Commons:Upload Wizard feedback/Archive/2010/08

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


Description vs Other Info[edit]

The prototype is a vast improvement over the current upload feature. Great job! One comment/question: What's the distinction between "Description" and "Other Info"? Seems like the latter is mostly superfluous. --Eekim (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Those fields are not unique to the new prototype. Description is a prose description of the file; Other Info is for templates (Commons:Geocoding, or {{Inkscape}}), links to other files, and stuff like that. Powers (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the goal is to optimize this for the most common case, perhaps it would be better not to include "Other Info" in this workflow? Or, if it needs to be included, a more descriptive name or some help text would be useful (although it seems we're trying to avoid scenarios that require help text). --Eekim (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The goal is indeed to optimize for the most common cases, but we also want to give experienced users the flexibility they need. By putting "Other info" into the "More options", we hide it from new and occasional users, and experienced users can still use it. guillom 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Click here to upload a file" should be changed[edit]

"Click here to upload a file" on the first page has several problems:

  • It is blue text, but it is not a link and the mouse cursor doesn't become a hand when it hovers there.
  • To get to that page i already clicked on "Upload file". Now i am asked to click again to upload a file. Very confusing.
  • It should probably be changed to something like "Choose the file to upload" or "Browse" or something. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see bugzilla:24697. guillom 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File naming[edit]

I uploaded a file whose local name was Osten.jpg. The wizard renamed it to File:Amire80_1281167591652_Oshten.jpg. Amire80 is my username and the numbers don't seem to belong anywhere. It's quite confusing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#I don't like that the file is originally uploaded with a bad title, and no information or license whatsoever. guillom 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Two "Upload file" links[edit]

In the prototype there are two "Upload file" links: Under Navigation, to Special:UploadWizard and under Toolbox, to Special:Upload. The Special:UploadWizard link should be renamed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Author field is limited to 50 characters - too short[edit]

I copied a long author name to the Author field in the "Release rights" page and received a message: "This field is too long. Make it shorter than 50 characters.".

50 characters is too short. A name of one person can be longer than this, and many works were created by several people.

Also, the box does allow me to type more and gives me a message. It just shouldn't allow me to type more than the maximum. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Added as bugzilla:26500. guillom 09:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Own work - username vs. real name[edit]

If i select Own work under Release rights, the wizard fills in my user name. It makes to automatically fill the real name there if the user filled it when he opened an account. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We have considered this option, but the "Real name" option is not enabled on Wikimedia Commons, and this is a decision we don't want to make for the community. If the Commons community chooses to enable the "Real name" option, then it may be used as a default for the Author field. guillom 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to the full license text from the Release rights page[edit]

It's important to link to the full texts of the licenses from the Release rights page. Now there are no links, but only license names. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree this would be good; maybe having a link to a page of explanation in simple language (like CC's "human readable" license page) and then further links to the full thing. Just presenting people with the GFDL with no explanation isn't very helpful, but it's important to have accessible. -- Phoebe (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see bugzilla:24696. guillom 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of languages[edit]

In the "Describe" page i can add descriptions in several languages. The languages are given in their native names. This, by itself, is fine. But the order is quite surprising. Lowercase name (chiShona) appear after Z, after that comes Ślůnski (which should be under S). Then after some non-Latin scripts come a few more names in Latin script. Võro appears twice. I couldn't find Georgian (ka) at all, but maybe i missed it.

The order must be more predictable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see usability:Multimedia:Language selector. guillom 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Directionality of non-English language description[edit]

If i select an RTL language for description - Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew etc. - then the description input box should be set to RTL input. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

now recorded in Bugzilla24692 -- Phoebe (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Upload doesn't seem to properly end for some files[edit]

For testing i uploaded several files to the prototype now:

  • File:Amire80 1281167591652 Oshten.jpg
  • File:Amire80 1281168610300 Ungluecklicher-feldzug-des-germanicus-in-norddeutschland 1-640x419.jpg
  • File:Amire80 1281169225040 Wikipedia workshop for Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed 2010-04-30.JPG

The first two were by other creators, the last one by myself.

The uploading process of the first two doesn't seem to end properly. They already appear in My contributions and their file description pages look fine, but i still see the round animation on the "Describe" page as if their uploading is still being processed and i didn't receive a final success message. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It would help us immensely if you could provide details about your browsers, OS, etc. guillom 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've opened a bug to track this issue in bugzilla: bug 24758. Please provide as much information as possible about your configuration to help track down the source of the problem. Thanks. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

licenses & 'not sure' option[edit]

I tried to get to the license tutorial but could only find the page where CC-BY-SA is recommended for your own work. So bearing in mind that I might be missing something...

  • for the "someone else's work" option, would it be good to include a 'not sure' or 'other' option that could bounce you to a page explaining that it's only free content, etc? I know we're trying to stay away from the nightmare license explanation scenario currently on commons, but I wonder if not having a 'not sure' option just means that people would choose a license randomly because there's not another option, resulting in bad data. (I just did this with the Wikimania logo, claiming it's gfdl when of course it isn't). I'm sure y'all have thought about this... I bet experienced commons patrollers have thoughts too. And I agree having links to the license explanations would be good. -- Phoebe (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The licensing tutorial is not done yet; it will eventually be included as the 0th step in the wizard, for first-time users. Right now, you're right that this piece of information is missing. However, our usability test showed that the users who tested the current Commons form (with pages and pages of explanations) didn't seem to have learned anything more than the ones who tested the prototype (where the information is missing). We're definitely hoping the tutorial will help with this.
See also usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#Why did you remove the "traps" from the current upload form that catch possible mistakes such as fair use? (and thanks for all the feedback!). guillom 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
ok! I'm not surprised the long explanations didn't help much. -- 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
My own opinion on the matter is just below (sorry for the extra thread), and while I think that option should still be available, the "my work" or "others' work" choices should make no permission taggings much more frequent, and therefore raise the number that fall through the cracks if the percentage of missed images stays constant. Is there any way that such a choice could be added, with the "unsure" images kept in a holding area, where ones that might fall under pd-ineligible can be kept and other no permission images can be deleted after a while?  fetchcomms 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted stuff[edit]

So I know the goal was to "remove traps", but this just lets people to purposely take advantage of the system or upload copyrighted material without understanding that they should not do so. Is there no reason why a single "I do not know the copyright license" radio button choice cannot be added to the license choosing section?  fetchcomms 19:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think that is useful. A more useful option might be to add a "request assistance" option, that opens up an online chatbox where people can get help. I think that such an innovation would be much more useful. And again, first time users will have to walk trough the tutorial first, hopefully that should explain them enough to not get them into that situation anymore. TheDJ (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't believe that amount of people that simply do not understand how to read directions and come in screaming (impatiently) for help in the Wikipedia IRC help channel, and then are told to read the directions, and then don't get it, and then try to do the same thing they did wrong again, and then are told step-by-step what to do, and then fail miserably at it. I've had to get someone to put a {{PD-self}} tag on their image page by manipulating the url parameters and telling them to click "Save" because they kept sticking it in the image annotator. If someone still doesn't understand what the copyright licenses mean, or if they didn't bother paying attention during the tutorial, they will inevitably pick the wrong license. Having an extra button saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure", and then going to a simple, clear, "If you do not know, you should not upload it here" page will just reduce mislicensed uploads from happening. That is what I've learned from my experience from volunteering in the help chat (oh, and if no one is around to help, they quit the chat and try to do whatever it is themselves, and have it deleted again, and sometimes get blocked for misunderstanding). I agree wholeheartedly that the current upload page is wayyyyyy tl;dr, but I suspect that the tutorial will not stop people from skimming through it and making the wrong choice.  fetchcomms 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The whole "If you do not know, you should not upload it here" approach is precisely the message we don't want to send. Take a look at the video summarizing the testing of the current interface and you'll hopefully understand why we don't want to present Commons as a medieval castle keeping people out, but as a welcoming community who cares about educating new users, even if they don't know anything about copyright law. They want to participate in good faith; it's all that should matter. guillom 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
So we should ignore copyright for the sake of letting new users feel included? I don't understand that concept. We need to draw a line to avoid hosting all sorts of unknown copyvios, no? Or should we just say ignorance is bliss and wait until someone asks the foundation to take down a copyrighted image? This honestly doesn't make sense to me. The video is all about the tl;dr part that I agree is horrid, and the part that is discouraging is NOT what I am proposing. I want a simple notice that should really be our legal duty: inform people about copyright before they accidentally and unknowingly uplaod copyvios. I want a notice that is not hundreds of words long, but two sentences. Just having one single choice in the middle of the process for users who honestly have no clue what is going on is not "laborious" or "offputting" or "complex" or "text-heavy" or any of that. I've seen too much in the Wikipedia help chat to know that tutorials will never be paid any attention to by certain users, and they will proceed to ignore tutorials just like the current system. Even if we do not want to send a "If you do not know, you should not upload it here", what do we want, let users upload improperly licensed media and let it sit on our servers because they didn't even know that wasn't supposed to be done? The truth is, "If you do not know, you should not upload it here" is what we need to abide by to avoid large amounts of undetected copyvios, even if we don't want to send that message.  fetchcomms 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Where did I ever say we should ignore copyright? I said we should educate users especially if they don't know anything about copyright. guillom 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


