MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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.

Less is more

I removed alot of creeping featurism from the page, keep it short people! Nobody wants to read half a page of text just to upload a file. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Change

Hi. Currently it says "If you do not provide a suitable license information, your image will be deleted". IMO, a superior phrase would be to first point out what "free license" means (unrestricted commercial and derivatory works), and then to say "a free license will be assumed". I think we should assume free license of all pictures the users have taken themselves, instead of deleting them. If they didn't read the obvious message, it is their problem. / Fred Chess 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, which free license could we assume? Unless the copyright holder explicitly releases their work under a particular free license, it hasn't actually been released under any free license, so it isn't free. User:dbenbenn 09:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should be sufficient.
"By submitting an image you have taken themselves, you agree to license it under a free license" might be legally binding? Some people don't realize they must speicifcally tag an image. It is also easier to keep then to delete images.
But what I actually think should be altered immediately, is a description of free license. (Unrestricted commercial and derivatory works). It is not obvious to everyone.
Fred Chess 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the statement "All files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons ... must be available under a free license" could be considered legally binding. And the words "free license" are linked to Commons:Licensing, which explains in great detail what licenses are allowed. User:dbenbenn 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"except for files copyrighted by Wikimedia" makes little sense

this sentence is rather pointless. The few times this is applicable, the users should know themselves. For 99% of users, it makes little sense. / Fred Chess 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I removed it Ævar reverted me. User:dbenbenn 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


New look

I like it. It's actually useful rather than repeating a copyright warning ten times. Nice work Arnomane (I haven't checked the page history but I'm sure it's your work :)) pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. Good job, Arnomane! User:dbenbenn 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yes it was my work ;-) (although there was some inspiration on my talk page about it) and I think as well if we repeat the copyright warning again and again in a somewhat agressive manner people will simply skip reading it. That's why it now contains in large positive hints how to do everything right and only one clear warning meassage in a typographical better way than before. Another aim was and is to have the upload dialog displayed at one screen page in order to improve usability (as you will get the whole page with one view and the scroll bars of the page are gone and save further space; on my screen it fits almost now). Currently I am thinking what to do with the special characters bar on bottom (MediaWiki:Edittools; I think we don't need them at upload form as making any description at all is far more important). See also my bugzilla entry at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5610 for more details abou that and also Commons:Help_page_maintenance/Wikimedia_Commons_interface#MediaWiki:Edittools for a further idea I found in de.wikipedia how to improve the MediaWiki:Edittools in general and save screen space at the same time. Arnomane 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nyeh... I wouldn't be so concerned about that. It is too hard to guess about screen size (on my screen it would still be more than one page even without that box). But we can concentrate on making sure the information we do provide is useful and usable. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts regarding what info is given in the upload form. While I do realise that too much info will make people skip reading it and simply scroll down and browse their HDDs for content to upload, I'd still like to see some minor additions.
1. reinstate the 'no-nonsense filename, please' bit, this in order to further minimize DSC_1234.JPGs and similar (also not so obvious ones like images beginning with a date, to many users these will be nothing but a nonsense string of numbers taken into account the multitude of ways to write a date).
2. a notice that multiple image sizes are not needed as they can be freely downscaled in articles, that one (large) version will suffice.
Finally a third point, while it perhaps would not fit in the upload form, perhaps some policy should be formed on what to do with series of images depicting essentially the same thing (i.e. a person would photograph view XYZ gradually zooming in or with slightly varying ambient light at dusk etc. and then upload these as a series). Certainly such images are useful in some instances, like articles on focal length (though these would appear to have dedicated examples already). While non of these are as urgent as copyright violations, I'd hope that additions such as these would decrease the amount of work needed to clean up after a hasty upload. And yes, all this in included in the in-depth howto's, yet (apparently) many uploaders don't read the guides. Scoo 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UT
No We can't put every single information into that dialog field. People will skip large text simply. I made very good help pages and did link them with clear words in the upload dialog. Arnomane 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the scaling thing. This is no major issue. Most people are aware of scaling in Mediawiki and don't upload different sizes (but they do often upload a smaller version that exists because they take previews out of laziness). Arnomane 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have made a new section for my comments, they were not meant as critique of the excellent help pages. My idea was mainly to reduce the amount of post-upload cleaning & moving that I can imagine is being done, while anyone may edit image descriptions and adding categories and whatnot, it would be easier if the file was properly named to begin with. Scoo 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we basically aim at the same thing. The problem is the balance between two things: Human psychology as larger texts that are displayed along side the task you want to perform like a file upload get ignored and the need for accurate hints so that people have in theory all information how to avoid certain things. So in order to maximize "good" behavior at upload there is need for a compromise between lenght and accuracy (The upload dialogs in Wikipedia I have seen for example do not reflect this and many people simply skip the large texts provided there). A good solution is thus using short sentences with linked keywords. But for sure I am open (and I guess the other interested admins as well) to any idea how to bring all these things together and improve the overall upload quality on average further. Arnomane 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

