Commons:Upload Wizard feedback

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

Share your feedback
Report bugs
Your feedback about the Upload Wizard

This page is a place for you to share issues you encounter when using the Upload Wizard interface. However, this page is not frequented by developers.

Add a new comment

Other important resources:

To resolve issues, it helps us to have exact steps to reproduce. Please also read the Questions and Answers page and check the archives.

Archives (older archive dates indicate date of initial comments and may span several months; newer archives span one month per archive and are generated by MiszaBot):

Add "I'll fill in details later"[edit]

Add "I'll fill in all details later" checkbox so user can make a quick upload while having a good connection, and fill in the details when back in the office.

Maybe have it add a category "Pending user filling in details" Jidanni (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm often in a hurry on the road with small screen and no time for details. So, description is "Back of church" and category is "Philadelphia". Hours or days later, sitting with the real computer and big screen, I look in my "Contributions" list for my uploads. I properly describe and categorize, apply or adjust geotag, and supply other appropriate details. Any uploader could make a distinct category, but I don't see the need. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Why has this not been implemented yet? This seems like a GREAT idea! And those uploaders who do not provide the details in a timely fashion should expect (and will have) those files removed, which should be straightforward and bot-operated because the files will be marked as "Detail coming soon" or some other bot-recognizable tag, and the bots can do a check on the timestamp of the uploads and automatically delete those which are "too old" (maybe, one week?) and still don't have their details. This is a win-win, and looks like a no-brainer to me. We should absolutely have this option. And if not, then someone please explain WHY not, yes? A loose noose (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Upload issues on Microsoft Edge[edit]

For some reason the thumbnails seem to also disappear once this issue rears its ugly head...

I use a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL phablet with Microsoft Edge to upload images and for some reason the "next" button seems to disappear sometimes. It happens only with one tab and always happens if I reload that tab but not always with another tab, I also upload with a Nokia Lumia 730 Dual SIM with Microsoft's Internet Explorer but don't seem to have this issue there. Is anyone else who uses Microsoft Edge experiencing this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a button for self made but using a different license not listed[edit]

For example, if you want to upload a file in public domain because it is considered ineligible for copyright, there's no way to select that license tag without having to edit it after uploading. There should be a way to use a different license template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the number of undeletion requests we see where the requester believes that the photograph they uploaded "isn't copyrighted", we really don't want it to be too easy to declare works ineligible. If someone issues a copyright license for an ineligible file, it is easy to correct by editing the file description. It is much harder to obtain a valid license for works which are mistakenly marked as public domain. We see this all the time with Flickr files uploaded with Public Domain Mark. Users who know what they're doing can choose the wikitext option to enter a PD ineligible tag or use Commons:Upload. LX (talk, contribs) 12:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


In "Commons:Village pump/Proposals" there is a proposal that reads: "Hi, I have been trying to fix the links to the {{Attribution-Eurostat}} licensing tag, and am finding that there are lots of files on Wikicommons that are really sourced from Eurostat, but where editors have edited the Eurostat data so that they can attribute the material under their own license (however, they still list Eurostat in the name or description or even source). I wonder if editors are aware that Eurostat material is not copyrighted (per the Eurostat tag), and that they can use it directly (with the tag)? It would be better to have material that is sourced from Eurostat (higher quality), rather than a material from Eurostat that has been edited in some way and lost its Eurostat sourcing. Eurostat is a massive database. This issue occurs with other EU Commission material, most of which is not copyrighted (per Eurostat tag). My proposal is that the Upload template should have an EU Commission section (as it does for the US Government and for Flickr), that would remind editors that most of the EU Commission's material is not copyrighted? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)" could this be implemented into the MediaWiki Upload Wizard by any of its developers? Otherwise I invite them to join the discussion there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks @Donald Trung:, didn't realise there was a feedback section on the Upload Wizard! Britishfinance (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Britishfinance:, the thing is... There actually is not, almost no-one seems to read 📖 this page, and the MediaWiki Upload Wizard also doesn't link to this, I think that there should be a "Give feedback" button at Special:UploadWizard, but this page is basically "missed potential" at this point, also one can use the Phabricator but things rarely get done there for Wikimedia Commons either. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, Britishfinance: In the beginning there actually was a button like that pointing here. Have a look at the history and you might get an idea about why it was essentially shut down after a couple of years. Don't waste your time here, just go to Phabricator … --El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Licensing preview[edit]

Story: I have a file. Let's say it is not my own work. And that I have the author's permission to upload it and freely license it. I begin the upload wizard. I get to the point where I must choose my license. I scroll down, and I think I see the license I want, but I want to double check. I know there are hundreds and hundreds and HUNDREDS of licensing options for files on Commons. I try locating an option what will show me these "alternative licenses". And I cannot find a way to explore these! I can see that if I happen to know the code for the licensing tag that I need, I can type it in manually and get a preview of it— that's great! But I can't SEE what the other options actually are! And unless I happen to have memorized the exact code for the licensing tag I need, I have no simple way of getting there and jogging my memory. The licensing options need to include a way that an uploader can not only see previews of licenses they already know but a way to review OTHER license options (all hundreds and hundreds) quickly and easily that they might want to use and to do it FROM THIS VERY PAGE! Licensing is one of the things that tends to screw up potential uploaders, and this portion of the process needs to be expanded so that people can QUICKLY get to the list of all the possible licenses! Is there a way to do this? I am surprised it has not been done already! (I know the page with the list of licenses exists— at Commons:Copyright tags, and I am sure I can find it because I have at least a little sense of where I am going, but a newbie isn't going to know this, so let's not make them guess, and I am lazy so please don't show me instructions for getting there— I KNOW I CAN get there! I want to get there FROM HERE, instantly! Oh, and back again so I can finish my upload! Surely this can be done!?) A loose noose (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Another thing[edit]

In addition to the above, the following should be addressed somehow: right now, as one gets to the licensing opntions list, one reads, "If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS ". Which is good. But it doesn't tell me what to do NOW, here on THIS page, where I am trying to upload my work! Will I lose my uploads and have to do them all over again? Will be brought back here to complete my upload once I visit COM:OTRS? Is there some interim license I should now choose? Uploaders do not want to lose their uploads by clicking on links, and a suggestion to follow a link elsewhere while in the MIDDLE of an upload is a terrible idea. Either warn me that my upload will then be lost, or reassure me that I will be brought back here to continue that upload, but don't ask me to blindly go following a link RIGHT NOW while I am in the middle of doing something potentially very important for me. Can this please be changed in the uploader, in either of those two ways? A loose noose (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And just one more thing: present vs. past tense[edit]

Sorry to go on about stuff! Please bear with me: What do I do if the work has never been published before, and I am the copyright holder publishing it for the fist time on Commons? The licensing options for CreativeCommons licenses always state: "The copyright holder published this work ..." which is the past tense, and makes me wonder whether or not I am in the right place for submitting as yet unpublished works. We could just say, "The copyright holder(s) have published or are now publishing this work..." which is better in two ways: it allows for readers to understand that the license is perfectly acceptable for single or multiple authors, and allows for works being published for the first time on Commons. A loose noose (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like a good idea. I have nothing to do with making the software but I use the Wizard all the time to upload my own new photos and never noticed. At any rate yes, you're in the right place. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)