So, I used this tool now and I got some feedback which you either might work on or simply reject ;-)

  • The first thing I noted that it took me like one or two minutes after I clicked on the "Upload file" link until something appeared. I recognize that I have a rather slow connection, but such stuff mustn't happen. Everything above 1 second load time is a serious usability issue. You should thus rather put the basic HTML directly in the source and not load it with JavaScript.
    This is mostly a prototype issue. The prototype is on a test server; the actual loading of the wizard on Wikimedia servers will be much faster. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This complete form is also a big problem for people without JavaScript. You might say that people with text browsers or screen readers can't use Commons actually anyway, but this also matters people who use graphical browsers, for example users with "NoScript" enabled. There must be some non-JavaScript alternative.
    This occurred to me as well, but I actually tested this, it seems to fallback to the old upload page. TheDJ (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, the basic MediaWiki form is what the current upload form falls back to as well. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Then, directly I saw the following sentence: "that anyone can freely download and use". This one will lead to misunderstandings. For most people out there, "freely" means that you don't have to pay for it, but not our definition of what "free" is, especially the "download" part is even worse than the word "free" here, because you can download like pretty much everything in the internet for free. I mean, it's nice to think of the newbies, but please also think of the people who are supposed to clean up after these people.
    Please see bugzilla:24693 and bugzilla:24697. You're warmly invited to suggest better messaging. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The other licenses should also be explained, otherwise how would I know if they fit me any better than the default one.
    Please see bugzilla:24696. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We must be careful with recommended licenses. GFDL has been the "super awesome license" for years, and now people want it to die.
  • In "not my own work", there's no explanatation for the licenses. How am I supposed to get than which license it is?
    Please see bugzilla:24696. That said, in the "not my own work" case, if the license is not explicitly stated by the author, the user shouldn't upload it with a license based on their understanding. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Own work" is also problematic, because several people consider screenshots they "made" their own work.
    Please see bugzilla:24693 and bugzilla:24697. You're warmly invited to suggest better messaging. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For the "date created", you shouldn't automatically assume it was taken today.
    According to Q&A, it will take the metadata date if present. But yeah, we do consider the date field to be rather important, it's a bit tucked away now there. Difficult. TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • After the "describe" section, the loading never "stopped", even though the file was already uploaded in the recent changes. Even worse than the usability issue at the beginning.
    guillom will want to know what browser+version etc you are using. TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. I've opened a bug to track this issue in bugzilla: bug 24758. Please provide as much information as possible about your configuration to help track down the source of the problem. Thanks. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    Same thing happened to me. Firefox 4 beta 1 with Adblock Plus. I would like to see a progress bar or percentage since I upload video files which can be ~50mb or more. Mahanga (Talk) 06:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The "other_fields" parameter of the information template should be deprecated as it breaks consistency and is hard to use for a newbie anyway and not be used by the upload wizard.
    This is not an issue with the upload wizard. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is there no content in the upload log entry? How am I supposed to check then if the user has given a proper source, description and the like?
    Read Q&A... TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The filenames are seriously horrible. First, there's the username, then a number and just then there's the actual filename. We've already had such a discussion at the village pump, where we concluded that usernames at the beginning of a filename are a no-go since it breaks categorizing, and the big, useless numbers are stuff that we are moving to get away from. If at all, the usernames should go at the end and within brackets.
    Read Q&A TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • {{int:license-header}} was decided not to use, because bots had already invented {{int:license}} on about 4 M file pages.
  • Everything considered, I think that this tool is not really within the current spirit of Commons. We here always care more for the freeness of our media rather than big quantity (which we have already anyway). Also, Commons usually isn't the wiki where you're really participating. Unless for some, Commons is just some drive-by-wiki for the Wikipedia images. So, I mean, unlike Wikipedia, Commons really isn't the kind of wiki that's meant for the mainstream of persons. And, I recognize I'm probably not within your target group, but I completely got the current upload form right on first trial, so it can't be that hard. --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    It is, I agree, way too slow. (Why is there only a counter/progress bar when I do multiple uploads? and why does the counter keep going up? I started with 12 seconds remaining and ended at 2 minutes 31 seconds remaining!). This also got annoying on the "Describe" page. Anyway to lighten it up by far?  fetchcomms 00:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    20 minutes on the "Describe" page and the spinner's still going. Firefox 3.6.3, Jolicloud OS, two files that took only about 2 minutes to upload.  fetchcomms 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    This is obviously a bug. I've opened a bug to track this issue in bugzilla: bug 24758. Please provide as much information as possible about your configuration to help track down the source of the problem. Thanks. guillom 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Prototype uploady-thing feedback[edit]