translations

Can someone please explain me how i can translate this into dutch? The dutch uploadtext now is crap (just red links, a lot of ununderstandable text etc :S)! Effeietsanders 12:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a translation, you can leave it at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/nl and someone will install it at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/nl. User:dbenbenn 17:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why complicate matters

Would it be so impossible to use a standard upload form as one millions of website?

There would be one textbox for "author" , one textbox for creator, one for date, one for description, and so forth.

Fred Chess 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean instead of using the raw source of {{Information}}, we would have textboxes into which we could write description, date, author, which would upon saving be converted to a filled-out {{Information}}? That would require reprogramming of the upload form itself, although from a usability standpoint, it would be nice. —UED77 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There were many good proposals for exactly that problem before and there is also some code existing. But MediaWiki devs have their own priority list. That's why I introduced the Template:Information quite some time ago as a temporarily workaround but it seems that we will have to live with it at least one further year (for example I don't believe in single site login until I do not see it in action). :-( Arnomane 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
ACK. We cannot get them to attend to urgent matters (see COM:VP), let alone mere niceties!! pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what it is on VP you want them to attend to, but requests get much quicker attention if they're raised on the Bugzilla tracker rather than individual projects, with perhaps an email to wikitech-l or to one of the devs as a reminder. Essjay (TalkConnect) 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am just disappointed by the lack of understanding of some developers. We use bugzilla a lot. For example I needed one month with constant hanging around on IRC in order to get a 5 minute serverside I18n configuration issue fixed, which was really important for Commons being percieved as true multilingual. This is not the way it works ideally. For sure there are many other projects that urgently need some features as well. But until you get a self written patch accepted you need more than average patience (and also a high frustration level: "We don't apply it maybe some outside project want to use it..."). And Pfctdayelise was for example refering to some issues which are in bugzilla and we urgently want to get fixed (for example: overwrite of own uploads from new users, see VP and Help desk for the numerous requests of people). Another important fix would be upload block (let us call it half-block) of people. That way we could force unwilling people more improving their image descriptions first to any further upload... So yes I am frustrated and not that keen on wasting my time to often in communication with them. Arnomane 07:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I share the frustration at the slow response on many issues, I was just pointing out that a lot of proposals are made on the individual projects, and never make it to bugzilla; the result is, the devs never see them, because they're not able to check each individual project for proposals. A suprising number of contributors aren't even aware that bugzilla exists. On the frustration side, I know this well; it took months to get bot flagging coded as a bureaucrat task, and it was finally implemented over a month after Jimbo & the Board ordered it done. (I even went as far as offering up a quick hack of a Makebot interface, enough to get it going while they worked on what they eventually wanted.) Such is the case with most feature requests; until someone starts screaming publicly that nothing is getting done, nothing gets done. Essjay (TalkConnect) 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is really frustrating but OTOH there are simply not enough developers. I have votes for no less than 44 specific bugs, of which
  • around 20 relate to images
  • about 5 relate to categories
  • about 5 relate to i18n
These are the ones I consider really vital:
  1. Cannot rename/move images and other media files
  2. Image upload replacements should create watchlist entry
  3. "File links" on the commons should list links from other Wikimedia wikis (ie CheckUsage)
  4. Undeletion of images
  5. Automatic category redirects (esp for i18n)
  6. PATCH: auto-detect interface language for anonymous users (despite the patch, they refuse to even try it)
  7. Ability to block users from uploading files only
  8. New users are not allowed to replace their own uploaded files
  9. show translated titles per user language, based on interlanguage links (patch included) (Duesentrieb's attempt at i18n)
  10. Single login on all wikimedia projects. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The not enough developers problem is IMHO blame to the MediaWiki devs themselves because they favour a rather closed model (it is not that easy getting an account for submitting stuff). They should have a look at the KDE project how nicely this *huge* project works. If you provide some patches there people ask you if you want to submit them on your own the the KDE code repositories. And source code of KDE software just makes sense and is very well thought. If someone does not like a change to the repository well there is as in wikis a history and you can revert easily... Arnomane 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Discriminating text?

