Wikipedia talk:Upload/Archive/2007

message: Grr, why is this protected?  I want to edit it.  :-(  --Iamunknown 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the typo and changed to semi protection (dont ban me is the typical state for sidebar pages).  Dragons flight 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yay!  Thank you.  --Iamunknown 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think full protection was applied because it's intended to be a replacement for Special:Upload (which, being a special page, is protected by definition). I guess there's no harm in leaving it a while and seeing whether or not it attracts any vandalism – Gurch 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says "File upload wizard". I don't see any wizards. Dfrg.msc 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Where was this change discussed before being implemented? Noclip 02:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. —METS501 (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion? 

message: Wouldn't it be more sensible to apply only the possible upload options to each category (eg own work only allows own work upload license options) or is this not technically possible? GDonato (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is seriously good. GDonato (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Will do. GDonato (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that a better option is call this one by a different name (e.g. Upload wizard, upload form) rather than renaming the normal version that people are already used to.  Dragons flight 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree ("Upload file wizard"). GDonato (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed Mediawiki:Uploadwizard to "Upload file wizard".  Because of caching, this change to the sidebar (like all sidebar changes) may take a bit of time to be visible.  Dragons flight 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: At MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons it has been suggested that free content uploads be sent directly to Commons by this Wizard.  That would simply involve changing the "own work" and "work of the U.S. Federal government" links here so that they point to the same places that commons:Project:Upload does.  Alternatively, we could provide local and Commons upload links side by side.  (e.g. "It is entirely [ my own work] (click [ here] if you do not want to make it usable across all Wikimedia Foundation projects).")  Please discuss. Uncle G 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free content directly to Commons 

message: :Already know the license?  Go directly to the upload form.
I think this is important because experienced users should be given an easy way to avoid this form.  He says that "It is from somewhere else" is equivalent because it links to the same place.  I disagree.  "It is from somewhere else" is not an evident way to skip the form, and hence it does not serve the same purpose.  Furthermore, "It is from somewhere else" ought to link to its own upload form for whatever options are missing.  Hence, they ought to be different.  Dragons flight 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to remove the redundancy here; having both links is sensible. --ais523 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; redundancy is often good for the inexperienced, and complaints abound when commonsense redundancy disappears.  For example, I hate that in Windows Paintbrush, the magnifying glass allows zoom of 1x, 2x, 6x, and 8x, but 4x is only available from the menu, and is listed as "Large Size". --205.201.141.146 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate link 

message: Permanent protection in the absense of serious ongoing vandalism is anti-wiki and inconsistent with the treatment of most other sidebar pages (the only other permenant protection is Wikipedia:Contact, where arguably providing wrong contact info for the foundation would be a much bigger issue).  Dragons flight 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Hi.  Uncle G, why have you [ removed] the link yet again?  You have been reverted three times, and yet you still do it?  Please explain.  --Iamunknown 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The duplicate link to Special:Upload 

message: Would it be possible to add the following to the Wizzard:
* It is a screen shot of a Wikipedia article / page
I know I had a very difficult time finding the right copywrite tag to use for a Wikipedia screen shot.
Thanks for considering my request --Dbiel 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Screen Shot 

message: This is looking really good, much easier to understand than before. But could we not have it even more like commons so that when you click on a link in the description box of the upload form the  template is added and some info filled in. Ie

Then people might have a better idea of what info they should put in. Chris_huhtalk 10:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a proposal at The Village Pump. --Steinninn 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fill in some info into the upload description box 

message: IMHO it's really poor usability to have two "upload file" links in the main side bar. Just keep the wizard and add a link to the bottom of the wizard for people who know what they're doing. Stevage 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the "Upload file" link hided using CSS? This has been done in the Chinese Wikipedia. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if someone manages to do so, please tell me about it so that I can duplicate the process for is: --Steinninn 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a proposal at The Village Pump. --Steinninn 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate link 

message: Can the sysops please add the interlanguage link for the Cantonese language (:zh-yue:Wikipedia:上載), thanks. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —METS501 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: this page is very useful to us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.206.162 (talk • contribs) 
:Glad to hear it :-) —METS501 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful 

message: :is:Wikipedia:Hlaða_inn and :zh:Wikipedia:上传 --Steinninn 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —METS501 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is and zh interwiki link 

message: I want to upload or place a video file. How can it be done --Prabath
:Just upload it like you would a photo.  Keep in mind, though, we have limitations on the type of file that can be uploaded.  See Wikipedia:Media for more. —METS501 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video file 

message: The term "Wizard" is very ambiguous (not to mention a bit Windows-centric).  I think a term like "Easy file upload" or "Guided file upload" would be much more specific and help distinguish this from the normal "Upload file" link.  --Ezra Katz 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizards 

message: Shouldn't it link to the Wikimedia Commons upload form? --Pmsyyz 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't want to send so many people to commons right now. They feel that they wouldn't be able to handle the influx of possibly mistagged images. That coupled with the toolserver issues would make maintenance of problematic images used on enwiki difficult. - cohesion 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link for "from a U.S. federal government source" 