Re. This thing

  • The first stage, "Add to humanity's knowledge by uploading files that could be used for an educational purpose" is very spammy, it doesn't give any useful info.
    Please see bugzilla:24697. You're warmly invited to suggest better messaging. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Click here to upload a file" is misleading; I've already said that I want to upload a file; 'click here' is always horrid, also it does not indicate that it will launch a browse thingy. It should say what it actually does.
    Please see bugzilla:24697. You're warmly invited to suggest better messaging. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like how it 'defaults' to the specific licence; I don't think it is clear enough to the uploader what they are actually committing to. I think this needs to be made extremely clear; that by consenting, they are granting permission for anyone to use their picture for any purpose.
    I do think this can and should be improved. The non-revokable part is also highly underlighted and very important, as the videos show. This step needs more feedback to the user. Alla a preview with the CC properties they are agreeing to, non-revokable etc, and then an Agree/Disagree setup or something... Not sure. But more work is needed. TheDJ (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    Please see bugzilla:24693 and bugzilla:24696. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Categories" needs explanatory notes and guidance
    Could you be a bit more specific? Also, see bugzilla:24691 and bugzilla:24704. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    I meant that it needs a description, of what a category is, why it is important, or something, rather than just an empty box; so, yes, some pop-up help or whatever.  Chzz  ►  03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Date created" is hidden under "more options" and really is quite important info; defaulting it to today will make the descriptions misleading
    It seems to get the date from EXIF, which is a nice feature. Hiding the two additional options under 'more options' isn't really necessary though. Mike Peel (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, it extracts the date from the EXIF metadata if available, which has been a long-awaited feature. This will be true in most cases for cameras; to catch the few cases where it isn't, we could have a special case that identifies scanning devices. Mike: There are only two additional options now, but hopefully there will be more in the "More options" in the future, such as a map to directly geotag your picture. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    OK, yes, EXIF is nice; I didn't know about that, as the file does not have an EXIF date - in which cases, it does appear to simply put today; I suspect most users will just leave it at that, and indeed that many pictures will lack an EXIF date, no? So I'm not convinced it should add a default value (if that is, indeed, what itis doing)  Chzz  ►  03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you click 'next' from there, if you have not e.g. filled in a description on one file, then it appears nothing happens. Scrolling back up, I see the red "This field is required" but there is no indication when down at the 'next' button that anything is amiss
  • In the thing that pops up explaining the description, if you click 'more info' you get a popup, but when you 'ok' it, you shoot back to the top of the screen
    Please see bugzilla:24691. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking of that box...I hate it when you can't 'select' text on the page, to copy it, for whatever reason. Same applies to the actual selected filenames, and other fields in this interface
    Your browser can't select text that is read only ? Yikes. TheDJ (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    I mean, the actual popup saying "Briefly describe..." - it does not seem pssible to copy/paste text from those; I noticed, because I wanted to paste it here, but in general, it is always useful to be able to copy/paste anything from webpages.  Chzz  ►  03:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of the whirley-thing, it'd be good to actually explain to the user what was happening
    The current prototype is much slower than the production Wikimedia servers. If this step is slow as well on Wikimedia servers, then it will make sense to tell the user what is happening, but otherwise they'll just see the explanation for a brief instant before it disappears, so it won't help them much. We'll see how it goes on the Wikimedia servers. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • After I clicked 'next' in the 'Describe' section, the whirley-thing appeared, and stayed whirling for 30 mins, at which point I gave up on it.
    Please see bug 24758 and provide as much information as possible about your configuration to help track down the source of the problem. Thanks. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In spite of that, it had actually uploaded and made the page.

 Chzz  ►  01:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my whirly thing is still going after about 45 minutes and I have closed it too. Is this just a bug? My images were uploaded fine, too, and this never happened before with my first file uploaded on the beta. I also dislike the naming part, as it makes it much harder to find files if you cannot name them what you want (if I have a picture called "DSC0014" on my computer, I'd have to either rename it first locally or use the rename template afterwards, much less efficient than just picking a new name). I do, however, enjoy the multiple uploads choice.  fetchcomms 01:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
At this step the move to the final name is supposed to occur. It seems for some people this API query is failing and the interface times out after 30 minutes. Guillom, I'm sure there can be many reasons for this, but possibly it is related to bugzilla:24665 ? TheDJ (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. I've opened a bug to track this issue in bugzilla: bug 24758. Please provide as much information as possible about your configuration to help track down the source of the problem. Thanks. guillom 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Experience (new upload system)[edit]

Here's my critical comments from running through the upload process. I've written them down without looking at the other posts, so apologies for any duplication (though this duplication might be useful to you anyway. ;-) )

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I'll answer inline. guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Loading the page:
    • There's a delay with a spinning wheel. Why? The current upload form works instantly. I can understand a delay when the form is actually processing something, but the initial page view should be quick as it's always giving the same view (no?).
      This is mostly a prototype issue. The prototype is on a test server; the actual loading of the wizard on Wikimedia servers will be much faster. guillom
  • Upload process:
    • The 'time to complete' counter seems to go the wrong way! It sometimes counts upwards rather than downwards, presumably when it isn't sure how long it will take (e.g. if you upload a small file and then a big file).
      The way the progress bar is implemented now isn't reliable. We should use reliable data for browsers that allow it, and not display any progress bar for those that don't. I've opened bugzilla:24759 to track this issue. guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Release rights:
    • The thumbnail is too small (60x40 pixels). It should be more like ~ 200 pixels across.
      We don't want the thumbnails to be too large because we want to focus the user's attention to the Rights release form. Prominent thumbnails would give the impression that the user is done. guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      Understood, however 60 pixels is too small to see what the image is of (which is useful as an aide-memoire during uploading, particularly when uploading many files at once). There's probably a middle ground somewhere closer to 100-150 pixels. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Why is there a long text description of releasing the rights rather than just being able to say "I release this image under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license"? Having that extra clarity is useful, but should be under 'more information' or on hover-over or something. The form of the page when you click on 'Use a different license' is much better and should probably be the default view instead.
      I disagree. Most people have no clue what a license it, even less what "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license". Our "plain English" explanation has been favorably received by the users so far, and we're actually going to use the same format for the other licenses (see bugzilla:24696). guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Use a different license: clicking on the licenses should summarize what they mean (or there should be a 'more info' link). The difference between PD and CC-0 should be explained. Shouldn't Free Art License be on here too?
      Well, that's a bit contradictory with your previous comment, unless I misunderstand what you're saying. See bugzilla:24696. guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      There should be no contradiction there. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that there should be a hover-over giving the description of them, and probably clicking on them should take you to the human readable form of the license. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This file is not my own work: more options for licenses than those present will be needed for the edge cases.
      Please read usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#Where are the other licenses?. guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Which jurisdiction for the licences is used? Unported or localized? It's not clear at the moment.
    • If I've missed uploading a photo, how do I go back and upload it?
      You complete your current upload and you start again with the one you forgot :) guillom 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Describe:
    • "Unknown language" is too wide for the pull-down box in my browser (Firefox 3.6.8 on Mac OS X), and overlaps with the down symbol. The problem also applies for longer language names. This is why, in most cases, the pull-down box is the same width as the longest option. ;-)
      Please see usability:Multimedia:Language selector. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not obvious how I'm supposed to know whether a category exists or not, until you start typing in the box. This needs a help tip.
      Please see bugzilla:24704. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Why does hovering over a category link change its background to black? Wouldn't a light red background better indicate that clicking on it will remove the category? How can I see what's in this category already? (that's another possible thing that you're after if you're clicking on the name.)
    • "You may use Wikitext code" - needs linking to say what this is, for those that won't know what this means.
      Experienced users who want to add wikitext know what "wikitext code" means. New and occasional users who don't won't want to add it until they're more experienced. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'next' link is a long way from the process bar at the top, and is in a different format. Would it make more sense to link these two together, or even have it so that you click on the next stage of the process to go to it, rather than having a 'next' button?
    We don't want to couple the feedback (the bar) with the action (the 'next' button). For general layout fixes, see bugzilla:24697. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is the initial redirect to the file kept? If it's not used, then why not remove it by not leaving a redirect behind when moving the file to the new name?
    I know the Q&A page is long, but it would save a lot of (my) time if people could read it before commenting (and I could use that time to do real work). Please read usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#I don't like that the file is originally uploaded with a bad title, and no information or license whatsoever. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    I read it. It didn't answer this point (to rephrase: when the file is moved it should not create the redirect, which is a standard option when moving files in Mediawiki). However, it's somewhat of a moot point seeing as it's not a permanent solution. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The navigation buttons in the browser don't work with this, which is a usability issue (I made a mistake at the last step; I want to go back and fix it; huh, the standard buttons don't work. What did I break?)
    I thought we had an open bug about this, but we didn't. I've added it as bugzilla:24760. Thanks. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to be able to go away from an upload and then return to it, i.e. have a holding pen for incomplete uploads that can be resumed. (Detailed reason why I want this: I have a fast internet connection at work, and a slow one at home. It would be nice if I could use the fast connection to upload files, then use the slow connection later on to identify them all). Failing that, how can I delete the incomplete uploads?
    Please read usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#What happens if the user never provides the basic required information? & usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#Where is the "staging area"?. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    Shame. I hope that a feature like this appears in a future version. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, very, very nice work! It's so much better than the standard upload system! I look forward to seeing this enabled on Commons. Thanks for doing this! Mike Peel (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple more comments having read around the feature some more:
  • Why is this an extension, rather than being in mediawiki core and replacing the existing upload system?
    Because not every MediaWiki user wants . Also, we need to be able to fall back to the basic MediaWiki form for people who can't use JavaScript. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a 'licensing tutorial'? I didn't spot that. :-/
    There is not, but there will be :) We're working on the tutorial separately. See bugzilla:24693. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm leaving this message on Commons. Didn't notice/expect that - thought that it would be left on the prototype wiki.
Mike Peel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We didn't want to have yet another page for people to follow. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably outside the scope of this, but having a built-in way to select the geographical location of the photograph during the upload process would be fantastic (e.g. browsing on a google-style map). Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the neat things we had in the wireframes from the beginning (see the mini map icon that was supposed to open a map widget), but it's clearly a "nice to have" feature that has been indefinitely deferred for now. guillom 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wizard broken[edit]

Using Opera 9.27 for Mac with images disabled, the upload wizard is simply an empty page with the title "Upload Wizard". Enabling images adds a spinning "busy" indicator, but does nothing else.