What is "no special characters" supposed to mean? I am not going to put into the Swedish version of this file that users should avoid the characters å ä ö .

/ Fred Chess 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only suppose this is referring to decorative characters that have no functional purpose. I suggest we replace "special characters" with "decorative elements". Deco 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
At this stage, I think we might as well keep it as it is... / Fred Chess 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Watermark warning

Although this may seem a small point, otherwise well-meaning editors have uploaded many hundreds of images that they themselves added watermarks to describing the author or license. Many of these predate Commons or our watermark policy, but many do not. The {{watermark}} template asks the author to upload a new version with no watermark, but that does us little good if it's only discovered after the original author has vanished. It would be considerably easier and result in better quality for the original uploader to simply not add the watermark than for people like me to remove them, especially in difficult cases. Additionally, there is the concern that adding watermarks is almost always done in a "dumb" way that results in generational loss to JPEGs prior to upload.

For these reasons, I suggest we add a very brief warning not to include watermarks in images. It can be added to the end of the "Give detailed information" part, something like this:

Do not include author or license information in the image itself (watermarks).

Thanks for considering this addition. Deco 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, nice suggestion, but if it were up to me I'd oppose it. It is relatively unimportant, and the more info we put in the text, the more likely people will skip on the important bits. / Fred Chess 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
ACK Fred. I am planning to overhaul the form and it would be possible to include such a warning on the 'ownwork' form. I'll keep it in mind. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
good idea.. and yet agree that if there is too much stuff much gets overlooked. Support pfctdayelise effort to rewrite/overhaul/streamline. Note that I tried (although not very hard) to get the infobox into the en:wp one without too much success so far: w:MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW watermarks are now mentioned in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I proposed the same idea elsewhere, so I would obviously support it. Quadzilla99 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Eloquence's bold redo

I like it a lot. At the risk of creeping featurism though, I did like this bit: "You want to upload files to the Wikimedia Commons? – Please read our First steps. They will help you do everything right." and would like to see something along those lines folded back in. I'm not as eloquent as Eloquence so I'll see what others think first. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. It's very clear and simple. May I make a point or two here. One might make it shorter the other longer (or not). First, I don't understand the second "freedom" with respect to copyright. Copyright doesn't protect the information but the form of the work. Second, "traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms", may be a bit misleading as we have to remember that we still work under that traditional copyright and that the majority of the works in Commons are protected by copyright. Samulili 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed a third thing. I think that we should make it clear that these freedoms must granted also for commercial use. A lot of the time people upload something and agree that their work may be "used freely in Wikipedia" or "freely except for commercial use". Samulili 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

t10n links

the translation links are kinda useless. Only logged-in users can see this page. They will see whatever version they have their preferences set to. So basically we should just instruct people to set their language preference settings. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Preview size

Does somebody knows how to change the preview size of a image ? --Makro Freak 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion logs

Currently this has a link to deleted revisions, which is useful for admins, but it doesn't have a link to deletion logs or deletion discussions, which would be useful for regular users. Could someone copy the code from en.wikipedia to add a link to the log? Night Gyr 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where's such link. Platonides 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is far too big