message: Could someone change "image from some website" to "image from a website" as the former doesn't sound particularly professional. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Can we change this to something like:
Image of a postage stamp, or of a currency
Image of a postage stamp, or of coinage or banknotes
or something else... Thanks, Damon! ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: appears to read "or of currency" which doesn't have the grammatical problem above.  --Selket Talk 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'or of a currency' 

message: The :Image:Information icon.svg on the my own work upload link covers the text in the "Please read this important message first" section (IE 7.0.5739.11IC, 1024 x 768 resolution).--ragesoss 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . —METS501 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting problem 

message: I removed the duplicate link in the sidebar, I'm not sure why it wasn't done earlier. I set $wgUploadNavigationUrl to this wizard. I also put a note on MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. -- Tim Starling 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! —METS501 (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always felt like there was some secret opposition, maybe not. This is much better imho :D - cohesion 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been waiting for this change. Thanks Tim. --Steinninn 00:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Voice-of-All 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar changed 

message: A new feature is that I can upload videos instead of images. This is DEFINITELY going to be on my Wikipedia wishlist!   PNiddy  Go!  0 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can, for more information see Wikipedia:Media#Video. We do only use Ogg Theora for video, which is somewhat inconvenient for most people, but there are people on that page that have volunteered to help. - cohesion 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Wish There Was a New Feature! 

message: Can someone make a note that there is a shortcut to the page (WP:UPLOAD)? 66.66.65.237 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There really isn't a decent place to put that information. If you think of a good way, feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you use this for anything other than making links? It's in the sidebar. - cohesion 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to protected page 

message: now that the CC 3.0 licenses have been approved, can they be added to the drop down?— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done a while ago. If we missed somewhere point it out :) - cohesion 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC-BY-SA-3.0 

message: Given the architecture of Wikipedia, is possible to automatically include a copyright tag or other things into the upload text box based on somebody's previous input/clicks?  As far as I can tell, even using the Upload Wizard, it requires people to cut and paste stuff in. I'm thinking of something similar to the drop-down list, but one which operates more through wikilinks and/or radio buttons. Drewcifer3000 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should ask at WP:VPT. --Steinninn 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, I will.  Thanks. Drewcifer3000 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this seems like a very nice idea, I think it should be added. --Steinninn 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my own little version, but the template seems to be breaking it all the time User:Steinninn/upload --Steinninn 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite ready for an editprotected tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steinninn: I fixed your URL with template inside. And yes, {editprotected} should only be added after some discussions and consensus ∴ Alex Smotrov 01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic copyright tag inclusion 

message: I'm wondering if any sysop can add an interwiki link to Thai Wikipedia :th:วิกิพีเดีย:อัปโหลด
Many thanks. --Manop - TH 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ; GDonato (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TH interwiki 

message: Please put a link to the commons upload form:
*Commons:Upload
I believe it would encourage people to upload there. They won't do it if they don't know about it. --Timeshifter 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. GDonato (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Commons is already mentioned if you click «my own work» or «from a U.S. federal» ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know but another can't do any harm. GDonato (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link to Commons:Upload. A lot of people, myself included, probably just click the nearest "upload file" link, and if they happen to be editing on wikipedia at the time, then they get sent to Wikipedia:Upload. It is a great convenience to be able to get quickly to Commons:Upload, especially if one has a free image. It helps everybody if people upload to the commons instead of to wikipedia. --Timeshifter 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons upload link 

message: Would anyone have any qualms about either making a flickr-specific upload page or changing the "from a website" drop down choices to have the flickr licenses?  I have seen a handful of images from flickr where the uploader picks a CC 3.0 license, presumably because that's what is available.  What I would really like would be to have something similar to the Commons flickrreview template that we could add to anything uploaded using the from a website dropdown.  I think that would let us catch a lot of copyvios. --B 15:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind something explaining that commons is where those images should go, but I don't think we should duplicate all the good work done at the commons regarding flickr reviewing etc. If something is creative commons licensed, it should go to the commons. Maybe we should make a "From flickr" link that explained that? - cohesion 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine ... but I think that if someone decides to upload the image here anyway, we need to make the right license choices available.  And I would really like to have a template called  that gets tagged onto every image uploaded from the "from a website" option.  These images, I would think, will be the most frequent source of copyvios and it would be nice to have them singled out for examination. --B 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, the template is . Is this what you mean? This is what gets added when someone selects that the image is "from a website" or from "somewhere else" and then selects "found the image somewhere". Are you referring to the fact that flickr uses old cc licenses? - cohesion 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no ... two separate things.  (1) The flickr licenses need to be available for selection.  (2) No matter what license someone chooses from that page, a hidden template or category should be added to the page that tags it as needing to be reviewed.  My contention is that a substantial number of our copyvios come from that page and that tagging everything uploaded there for further review would be a good thing.  Once an admin or experienced user reviews it to make sure it looks like a user-authored image, you just remove the template. This would be for flickr or anything else uploaded using the "from a website" page. --B 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickr 

message: Any documentation on how the Upload Wizard was hacked?  Any descriptions anywhere? Stephen Ewen 02:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's how: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Redesigning_the_upload_form Stephen Ewen 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How was the wizard hacked? 