Using Lynx 2.8.7 for Linux (a text-only browser that does not support Javascript), I get a functional-looking upload form, but it's got two problems:

  1. The "Licensing" drop-down box contains only one option: "None selected"
  2. Selecting the "Upload file" button gives a browser-issued warning about "reloading form", and brings me back to the upload form rather than uploading the image. No server-side error messages are issued.

--Carnildo (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see bugzilla:24709. guillom 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on copy and other issues[edit]

Tried the uploader prototype and it worked well. Kudos! A few pieces of feedback:

  1. I would prefer to see the uploader text for the second step be titled "Choose a License" rather than "Release rights". Both are action verbs that convey the step simply, but the language of the latter implies you are giving up something. I wouldn't want to see people discouraged from contributing if they set out to because the language had a negative connotation, however subtle.
  2. The uploader currently does not make room for CC licenses commonly found on sources such as Flickr. For instance, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 may be compatible with Commons, but since it's not in the bulleted list of options, I would likely give up at that point if I was a newbie or casual contributor. Finally read the Q&A and saw the explanation for this.
  3. Like the old uploader, the prototype uses the numerical image id (or whatever that is) if you provide a Flickr link. If it's possible for the uploader to know this from the url, it seems like it would be much better for the field to be left blank than use what would always be an inappropriate title.

I hope that was helpful, Steven Walling 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On #1: What about "Share your work"? "License" is not a word too familiar for most people and is not associated with sharing your work with other people. "Sharing" sounds much friendlier anyway :) --Church of emacs (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I think most people interested in uploading to Commons are actually pretty smart, and license isn't too unfamiliar. It does sound rather dry though. You do make me realize another point though: all the other steps are single word titles/actions. Perhaps simply "License" (verb this time) or "Share" rather than the longer description? Even simply "Release" might be better than the current version, since removing the rights portion doesn't have quite the same negative connotation. Steven Walling 23:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven, and thanks for the feedback. Since you numbered your points, I'm going to reply with the same numbering.
  1. Wording of the "Release rights" page: as you can see in one of the "highlight videos" from our usability study, users don't really realize the rights they're giving, so we do need to choose a wording that conveys the message of "giving away something". Despite the current working, our test participants didn't really understand that, so we need to go even further (even if the Licensing tutorial will hopefully help as well). We're now considering another wording that uses the "Donation" vocabulary. "Sharing" sounds nice, but on other websites, "sharing" often means "copying/linking to copyrighted content without really caring" or "sharing my pictures with my friends but that doesn't mean everybody is free to reuse them for any purpose".
  2. You found the answer in the Q&A, but I'm just going to add the link for other users: usability:Multimedia:Upload wizard/Questions & Answers#Where are the other licenses?
  3. Eventually, we'd like to be able to upload directly by giving the URL to flickr, and fill all the metadata (description, title, license) by querying the flickr API. But we're not there yet :)
guillom 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks the replies guillom! I guess if the goal was to convey the feeling I got from "Release rights", then you succeeded admirably. Good to know that the choice in messages spoke directly to an issue brought up in user testing. :) Steven Walling 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If two files are named the same on upload the page keeps loading[edit]

I uploaded two files with the same name, the upload wizard didn't prompt me for another name but just kept loading as shown in the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see bugzilla:24694. guillom 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything worked fine[edit]

Nothing to complain. --Sargoth (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 (German; Firefox).--Ziko (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, we do appreciate positive comments too! :) guillom 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some errors and design problems[edit]

Hi. Some pointers:

  1. Major Bug: Deleting/Moving a temporary uploaded file BEFORE the image name has been selected (example) gives an "unimplemented error check, missing imageinfo" error when continuing the image upload procedure. Generally, we have to ask ourselves what we do with those "temporary images". One one hand, we want to protect them from page moves/deletions in order to allow a smooth upload procedure. On the other hand, old files have to be deleted and obvious copyright violations or potentially harmful content should be deleted right away, because they are publicly available.
  2. Minor Bug: Some of the links are strange, particularly the "Click here to upload a file" and "Add another file" links. You can click on them, but they do not behave like normal links, e.g. the cursor doesn't change when hovering over them.
  3. Feature request: Provide an option to FAIL. Please don't assume that every attempt to upload an image should result in the image being uploaded. Include options like "I don't know where the image is from" or "I am unsure about the copyright status". When the user selects one of those, we can warn him.
  4. Feature request: Check for duplicates!

Other than that: Wonderful! :)

Regards, --Church of emacs (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tobias, and thanks for the feedback! Since you numbered your points, I'm going to reply with the same numbering.
  1. In the final implementation, "temporary" images won't be publicly available, so that kind of problem won't happen.
  2. Indeed. See bugzilla:24697.
  3. Yes. We want to add a "bail" option. I thought we had an open ticket in bugzilla, but we didn't. I opened bugzilla:24762.
  4. We should be checking both for duplicate files & duplicate titles. See bugzilla:24694 and bugzilla:24695.
Many thanks! guillom 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Workflow and other stuff[edit]

First things first: way better than the current interface - you did really great work.

Things I noticed which could be improved:

  • Workflow: Phoebe noted already above that there is no "I'm not sure" option. The whole thing is only for the license savy. The problem I see: It just took you one hour to upload this wonderful 5 MB photo (you don't get much upstream from your ISP). And THEN you find out that unfortunately CC-BY-SA-NC is not under the licenses to select. Of course then you just stop the process and discard your uploaded pic and you will not in any case click on CC-BY-SA because it looks similar enough... -> possible solution: do the actual upload AFTER description and license selection, add "don't know" option
  • In the last step I got really confused: "To link to it in HTML, copy this URL address:" or in german: "Um in HTML auf die Datei zu verlinken, kopiere folgende URL in den Code:". But in the field below I get the URL of the file description page, not the URL to the image itself which is what I would have expected from the caption. -> possible solution: get rid of this part altogether and give only the wikicode. Less confusing for newbies who don't need this feature (and the more experienced will able to copy the url from the preview thumbnail which is already there...)

minor issue: the link to the main page is already located in the side bar, I don't need a button on the last wizard page to go there (buttons are for actions, should not be used for trivial navigation). --Elian Talk 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elian, and thanks for the feedback!
Thanks! (and nice to see you) guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

multiple files upload - alternative to Communist[edit]

  • It is not obvious from the begiining that multiple upload is possible. Okay that is a small problem once you have used the wizzard for the first time. ;-)
  • Why don't all the thumbnails show?
    I don't know. How many files did you upload? Were they all JPGs? guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't at least the categories used on this upload are repeated as a suggestion?
    That's a good point. We have some draft plans for a batch editor in the future that will make it easier to handle batch uploads. guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The Betaversion does not recognice me as Wuselig, but creates a new log for a Betauser "Wuselig"
    The prototype is hosted on a separate test server. This is normal and it won't happen once the upload wizard is deployed on Commons. guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How can I automatically add the uploaded images to my User-gallery?
    You can't; this is only a feature of Commonist. However, we would like at some point to have an automatic user gallery that would work like special:Contributions but would contain thumbnails (and be prettier!) guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The images don't apear right away in Commons or in the respective wikis, so until than I will use the old methods for uploads.
    The images are only uploaded to the prototype wiki. It is normal. guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Conclusion: The upload wizzard is on the right track to become an attracive upload tool. I am looking forward to its implementation.--Wuselig (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you! Feel free to try it again in a few weeks and tell us what you think. guillom 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Upload wizard[edit]

When I used the upload wizard, i got some problems. The selection of the license is still not clearly represented. You may should add here a short explication what you allow with the choosen license. In my opinion the field of the author(s) is too short (50 characters), especially when there is more than one author. When i clicked on the next button on "Describe" the script broke down an showed me a never ending progress bar. Sorry for my bad english. regards -- Berliner Schildkröte (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

not working?[edit]

Nothing happens except a "spinning" wheel. What gives?