Folks please do not tell people at upload a long long story. I had a very reason to make the uploadtext very conscise without garrish free content icons and whatnot. And furthermore a BIG red warning is not good. A normal written red warning will be consiered way more often. Do you listen to someone shouting? No. But you listen very carfully if someone with authority is deliberately talking very quiet. This is all about psychology. Please compare the current big text to the old one, which is superior usability wise: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Uploadtext&oldid=3542668. Arnomane 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I now did rework the form however I didn't remove any real text. I just made it more compact and did remove icons, external links and the copy paste text (which is not longer needed) and re-ordered the text. Compare [1] (before) to [2] (after). However this last version by me still can be improved (and there are still things I like more in the very old version, previous to the long text). Arnomane 23:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please put the information box back in. Encouraging people to use this box to correctly characterise uploads is crucially important, it saves a lot of wasted time... I liked most of the rest of your tightening up, though, thanks for making the improvements! ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That "template" is already in the summary box automatically (except when you choose "from another Wikimedia project"). Samulili 07:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Only for people with Javascript enabled. (How many of our registered users is that? I have no idea.) But don't forget that people viewing Commons through computers unlike yours will often experience it differently. And Javascript is one of the reasons why. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know it was inserted with JavaScript. Why is it inserted with JavaScript? There shouldn't be any technical reasons for that, HTML-wise. Samulili 10:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of another way it can be inserted short of hacking the PHP? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know of such a way. Perhaps the javascript should be modified to suppress the box in the blurbage... that way non javascript users will see the box in the blurbage, and javascript users will see it right there in the entry field. Both classes of users would then see 1 box exactly... (the old pre change was one class saw one box, and one class saw 2... post change, one class sees none and one class sees 1... neither of those is ideal) I blithley speak of hacking the script to do this, without any idea whatever if it is easy or not :) ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What you say should be easy. If MediaWiki allows it we could also use the <noscript> element.
But I was surprised to learn that we actually can't control the content of the summary <textarea> via Special:Allmessages. That seems almost like a bug. Samulili 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think about the problem that the form gets prefilled by a JavaScript... However the problem is the copy paste box needs quite some screen space and is not needed for all users that have JavaScript enabled. "My" MediaWiki:Edittools.js which isn't used anylonger provides a solution (same solution as theorized by Lar) for this problem here: This Javascript works with sections that are invisible by default but can be switched visible by the Javascript. We would need in this case a text section that is visible by default and is made invisible in case JavaScript is enabled. So maybe we could adapt it. There is another even more radical idea: How about combining all special "ownwork" trick upload forms into one? Per default people that have JavaScript enabled wouldn't see anything but the content of Commons:Upload right at the Special:Upload page and after clicking the appropriate (internal) links the Javascript does some magic and shows the according upload form? That way we'd manage again one upload form for one language and other languages that are used quite often could adopt this style easily, too (without to many headaches as if we proceed ith the current split solution). Arnomane 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This code doesn't make any sense to me in MediaWiki:Uploadtext. AFAIK this form doesn't have a $1 variable that could be used by text strings. Thus I removed it in the form. Arnomane 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


{{#if:$1|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Upload|<div id="contentSub2"><span class="subpages">View or restore [[Special:Undelete/Image:$1|deleted edit(s)]]?</span></div>|}}|}}

I have now readded the copy and paste form (cause of the JavaScript problem mentioned above) and reformatted the information a bit [3]. Arnomane 12:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the redundant copy & paste template is now solved. In case javaScript is enabled this code [4] in MediaWiki:Common.js makes it invisible (that's why here is a div with an id in the wiki code) in case JavaScript is enabled and shows it in case not. :-) Voila. Ok it is a very minor issue, but it is just a test as I currently plan to reorganize the current interactive upload scheme (which does only work in english interface right cause of the language hack it uses) using such a hide and show thing in Javascript. Arnomane 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note at the top

I clarified the note at the top a little.

