsers. Also, if it was a general bug, I'd expect to have seen more complaints from other Chrome users earlier. Maybe it was just a one-off error in your browser? I've seen occasional unexpected browser errors about "loss of session data" when editing normally, and this might be basically the same thing. Could you perhaps give it another try some other time, to see if this is reproducible?
Fut.Perf.
☼
21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
How did this get uploaded with a completely blank description page? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What kind of license is a picture that isnt copyrighted, and it's author is unknown? Maxwell the scribblenaut ( talk) 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I happened to notice this discussion at the Italian Wikipedia. A user has proposed importing an upload wizard to the Italian Wikipedia. The discussion might interest readers of this talk page. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the pointer to Commons is too low down. People are being pointed to Commons after they have entered an image description. This is bad, since most will think "why should I? I've already typed in the info", and those that do decide to go onto Commons will discover that the information they typed is not transferred to the Commons upload form.
To alleviate this problem, I suggest either:
The backlog of free files tagged for transfer to Commons is growing, and (for the most part) needlessly so. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
What could be done to alleviate the issue TT+O mentioned, relatively easily, is to move the image description field out of "step 2" and integrate it with the rest of the detailed questionnaires under "step 3". Exchanging the whole of step 2 and step 3 would have disadvantages in many ways and would necessity a very thorough change of design. As for the general issue of sending people to Commons, those editors who wish to have their input preserved can also choose to have it sent to Commons at the end of Step 3. This is done by about half of all uploaders who have that option (see commons:Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard). Adding to that the unknown number of people who skip to Commons at the beginning of Step 3 or right at the start, the wizard's performance at sending people to Commons is not at all bad.
However, a look at that tracking category on Commons also reveals that sending stuff to Commons has a serious downside. There are still a very large number of copyvios and other bad items among those uploads, and Commons is considerably less efficient at filtering them out than we are here. This makes me tend towards the view that the whole "press people to send all free stuff to Commons" idea may be counterproductive, at least for very new users. We should be glad if new users upload stuff here, because it makes it far easier to keep track of them, filter out the bad apples and recognize links between bad image uploads and bad editing in other areas.
As for the other suggestion, of disallowing free local uploads through the wizard completely and sending such candidates back to the old Special:Upload form, I believe that would be the worst possible step to take – it would negate all the advantages the wizard has brought in terms of enforcing proper descriptions and of detecting bad uploads, and would throw us back into a situation where most files were uploaded with no information at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
File:50 caliber bullet headstamp 1943.jpg was uploaded in March without any file information page. I've now created one by listing {{ shadowsCommons}} and {{ di-no license}}, but what exactly happened here? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tried probably about 7 or 8 times now, but all with the same result. After filling out all the information, I try clicking the Upload Locally or the Upload to Commons, but there is no response. I have tried in both Firefox and in Chrome. I've cleared the cache, full reload, different computers, I've entered the information enough times I have the information memorized, but whenever I click the upload button, the page sits there with no response, no net activity. :( Trying to upload expired copyright, public domain image (published 1890 in NY, USA; author died 1910). I'm not sure what is wrong, I've uploaded image files before without any kind of issue. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest adding some text to this wizard's description such as: "Where possible please upload media to Wikimedia Commons. Images should be uploaded here only if they are not suitable for Commons, but are acceptable for the English wikipedia, such as fair use images."-- agr ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Any reason why there's only about eight options, instead of the thirty or so actual options? Mangoe ( talk) 18:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Trying to upload the official NEIGRIHMS logo. Please approve request
Pl.sahkhar ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears when this wizard tries to upload to Commons it successfully sends the correct licensing and information tags, but doesn't send the location of the image! This means users have to virtually complete the form all over again on Commons, which would be really frustrating for noobs. Any way we can fix this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 22:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting nagged by various people because, in getting US Gov images off of their websites, I do exactly what the text says at that point: I put the url of the image in, because that's the "exact source". What I'm told, by implication, is that this step actually requires two urls: one for the image itself, and one for a referencing page. I'm told that the former is insufficient, and the latter is also insufficient because the websites I'm working with now have lots of images on the same page. The form needs to handle this more gracefully, or at least needs accurate instructions (but I would prefer grace). Mangoe ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
would like if you can move logo or a hint on how to go about.-- Kevo1cat ( talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
There is room to enter the license, however for files on commons this is useless busywork, would it be an improvement if the Wozzard checked the license and entered the details itself, rather than have users go and find the information from commons and enter it themselves ? I'm not demanding it be done, I just want to know do people think this would be a helpful function.