Please see bugzilla:24709. It might be useful to add details about your configuration. HenkvD (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

int:license-header instead of int:license[edit]

The file description pages created by the wizard use =={{int:license-header}}== instead of =={{int:license}}== used here on Commons. For consistency, it would be preferable if the wizard used the later.  Docu  at 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

=={{int:license-header}}== is correct and always has been. The heading MediaWiki substitutes in the current old upload form substitutes MediaWiki:License-header. That we replaced == License: == with {{int:license}} is our mistake. MediaWiki:License is the interface message used in the Upload form's label for the license selector. As the scope of MediaWiki goes beyond the Wikimedia Foundation if I recall correctly it was decided not to change the upload-form label message key but to leave it as is. Any instances of =={{int:license}}== can perfectly stay the way they are and don't hurt. But since a while the correct heading is =={{int:license-header}}==. –Krinkletalk 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In theory this sounds ok, but as Commons is the primary user of this function and all headers here use =={{int:license}}== it should be fixed in MediaWiki. Rare uses of =={{int:license-header}}== elsewhere can be grand-fathered out.  Docu  at 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This does not make sense. There is a substantial difference between license and license-header, even though it has been suppressed in English (using a backwards reasoning at MediaWiki talk:License); so now, we have one field label not ending with a colon at Special:Upload (while other languages do include the colon as they should, so on the other hand, they have a caption on file pages ending with the colon). Even though the original decision has been unfortunate IMHO, we cannot keep just ignoring it. There are two possibilities now: 1) Use license-header as designed and used by MediaWiki, 2) reverse the original choice, i.e. change MediaWiki so that MediaWiki:License stops being used at Special:Upload, loses its colon, and replaces MediaWiki:License-header as the section caption, remove MediaWiki:License-header as obsoleted, create a new message (e.g. MediaWiki:License-label) for Special:Upload. Note that as soon as MediaWiki starts outputting the {{int:license[...]}} hack by itself instead of getting replaced by a bot after upload, the current practice gets impossible anyway (unless you want to keep using a bot to enforce this abuse). --Mormegil (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we discussed this before and agreed to use the current solution.
Obviously, you need to create another label for the upload form.  Docu  at 18:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Me?? Obviously, you don’t seem to understand the current situation. I did not write the MediaWiki code, I do not have commit rights to MediaWiki, I am unable to change anything in MediaWiki. Unless somebody changes MediaWiki, the current way it’s done on Commons is wrong (in conflict with the software we are running on), no matter what you or anybody else “agrees”. I am in no way opposed to the change, but go and find some developer to actually implement it (#2) into MediaWiki! --Mormegil (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)



I tested the Uploader, and it seems a really nice app for me.

Nevertheless, a copule questions/suggestions:

  1. When selecting it´s not my work, it can be also an organisational work, and transcripted, not dowloaded, so there should be more options in this spot.
  2. Date created field should be displayed always, it´s important to know the date and if the user does not know this field is available, it will always say that the file was created today.
  3. Is there any way to install this beta-test version in my own personal wiki? If yes, could you help me tu get through? I downloaded the files and I´d wish to do some little changes (add-remove some fields, accept other file extensions, add mailing usability), and then of course share them with you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladei (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your feedback! For now, we've mostly focused our efforts on the "own work" workflow. You're right that there should be more options for works that weren't made by the uploader; we just haven't been able to develop them yet. Regarding the date field, there are also other considerations (for example, if you take a picture of an old statue, should you add the date of the photo, or the date of the statue, etc.). I expect the "date" field to evolve in the future. Last, to install the extension on your own personal wiki, please refer to the Extension page at mw:Extension:UploadWizard. Cheers, guillom 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PleaseStand's experience[edit]

I am already comfortable technically with Wikimedia Commons's upload system, so I decided to test as much of the new upload wizard as I could rather than try to upload a file as quickly as possible.

  • Page 1 (Upload)
    • "Click here to upload a file" doesn't look either like a button (like in Windows software programs) or a link (underlined and has "hand" cursor when hovered over). Usage of the phrase "Click here" indicates that this is a serious usability problem.
    • The file chooser window is quite small and hard to navigate.
  • Page 2 (Release rights)
    • "This means you release your work under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license." How am I supposed to know the exact terms of the license I am agreeing to? I chose the less-restrictive Attribution license and was not provided with a link to that one either.
  • Page 3 (Describe)
    • I screwed up when choosing the license I wanted, but the most the browser's back button does is take me all the way to the beginning (there is no back button on the page itself).
    • "Learn more" for the description is incomplete; it just opens a window that has the contents "extra stuff".
    • What if I don't want to add an English-language description? I clicked "add a description in another language", and I chose another and typed some text in. I expanded both images' sections to their full size. Then I scroll down and click Next. Nothing apparently happens. Now what? I scroll up and find that it says "This field is required." next to "English"; there is no X button to delete the extra box either. Yet an empty box in the middle is ignored and can be deleted?
    • I entered a name of a category (although it didn't exist). In "other information" I entered some text with no line break at the end.
    • Clicking Next again, the spinners spin and apparently nothing happens. Clicking it a third time doesn't help either.
  • Page 4 (Use)
    • Never got there (browser is Firefox 3.6.8 on Windows 7, nothing in Error Console of interest).
    • I checked my contributions to see what edits the wizard did make to the description page.
      • The test text I added to "other information" broke the "Licensing" heading.
      • Unless I had clicked the "Add" button after typing in the name of a category, the image was never actually added to that category.
      • The "PleaseStand number here" part was not gone from the image's filename either. PleaseStand (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback; you obviously missed the Questions and Answers page and the list of existing bugs. guillom 17:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Enable a text field at the bottom of category pages, below the pictures[edit]

I think the navigation template at the top of Category:Great flood of Paris in 1910 is a bit "noisy".

I wish this navigation box could be moved to the bottom of the page, so that readers can see the pictures as soon as their browser displays the category page, without needing to use the vertical scroll bar.

This applies to many category pages with a lot of "noisy" texts at the top.