Note: This talk page concerns the "from somewhere else" upload page (also known as Special:Upload), and the basic upload form. Both upload pages are linked from Commons:Upload. MediaWiki:Uploadtext is used for the introductory text of the 2 upload pages. The right column, though, is different. MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp is transcluded into the right column of Special:Upload. See this discussion.

I don't see why completely separate text templates could not be used for Special:Upload and the basic upload form. There is no need for the nested templates.

This way the full protection of the 2 separate templates could be reduced to semi-protection. Then editors could clarify them over time. This is working well on the Wikipedia upload pages. See the table of upload pages at the top of w:Wikipedia talk:Upload. --Timeshifter 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I already told you: because both the basic and the full form are at the single page named "Special:Upload", and the server just use the one page named "MediaWiki:Uploadtext" for the lead-in on that page. Basic and full forms are not different wiki pages. Lupo 06:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am suggesting that the transcluded introductory text for Special:Upload and Special:Upload|uploadformstyle=basic should be completely separated from each other, and put on 2 completely separate text pages. I am talking about the text introductions, not the basic/full form. --Timeshifter 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not getting my point across to you. This cannot be done. "Special:Upload" and "Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic" are one and the same Wiki-page, which includes one lead-in text page, namely MediaWiki:Uploadtext. What you can do, however, is rewrite MediaWiki:Uploadtext such that it uses three transclusions: one for the common left column, one for the basic form's right column, and one for the full form's right column. You don't really gain anything by that, though. It would only make the work for translators more complicated since they'd then have to track down these transclusions to do their translations. Lupo 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if that is not possible, then I suggest that the text of MediaWiki:Uploadtext be completely replaced (both left and right column of text) by an expanded variation of MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp when it is transcluded into MediaWiki:Uploadtext.--Timeshifter 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What good would that be? You'd just push the differences out to other pages. Lupo 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now we end up with 3 different sets of introductory text that readers actually see:

  • MediaWiki:Uploadtext - The left column of this text is seen in the 2 upload pages below. I don't know if the right column is seen anywhere by average Wikipedia readers. The right column of text is replaced in the 2 upload pages below:
  • Special:Upload
  • Basic upload form.

People can open up the above 3 pages and see what I am talking about. The left column of text is the same in all 3. The right column of text is different in all 3. MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp is used for the right column in Special:Upload. --Timeshifter 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On the basic form, the right column is not replaced. But since the {{information}} template already is in the description, the copy/paste display in the right column is removed. That is not new behavior, already the old upload script did this. Lupo 08:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
I see that you are referring to the table on the right.
I also see that it is discussed here:
MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Configuring the introductory text
Is there any reason to keep that table code anymore in MediaWiki:Uploadtext? Can we not remove the code altogether since it is no longer used anywhere in any version of MediaWiki:Uploadtext as far as I know? That would greatly simplify things. --Timeshifter 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason to keep it. Some people may visit the upload page with Javascript disabled, and then they will not have the template pre-filled into the description field. These people will need it in the right column. Lupo 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload a new version of this file

{{editprotected}}

Today I uploaded a new version of Image:USA minimum wage.gif.

To do so one clicks "Upload a new version of this file" on that image page.

That link takes one to the basic upload form. There is one additional message in red text under the destination filename. Click the link in the previous paragraph to see what I mean.

Where can that red text be edited? Currently, it states:

"You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?"

It is very confusing, and I am a relatively experienced editor on the Commons with over 5000 edits. I would like to clarify a few things. Plus the text is too small.

It suggest something like:

You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear in the image summary on the image description page unless you choose a different destination filename. If you keep the same destination filename you should not fill out the summary form, nor choose a license tag. In this case both can only be edited on the image page itself.

Otherwise the form is unnecessarily intimidating because one can not figure out why or how new summary info would be integrated with the old summary info already on the image page.