For collage images, there are complex license compatibility rules, which are harder to work out than making the image itself, I just do not bother checking very much as it's too hard to understand and too poorly documented. When the files are all from commons, having the option of multiple fields to enter sources, and then having the wozzard check the licenses of those files and enter the information, warning of problems, would mean the image can be fixed at the time rather than discarded later. This would help many artists I believe. Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Any chance we could get an update that includes as smooth an upload to Commons as it does locally? It's a little annoying to have to go through another upload page, even if it is automatically filled in... -- Nathan2055 talk 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I tried to upload two small jpgs (82 KB and 320 KB) and after clicking upload the wheels just keep going round and round and the page still says "Uploading..." . I deleted the second larger image in hopes this would speed things up, but the image has been uploading for about two hours. I'm using a Safari browser. What could be keeping my image from uploading? Thanks! -- Alibasye ( talk) 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME - ITS STARTING TO FRUSTRATE THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!
I complete everything, press upload NOTHING happens!!?? Im trying to upload an organizations logo. image spec etc all good. Someone rescue me please!
☻Ÿ 22:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti ( talk • contribs)
Is there a way the Commons can get a box on their own (or at least something bigger than what they have now)? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The wizard sometimes inserts {{ other}} in the Licensing section without any parameters. Do you know why this happens? See Special:PermanentLink/497379019 for an example of this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not clear from the help associated with the upload wizard, what is the copyright status of graphs made by the uploader from data that has been transcribed into a spreadsheet by the uploader from tabulated data created and previously published by others. Is the graph then 'entirely my own work' or 'fair use of copyrighted material'. Could this clarification be added please. Stringybark ( talk) 00:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Further, can Wikipedia clarify the copyright situation as above, but with regard to these more detailed queries:
Stringybark ( talk) 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Im Pressing upload upload and NOTHING!!!?? - Does this work?? I need to load some pictures on my article?? Getting fustrated. ☻Ÿ 23:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti ( talk • contribs)
Possible or not? I can't see an option for multiple free files to be uploaded at once. Thanks Jenova 20 23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Presently the wording for one of the free use options is: "This file is from a free published source.: I took it from a website or other published source, where its author has explicitly placed it under a free license, allowing free re-use by anybody." While technically right, based on a conversation at WT:MCQ, the concept of re-use should be spelled out to explain it is both re-use in publication, and re-use within derivative works, with or without attribution. That way we know its two requires that should be met; many sites allow the first but not the second, but just saying "re-use" leaves it vague. -- MASEM ( t) 23:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Complicated, probably intimidating for a new editor, but as an experienced editor I must say I found it extremely useful. Good stuff! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I just rea a comment at Wikipedia:Help Project/June 2012 survey (Comment was: "I wish Wikipedia had a review section for pictures BEFORE they are uploaded, just like we have for new articles") and I think think this is a good idea, as an opt in "Please someone review my uploaded image" option. The image would have to be first uploaded for it to be reviewed. I would watchwish a page where requests for reviews are made. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason I cannot upload from an iPhone? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say what a treat it was to use this image uploader! It's not the first time I've tried to upload a simple image - in this case a logo - to wikipedia. And typically, it takes days to figure out all the various things. This uploader was designed extremely well for someone (like me) who's not in IT, and who's not here 24/7. Whomever came up with it should get a raise! :D -- Charlie Inks ( talk) 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I filled in all the boxes to upload a website screenshot and the final upload box never became available for me to click. I filled in everything and checked twice. I wish it would declare what is wrong if it does not like my work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, i want to update the information so kindly provide me with the edit request.
Regards krishna Pune
Krishnavyukta ( talk) 09:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
<label for="id-of-control">
.<iframe>
has a message-event that allows cross-site-scripting. A working example was developed by
de:User:Schnark in
de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/screenshot.js (The counter part that has to be loaded at Commons (in the iframe) is at
de:Benutzer:Schnark/js/ajaxProxy.js). There should be an easier way in-between for files so they don't need to be JSON encoded (
posted as
File object), at least in some browsers.Oh, why I am actually here? It's because I had a glad look at commons:Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard and found that half the files are either copyvios or out of project scope and attempted to find the reason.
I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so. is useless if it just places {{ subst:OP}} on the pages like the option The license hasn't yet been forwarded, but I will do so shortly or ask the owner to send it himself.
If one of the OTRS-options was chosen, and no ticket id was inserted, I think no license should be added. Often it turns out that the uploader did not contact the copyright holder, the copyright holder did not agree publishing under a free license or that they want a more restrictive one. It's unfortunate for re-users if they pick-up the wrong license.
All in all it's a useful tool and a logical user interface. Thanks for your work. -- Rillke ( talk) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
if ('Commons:AjaxProxPage' === mw.config.get('wgPageName')) { importScript('MediaWiki:UploadProxy.js') }
)