Teofilo (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JS Bug in monobook - Old Toolbar[edit]

  1. all using opera 10.61 on Linux - same happend on firefox with my account Saibo
  2. new testaccount: user:Saibostester201008
  3. logged in with it.
  4. Switching to edit mode on user talk:Saibostester201008
  5. everything is fine - new toolbar and no Javascript errors.
  1. set skin to monobook in settings
  2. Switching to edit mode on user talk:Saibostester201008
  3. old toolbar, and following JS error:
JavaScript -

Uncaught exception: TypeError: Cannot convert '$j.wikiEditor' to object
Error thrown at line 3, column 0 in <anonymous function>():
called from line 308, column 309 in <anonymous function: ready>():,jQuery);
called via from line 65, column 417 in <anonymous function: each>(object, callback, args):
    var name,i=0,length=object.length;
called from line 308, column 168 in <anonymous function: ready>():
called from line 309, column 483 in <anonymous function>():

On my account Saibo a side effect is that the QuickPreview Gadget does also not work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the Show Preview now no longer works in any skin other than Vector. I posted a report at Commons:Village pump#Show Preview stopped working. Could this be related? -84user (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes - see my last line: "QuickPreview Gadget does also not work". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Works again after fix was applied. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing browser on "Take me back" page[edit]

On this page, the page you see when you hit take me back, it asks you what browser you use. For Google Chrome, it lists Beta and versions 1-5. The browser is now in version 6, but that option isn't listed. "Google Chrome 6" should probably be added. Oxguy3 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Database error"...[edit]

Any time I submit the "Take me back" feedback form (the same page I talked about in the last section of this page), I get taken to this page which gives me this error message (the page title is "Database error"):

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Database::begin". Database returned error ": ".

Despite this error message, the features are indeed reverted... Oxguy3 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Nothing useful added. Many useful features removed. Mattisse (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive feedback. We appreciate it. guillom 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tatar toolbox translations[edit]

See this diff on my talk page - apparently there are some missing translations. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Errors on upload[edit]

Since a few days I get these errors when starting the upload:

Warning: AutoLoader::require(/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizardMessages.php) [function.AutoLoader-require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 765

Fatal error: AutoLoader::require() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/extensions/UploadWizard/UploadWizardMessages.php' (include_path='/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/extensions/OggHandler/PEAR/File_Ogg:/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons:/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/includes:/srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/languages:.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /srv/org/wikimedia/prototype/wikis/commons/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 765

I use IE7 on Windows XP. Before I had a loading icon error (see [1] or [2]). HenkvD (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since 9 October not a single file has been uploaded on HenkvD (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The errors on IE7 have changed, the loading icon does not appear anymore, but still it does not work.
Line: 5197 Char: 1 Error: Expected identifier, string or number Code: 0 URL:
Line: 256 Char: 1 Error: Object doesn't support this property or method Code: 0 URL:
HenkvD (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User page[edit]

It was OK finding my new User Page, but I have no idea how to add a Babel box to it, nor can I find instructions for this. It's probably really easy for those who know how, but when writing foolproof' instructions, please don't underestimate the quality fo fool available. Great idea, guys, and maybe I'll come back to it in the future, but at the moment I have run into the sand. Best wishes, Graham Dane--Grahamdane (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

nice tool![edit]

this looks like a major improvement on the old system, congrats!

  • problem

I got some strange errors on uploading [mwe-upwiz-failed] IMG_1086.JPG

I dont have any way to capture the error message, and it is hard to select the problem message.

  • If it could support multiselect of files
  • it would be nice if i could copy the metadata to a bunch of photos
  • What do you think about the pull idea, to be able to pull images from another webpage?
  • my upload did not work
  • SVG was not supported File:Testofupload.svg

21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Filename issues[edit]

I uploaded two images to the prototype that had a filename that would be disallowed on Commons (IMG_####.jpg), after uploading was done I get the 'Describe' screen with no warnings whatshowever. Also, in contrary to current upload form I had no way to change the filename (The "Title" field may be this, I'm not sure).

When I was done there and added some categories I clicked "Next" and the description parts faded 50% but nothing happened. Looking at my inspector I saw about a dozen JavaScript errors:

{2x} [combined.min.js:8558] TypeError: Result of expression '_this.details.errorDuplicate' [undefined] is not a function.
[tipsy-arrow.gif]      Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 (Not Found)
[combined.min.js:4440] TypeError: Result of expression 'req' [undefined] is not an object.
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned
[api.php]              Failed to load resource: page aborted (time out?)
[combined.min.js:4534] TypeError: Result of expression 'data' [null] is not an object.
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned
[combined.min.js:3061] <button type=​"button">​Add​</button>​  has no name assigned

Whenever I click "Next" again two of those last lines are added. –Krinkletalk 11:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

m:Licensing tutorial/en[edit]

The part "people photographed in public places" seems to general compared to Commons. It's probably ok for the US, but not generally elsewhere.  Docu  at 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Translators including me raised a related question on how we should read the sentence at m:Talk:Licensing tutorial (and we're waiting for input). We can't translate it correctly without knowing the exact intent behind the English text. -- 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) oops, I forgot to login :( --whym 08:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission errors + license suggestion[edit]

When trying the Upload wizard on Prototype, I clicked on “Upload files and continue”, both files started to upload, then “OK” flags displayed, but an alert window came up with “error : permissiondenied : Permission denied”, it repeated, then a “huh?” alert ;-).

+ I believe links to the license texts should really be there; “This means you release your work under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license.” is nice, but you should be able to click through.

--Mormegil (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, licenses should have links.--Eloquence (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your feedback. See bugzilla:24696 for the new version of the license picker. guillom 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unordered Bugs and Hints found while testing UploadWizard[edit]

  1. Does not work in Opera 10.x at all (known bug).
  2. I uploaded the same file twice and the image simply disapeared in step 4 (known bug).
  3. I renamed the file: same error.
  4. The comic on the first page feels strange. The content is good but the style (blue border, fixed width, no real text) does not match.
  5. The link to the help desk is hidden in the image. I found it by accident by hovering the image. It's the only link in the image. Not very usable, sorry.
  6. It's very hard to find the Next button. Especially the first one.
  7. The German translation for the Next button should not be "Nächste". Please use "Nächster Schritt".
  8. I would like to click on the tab bars on the top of the page (at least to go to the next step).
  9. The "Klick here" link on the second page is not a link and has no hover state (known bug).
  10. Why is there a text in the second step describing what Commons is? Doesn't this text belong on the first step?
  11. Some of the sliding animations are to slow. Such an interface should respond fast.
  12. The language selection is not nice. Is it possible to use a control similar to the categories?
  13. The resulting wikitext is not nice. Spaces (e.g. == {{int:filedesc}} ==) and line breaks (each language and category on the next line please) are missing.

I did my test again with the uwd version. Unfortunately all issues are the same. Please replace or delete the wiki version, it's confusing to have two.

  1. When adding a second description in an other language it would be easier to use a default value for the language, e.g. the same as the first field or always English.
  2. After adding a second language I want to delete the first one.
  3. Multiple languages should be ordered alphabetically in the resulting wiki text.
  4. After klicking Next in the 4th step the page turns grey (I know this is intended) but no progress animation is shown.
  5. In the last step links to the file pages are missing. Clicking the thumbnails results in "Not found". Please add visible links.
  6. When I go back to the 1st step using the button in the 5th step the Next button is disabled and Firefox shows a confusing "Form values will be send again" warning.
  7. Most text is left aligned but in the last step the "congratulations" message is centered. Why?

--TMg 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody reading this? Hello?

  1. Why is C:\fakepath\ displayed? (known bug) Even if it works the path is to much information, in my opinion. Please remove this. Show the file name only.
  2. The hover style of the "Click here" link on the second page is broken (Opera, known bug in Firefox).
  3. When adding a 2nd file and so on there is a spinning progress indicator at the end of each line that never stops (tested with Opera).
  4. I can add the same file twice. Should not be possible.
  5. When I remove a file while it is uploaded the wizard is broken. No more files can be selected.
  6. When I upload a broken file (e.g. a text file renamed to *.png) or the same file twice it is rejected. Correct. I press "retry". Sometimes it takes a very, very long time and I get strange responses, e.g. "http" or "unknown" or "7".
  7. After uploading a broken file (see above) and removing it all buttons disapear.
  8. Currently I can not upload anything, always get error "7" (Opera).

--TMg 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

my feedback to the upload prototype[edit]

Me: an technically and regarding licensing experienced user, FF 3.6.12 on openSUSE 11.1 linux, KDE 3, adblock, noscript and several addons running. whitelisted in noscript. 2 Mbit/s ADSL, old hardware.