I think the summary info box should be removed from the upload form when uploading a new version of a file. Can this be done? I am referring to this:

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

When uploading a new version of a file there is no need for it. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me too. ian13 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure any Commons admins are watching this page. Let me try another {{editprotected}} template in the next section. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thing is you should fill out the summary form - but not with stuff like the information template, what you should put there is an edit summary. But, yes, the whole thing is very confusing. You click on "Upload a new version of this file" and you get taken to a form that is all "Uh, oh, this would overwrite a file! Better not do that!" Haukurth (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you fix this? Are you an admin yet? :) --Timeshifter (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that easy to do properly.
  • Quick'n'dirty solution: just don't display the red text ("You will upload over...") initially.
  • Better variant A: clear the summary field (don't put {{information}} there) and make the destination filename field non-editable. (Otherwise people can change it, won't have an {{information}} template, and we might end up with images without any information again.) Also don't display the red text. Maybe display a new text instead: "You can only upload a new version of this file in this form. Describe your modifications in the summary field below."
  • Better variant B: clear the summary field and don't display the red text initially. If the user edits the destination name, insert a {{information}} template into the summary. But what to do if he then edits the summary, and then changes the destination filename back to the original? Leave the summary as he edited it? Or clear it again? Or try to remove the {{information}}? Or try to extract the description from the information, and set the summary to just that? (The last two options are very error-prone.)
What exactly do you want? Or do you have other proposals how to do this? Lupo 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Until it is clear what edit needs to be made to the protected page, don't put up {{editprotected}}. Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: server side implementation changes have actually implemented this now. (Destination file name is pre-set and locked, the label for the summary field is different, and there's no license selector). The upload script at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js has been adapted accordingly. You may need to force a reload while on the upload form to see the changed script behavior, though. Lupo 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are any admins watchlisting or paying attention to this page?

{{editprotected}}

Please see the previous talk section. Also, can someone explain to me how {{editprotected}} templates get noticed? Is this the only location the template gets attention: Category:Commons protected edit requests. Are any admins watchlisting that page? Are admins encouraged to watchlist that page? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed

{{editprotected}}

Think we could amend this somewhere to say maybe something like "Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. In addition, claims of fair use are explicitly NOT and will NEVER be permitted on Commons."

Thanks to hippietrail on IRC for the idea. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Upload is not uploading for me

{{editprotected}}

I am using Firefox 2. I got this message when trying to upload a PNG file:

"You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license."

All of those parts are filled in. I put the specialized license {{UN map}} in the spot captioned:

"Not your own file? Or already published elsewhere? Use {{OTRS pending}} and send permission by e-mail. Also for specialized license tags."

There needs to be a link to this talk page, too. I am a longtime editor of the Commons so I knew how to get here. I bet many images are failing to upload, but people may not be commenting about it due to not seeing a discussion page linked.

I moved the {{UN map}} license tag to the "Additional info" box, and the same message remained when I clicked "Upload file" or "Preview." It looked like nothing happened at all. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I had something written in every part of the form at Special:Upload, but it still didn't upload. The only thing I hadn't tried was to also pick a license from the selector menu. So I picked one that seemed to vaguely go along with {{UN map}}. I picked "I found the image on Google or a random website."
The map then uploaded to File:Gaza Strip 2009 Jan 13.png
But then it had this box below along with the {{UN map}} box.
{{no license|month=January|day=15|year=2009}}
I removed that box.
I suggest putting a selection in the license menu for "specialized license tags."
Also, a note is needed on Special:Upload explaining that one must pick that selection from the license menu if also using a specialized license tag. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The upload form did not know that {{UN map}} was an OK license template. Fixed now. Remember to force a reload while on the upload form to get the modification.
Incidentally, if the template had been named "PD-UN map", there wouldn't have been a problem.
Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way to check whether there is a valid license. Partly due to the inconsistent namings of our license templates, partly because of the inconsistent categorization they do. Lupo 11:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Can a link be added to the "Quick Help" section of the intro of Special:Upload that links to an active talk page? I am not sure which talk page is the main talk page for image help on the Commons. Is it Commons:Help desk?
It is linked under "I need help" in Commons:Upload, the upload page linked from the sidebar.
From the note at the top of this talk page is this: MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp is transcluded into the right column of Special:Upload. I assume that is where the link could be added. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)





Archive 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.