message: Could the section on Commons be made more eye-catching? At least with bold font or something.. just an idea.. --Canislupusarctos 04:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons Banner 

message: I've written up a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fromowner for renaming the pages, categories and templates involved in the "fromowner system", a related file upload wizard involving placeholder images.  In particular, I'm proposing that the project pages used by that parallel system, currently at titles such as Wikipedia:Fromowner, be renamed into subpages of Wikipedia:Upload.  Please feel welcome to comment on the proposal.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the renaming of [[Wikipedia:Fromowner]] and related pages 

message: What do i do to upload a photo with a creative commons 2.0 lisence on it? i cant find a 2.0 lisence on the drop-down list for uploading. (♠Taifarious1♠) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons 2.0 

message: Please see commons:Special:Upload. 
It has the template text already in the form. 
Special:Upload on wikipedia needs it too. Here is the text below from the commons form:
: {{Information
:|Description=
:|Source=
:|Date=
:|Author=
:|Permission=
:|other_versions=
: }}
This gets to the point of the form right away, and focuses the mind of newbies deciphering the upload process. It is also a reminder to more experienced uploaders who haven't uploaded in awhile. Here is what the empty template produces:
 
So it looks like Wikipedia uses the same form.--Timeshifter 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this edit can't be done by editing this page. I think you need to write it in JavaScript; make a request at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. (Presumably, copying the code from Commons will work, but it's somewhat complicated and I can't figure out which parts need to be copied. Asking on that page is a good idea because then the admins skilled in changing sitewide JavaScript will eb aware of the request.) --ais523 09:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how it is done at the commons. Nor do I understand anything at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. Could you ask there about getting the  template code in the Special:Upload form as at commons:Special:Upload? You seem to know more about what is going on. I don't understand Javascript, and I don't really understand what I am asking there. I initiated a discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Special:Upload, but I could use your help. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be great to figure out how Commons does it, but until then this might work. --Steinninn 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: At the other discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Special:Upload AlexSm pointed out that looking at the pages found by clicking any of the first 8 links at User:Steinninn/upload will show upload forms with the template text preloaded. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload form needs to be filled in 

message: We need to have the upload interface preload the skeleton for Template:Information or Template:Non-free use rationale automatically. This will help cut down on the number of images uploaded without source information. This has been suggested several times, for example in the thread above and at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for change to the Upload File interface.
I created an updated version of Wikipedia:Upload at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. Since it's not going to cause any damage and can be easily reverted if necessary, would an administrator please copy-and-paste the code from User:Remember the dot/Sandbox to Wikipedia:Upload? —Remember the dot (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preloading will break ImageTaggingBot: it can't tell the difference between an empty  template and one that's been filled out, or between an empty  template and a valid one. --Carnildo (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if my opinion matters or not considering it's already implemented, but I don't like this.  When someone uploads an image, the summary gets used as an initial edit summary as well correct?  When I upload images, I just put "initial upload" in the summary box which makes more sense to me as an edit summary.  Afterwards, I'll go back and add my own summary section for the image.--Rockfang (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not like the ImageTaggingBot is going to go around tagging images with sources as not having them, and it should be relatively easy to change the bot to check if the template was not filled out. Also, Template:Information automatically adds image without a source to :Category:Images without source. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I like the idea, I had proposed something similar at the village pump.  In theory a user will now know that "something" is wrong with their upload since there is nothing next to the equal sign.  This should increase compliance with our NFCC policies.  My only question to RTD is: does the summary only appear if you click an FU licensing reason or is it there no matter what?  I think we'd only want it to appear if a FU reasonw as selected, as other templates should be used for say user-created, gov't works, etc. Mbisanz (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try it for yourself at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. Template:Information is used for free image uploads and Template:Non-free use rationale is used for non-free image uploads. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could just be me, but when I switch from a Non-FU licensing to a FU-Liciesing, the template text doesn't change.  Mbisanz (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you just select the generic upload, it only uses Template:Information. If the user is uploading non-free, it doesn't know to change the template, and it would be complicated to implement that feature. However, a generic information template is still a big step up. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a generic tempalte is better than none, my main concern is that BetaCommandBot tagsd FU articles that don't have a mention of which article they are being used in, and the non0FU template doesn't have a line for that.  Is there anyway to edit that template to make Article = an option variable? Mbisanz (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really not a good idea, since Template:Information is used primarily for free images which do not require mention of the article. It's better to just have a generic information template for generic uploads, which will at least get us source information more often. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I support your prop then.  I might make a request somewhere for a semi-automated tool that would add article info to a FU image, but require a user to check and make sure its the right FUR for that article.  Any idea where to ask that? Mbisanz (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). —Remember the dot (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:   Gimmetrow 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preload description and use rationale templates