1. When I first went to Special:UploadWizard I was very confused because all I could see in the Content area was

  • Learn
  • Upload
  • Release rights
  • Describe
  • Use

The problem was that the big image is 249,73 KB and it took some seconds to load and I tried to click on the text <ul> elements which did not work at all. There should be some text "please be patient while a big image is loading".

Known issue. It's not the image, it's the delay of loading styles. Now entered as bug#25965. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Then I saw the tutorial and tried to click on the next step ("Upload") in the progress bar after I had a short look at the tutorial (since I did know everything which is explained there). It does not work (inspite blue text which is always a link in Commons!) - no way to proceed to the next step! :( After a while I found the tiny, tiny "next" button.

Known issue, can be solved with styling that doesn't resemble links. bug#25966 NeilK (talk)
Please also make the next button more prominent or make the progress bar clickable (would also solve problem #12.). There is at least another user writing the same (cannot find next) in his bug report (above)! --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

3. regarding the license tutorial itself: comments needed? I would like to have some things more clear. Example: "you may upload... photographs of useful objects" - Yeah - my television screen is very useful and I created the photo entirely myself! Problem: TV shows a tv picture.
And there should be a link to Commons:Licensing and a disclaimer that this image is only a very rough, simplified help. Here is the same problem as in our new, buggy Stockphoto.js. Too much simplification.

4. I uploaded a file, clicked on the tiny, tiny thumb to see it bigger and got: Not Found

The requested URL /w/images/c/c2/Gpg-keyserver.png was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.8 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.2.4-2ubuntu5.10 with Suhosin-Patch Server at Port 80

If true this is a regression. Fixed that earlier. Will investigate. NeilK (talk)
Saibo was testing the wrong site (due to my confusing directions, perhaps). Not an issue. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

5: I uploaded a screenshot: Of course: "This file is my own work.".

People do not know what is "own work" in copyright meaning. I would like people to tell what they did to get the file just uploaded. E.g a selection:
  • I photographed it
  • I made a screenshot
  • I scanned a paper photograph photographed by me
  • I scanned a paper photograph I am not sure where I got it from
  • I downloaded it at
Where is the discussion how to design the new upload form? --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

6. why only "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license." as standard license which only 1% of users will change? Why not at least CC-by-sa and GFDL? Or no preselection and a license list with a short summary and link to the license template? The license list in the

Because we hate freedom. Also the licenses are configurable per site, this is just a demo. Anyway, Guillaume Paumier proposed an interface more like what you suggest, I have been busy getting the backend working though. Chances are it won't make it into initial release. NeilK (talk)
Why is there a need to put this live as quickly without all features working? --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

7: hitting the back button destroys all your work. A showstopper - we cannot go online with this. The back button is part of the hypertext navigation!
being in the different license step: hit back until at main page, then forward once. Now again at start screen of Special:UploadWizard: the Next button was grayed out! No way to start again. And after reloading the page I can start again but all my work is lost!
I know there is a (short) bug about it open. Maybe this grayed out error is not known yet.

8: do not preset the current date and do not hide it. Users will never provide the correct date anymore. This is especially stupid for files without exif data. The user provided date always was a way of checking if the user knows what he does. Would be impossible now.

We can argue about whether it should be revealed or not, but have a philosophical difference if you want to restrict the use of this form to people who are not, in your words, "stupid". We think that Commons could benefit from photographers who don't know the intricacies of ISO 8601 or who do not know about EXIF. NeilK (talk)
I think you got me wrong here, sorry. I want "stupid" (your word) people to use the form, but we need to encourage them providing the correct production date of the file (e.g. the day when photographed). If we hide the box most people will never see it. It should be displayed and not pre-filled with the current date. There should be a short explanation which date to be entered beneath (hover / pop-up) it. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

9: categories: added categories are shown as a blue link and no notice that this cat is not existent! not useful. Why not use the hotcat interface? In addition there is currently no way to drill down a cat (e.g. buildings → buildings by country → buildings in Berlin).

Hotcat is powerful, but extremely heavyweight for our needs, and incomprehensible to ordinary humans. NeilK (talk)
incomprehensible?! it works the same way. you just have additional up/down arrows. Your solution is okay, too - but having always blue links for non-existing cats is wrong for our interface here. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

10: a creator template support would be nice. Also a support of Template:Artwork would be nice.

11: is uploading using the old upload form still possible in future? I hope so ;)

Yes, we are not ready to take over everything it does -- yet. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

12: there is no way to get to the previous steps. Unacceptable. I want to be able to change the things I have put in.

Known issue, hard to fix at the moment. NeilK (talk)
As I said: unacceptable. This will annoy users. Please finish the software before going live. Going one step forward and one step back again is not useful. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

13: only one shown lang field for descriptions: the current upload form is better! users are encouraged to provide a desc in their mother lang and English in the current form.

This is incorrect. NeilK (talk)
pardon, this is correct: there is only one lang field until you hit "next one please". --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

13.1: the "lean more" pop-up is pretty useless ("even more") now.

14: when being on "use": no way to go to the new file description page?!

The image itself is a link to the new file description page. May not be obvious enough. NeilK (talk)

14.1 The first time I tried to upload this file I had a strange error talking in API language with me. I cannot reproduce it nor do I know the error text anymore.

Known issue, fixing now NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

15: use should give links adjusted to the home wiki of the user. E.g. [[Datei:blafoo.png|miniatur|some description]] instead of the english version.

Interesting idea, make a bugzilla bug for this please. NeilK (talk)
I do not have a bugilla account and do not want to create one. Please create a bug as you did with the other bugs in bugzilla. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

16: i have uploaded another file: said it's not my work, said its from someone else why is there no {{OTRS pending}} or any marker that this file needs to be checked? Or do we not want to use the new information that an upload is a work not from the uploader to assist our new file checker team?

The "OTRS case" is planned, but we had to cut it. --Neil
hmm.. That is not using the new possibilities - maybe in the future then. --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

17: How will be Javascript disabled browsers handled?

The 0.5% of our audience without Javascript will be given the old upload form (try it). NeilK (talk)
That's fine.

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

18: Please do not make the same mistakes we saw at the deployment of Stockphoto.js: do not go live with a buggy and not well tested upload form, please! Not once more. Finish it and then go live - our users want to work and not be annoyed by alpha software.

There are some serious issues with the current software, but there are also drawbacks to keeping it behind closed doors and churning forever. If we make a release, this isn't the last time we're going to update this. I have made this clear to WMF management that it needs a bit more love, particularly in frontend issues. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

three more at uwd prototype:
21: The date picker does not work at all. Also I would like to be able to type the date (that's faster than this overGUIzation ) - also not possible. It does not work because the datepicker window is below the white background layer - I see it peeking (last row of dates) when uploading only one file. (this bug is also at the other prototype used in my first test)
Works for me. Please define doesn't work. NeilK (talk)
"does not work" → see my last sentence. I thought that it does not work because, at first, I could not see it. Then I scrolled down and found it being hidden by the white background layer.
what's about typing/changing the date in text? "low-prio later"? --Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
22: date displayed is not translated. it is shown in English ("Wednesday, November 17, 2010") - but I have switched on German interface switched on: all other parts are in German.
Known issue, already in bugzilla, scheduled as must-fix before launch. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

23: the thumbnail in third step is only scaled to a max width. I uploaded this file: The thumbnail (in fact it is enlarged!) displayed is 2 meters high.
Known issue but frankly there just aren't a lot of images on Commons like that. Low priority. NeilK (talk)

here: ✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 18:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NeilK, thank you very much for your hard work with this and the nice communication in IRC. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SVG Licensing tutorial[edit]

As far as see upload wizard is a good step. But afraid a bug in rendering engine will limit scope of translated licensing tutorial in svg format for some languages (or atleast in Malayalam). Please see this bug. Is it possible to include that image in PNG?--Praveen:talk 14:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Both File:Licensing tutorial ml.svg and File:Licensing tutorial ml.png are same in my machine (Ubuntu 10.04)--Praveen:talk 17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Praveenp. Thank you for uploading the source SVG. For languages where there are issues with font rendering, you can convert the text to path, so the SVG it will look exactly online as it does on your computer. We usually tend to avoid doing that because it hinders future modifications of the text, but as long as we have the editable file (i.e. the SVG before the text was converted to path), it's ok. There's no easy way for us to select an PNG file for a specific language, so I suggest to convert the text to path in the SVG and upload a new version on top of the SVG. Tell me if you need help, and thanks you! guillom 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Done :) (But I think permanent fix for the bug is also a need)--Praveen:talk 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No SVG support[edit]

SVGs are a seriously important kind of file; the wizard really should support them. --NYKevin (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

uploading a duplicate[edit]

Whenever I try to upload duplicate of previously uploaded image (with same name), it remains as uploading but not completing. Used interface language was Malayalam--Praveen:talk 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some issues[edit]

  • Text size of the opening drilldown menu when typing a category was too small. It was so tiny that I couldn't recognize category names there. I am using Windows XP, Firefox.
  • After uploading an image and giving all information, on the "Use" page I'd like to see a link to the file page in Commons to see the image with licences and other information. Clicking on the thumbnail didn't do that.
  • After completing the upload, I clicked the link to upload another image. It went to the "Learn" page, but "Next"-link at the bottom of the page was transparent and not working. Refresh didn't make it work either. Adeliine (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

change file name when uploading[edit]

In the old system you could change the file name while uploading, you should be able to do that here, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You still can, by changing the "title" on the next page :) guillom 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

More flexibility needed[edit]

OK, what I like:

  • At least it works fairly smoothly.
  • Multiple files at once!
  • Date calendar

What I dislike:

  • "This field is too long. Make it shorter than 50 characters." Well, I am uploading a derivative work of the WP logo and other files, so derivativeFX reads it as copyrighted. I can't include all the authors in the field if there's a character limit!
  • What if I am a noob and I try to upload a copyrighted file? I skipped the "tips" because they were, uh, tips and I'm such a know-it-all noob. Well, my image is not PD or CC or GFDL but I'm not actually a smart noob, so naturally I check the first one and end up uploading a copyvio. No one notices. Is this bad? Oh, yeah. I've talked to real people who have been like "ummm, IDK about the copyright stuff, but I really want this pic up in my article so I'm just going to pick one choice and if it works it's not like anyone will notice". Can we pleaseeeeeee add one little option saying "I do not know" and then have another comic strip guide explaining what to do in terms of how to figure out what the license is and how to request permission/sending permission to OTRS? I shudder at how many copyvios have already been let through.
  • Please restore the field for "other copyright licenses". Commons has way more than 5 licenses, and not every user of the wizard is a noob (for example, I was using it to upload several files at once).
  • Categories input is caps-sensitive, while the old HotCat-like system was not. I prefer not caps-sensitive as I am not often sure if a foreign term is caps or not.
  • LOL: "Learn more" when clicking in the "Description" field returns a popup of "even more stuff". Also, there needs to be a space before "Learn more" in the tooltip.
  • Don't use "--", use endashes or emdashes. (Sorry, grammar freak moment.)
  • Tell me in the tooltip; should I add .EXT to the file name or not? (It's a "no", but unclear for experienced users.)
  • After the upload, could I just have a link to the file page, not just the picture itself?
  • The categories aren't showing up after the upload. Also, I didn't get stopped when I neglected to add a source for the image. No CSD tag, either, or warning, or anything.

fetchcomms 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Also, please add upload log summaries ("Uploaded file using Upload Wizard", etc.).
  • To give everyone an idea of the copyvio situation, I went through the 155 files uploaded in four days, and around ten were copyvios. I don't think this approach of not giving an option of "I don't know" is the most effective. It's probably close to what we experience with the old system (which was more complicated, I realize that). fetchcomms 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

About the update wiard[edit]

I am excited that there is a new update wizard in testing, and I register a acount at and tried upload some files. The picture is great, but the next button on the first page is too small and too low, tend to be ignored.

In the upload page, I selected two picture to upload and clicked upload, but the uploading process was get stuck

--用心阁 (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

SVG upload problems on live Commons site[edit]

I saw the bug on Bugzilla about a lack of SVG support on the prototype wiki, but this is on the live site. I am using Firefox 3.6.12 on Windows 7, and I get the error message "The wiki could not store the file" when trying to upload an SVG file. Retrying the upload does not help. Interestingly enough, I can still click the remove button on the file, even though it is not possible to add a new file. As a side note, I don't like the font used within the comic. It looks very "thin" and horizontally compressed. It would also be nice if the comic were centered horizontally on the screen. Thanks. PleaseStand (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In case this is relevant: I have the Pretty log and Add mwEmbed support gadgets turned on, if the problem cannot be reproduced otherwise. I've used the old upload form to upload my SVG, and I don't want to pointlessly upload another copy of my image. PleaseStand (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Upload feedback[edit]

The instructions
  1. A vast improvement.
  2. Actual uploading is way to slow - a tiny file and I was left watching a timer.
  3. There should be a note/link that fair use images might be useful to some projects
  4. The drop-down list of categories is much to small a type-face.
  5. The cartoon instructions have obviously been given a lot of thought and work - but they need a little more.
    1. In particular the "funky" second box is non-linear and could lead to text being missed.
    2. "By default" should be replaced with "usually" or "normally" or just removed.
  6. Serious thought should be given to layout - on my screen for example it appears like this, with masses of white space and a need to scroll (and I don't have many task bars or other vertical space eating gizmos).
Rich Farmbrough, 20:31 9 December 2010 (GMT).

"Select a media file to upload" button[edit]

I'm running Chrome 8.0.552.215 on Mac OS X 10.6.5. The aforementioned button, which appears perhaps 15mm tall on my display, only functions as a button for the top third or so. Clicking this top section produces the choose file dialog as expected; clicking on, below, on a few pixels above the text tries to highlight the text, but it cannot be copied to the clipboard. The difference is only dependent on height (y values); it works the same along any horizontal line (a fixed x value). This disparity between the cosmetic and functional button is confusing. HereToHelp (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Running Chrome and my upload worked beautifully on the first try[edit]

I just saw the "beta"pop-up for the first time this morning and I used the upload form from Chrome with no issues. I really feel this is a great addition and simplification to the "upload my own photo" option. I just LOVE the way the url is dished up for me to use on WP, saving me the effort of copying the url manually. I also really like the simplified way of adding a category. My compliments all around for a great job on this! Jane023 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading pronunciation files[edit]

I upload pronunciation files for nl.wikt and this is a big, big hassle because they are all tiny separate files, that now must be uploaded one by one, e.g. file:Nl-bieb.ogg.

They are

all "own" products
all .ogg files
all recommended dual license,
all usually created same day by the same person
all the file names 'must be nl-someword.ogg
all must be categorized under Dutch pronunciation|someword.

We currently have about 11,000 words at nl.wikt (see) that are waiting for upload of a sound file and very, very few people doing it because it is simply too tedious. I am sure other wiktionaries are struggling with the same problem.

An upload wizzard that can facilitate a batch upload where the above requirements can be met for the whole batch I think is more than desirable, it is imperative because so far commons has been a major impediment to the success of all wiktionaries.

Unfortunately when I tried to use it I just got a waiting signal and it waited and waited in firefox. In explorer it said something about a bug preventing an upload.

Are .ogg files currently disallowed? Or is there some other reason the wizard does not seem to work? (Of course if each file takes minutes to upload this way nothing at all is gained). I have tried both firefox and explorer.
Can the above requirements be met?

Jcwf (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)