Wikipedia talk:File upload wizard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

NO way to activate

I have been trying for over an hour to upload a slightly modified version of File:Eritrean family.png, which is "a hypothetical Eritrean family tree", because the version currently used on Habesha name (the only use of this file) contradicts the text on that page. To be specific, I'm changing the first name of the family member in the lower right box from Ammanuel (which is the same as the lower-left first name) to Afwerki to conform with the text, which says that "It is against the customs to name a child after a living family member".

So I've filled in everything, about three times over:

• This is a free work.
• This file is from a free published source. (namely, Wikipedia)
  • Author/owner: Merhawie Woldezion (copied from current File page)
  • Date of creation: 2006-11-17 (ditto)
  • Source: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Eritrean_family.png
  • License: (NONE OF THESE, IT'S "other", SEE NEXT)
  • Other: cc-by-sa-2.5 (that's as far as they'd gotten in 2006)
  • Evidence: (leaving blank. The page says "Provide a link to where the author explicitly says that the file is released under a free license. (if not visible on the source page itself).)
  • Any further relevant information about this file?: I changed the first name of right-hand descendant in third generation from Ammanuel to Afwerki. The article says of this example: "The first who had a child would name their child Ammanuel. The next sibling to have a child would give their child a different first name. It is against the customs to name a child after a living family member. Ammanuel and his cousin would each get their father's first name for their last." Having these first cousins share the first name Ammanuel directly contradicts this statement.

AND NOW I CAN'T DO A BLOODY THING WITH IT! The only buttons are

• Upload on Commons (GRAYED OUT)
• Upload (GRAYED OUT)
• Reset form (NO!!!!!!)

—— Yes, I sound pretty damn upset. Wouldn't you be? WTF am I supposed to do here? At least, if I EVER get the form to work, I hope I won't have to type it all in again, because I've gotit here. To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I can see how that phrase "if not visible on the source page itself" may have been confusing. But the "Evidence" field is in fact obligatory, as indicated by the red asterisk, so you'll have to fill in something there. In this case, where the original license can trivially be found on the source page itself, just say "see above", "see source page", or just repeat the source link. The upload button should become active once you have something in that field (and click somewhere else after you've entered it). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thanks. I'm going to try this now, together with Crow's advice. --Thnidu (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: So, I did get the image up there, several days ago. But that red asterisk is plainly inadequate for conveying the message "Sorry, but this isn't going to work until you put something in the 'Evidence' field." I don't touch page code like that; can you or someone make this less obscure than "Was it not obvious?" (C.J. Cherryh allusion, in which the unspoken reply is "No, it was not.") --Thnidu (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So Hard

I keep on pressing the bottom, but it puts me back on the same page. Djcudiitemple (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not quite clear from your description what the problem is you encountered. Which button exactly are you pressing, and which page do you keep seeing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

When you click on "Click here to start the Upload Wizard", it doesn't let you upload anything and it just stays on the same page. Unreal7 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. That's bad. I can actually replicate this on my machine. I can narrow it down to a line in the code that is throwing an error message, but I can't figure out why that code is no longer working. I've asked at WP:VP/T for help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So, just how many clicks are in a click?

I've clicked maybe 20 times to start the wizard, but it doesn't start. I thought it was my tablet, I see it's not just me. Inkwell765 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Having this same exact problem. No matter how many times you click start it takes you nowhere. Funkatastic (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please see the thread above. The script is currently broken due to an unexpected change in MediaWiki's Javascript support. A fix will hopefully be found soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Uploading media files" table edit proposals

The Wikipedia column should be before the Commons column, because the option for new users should go before the option for free files. "Old form" under Commons should be "Old guided form", for consistency and more contrast with "Plain form". "Files for upload wizard" should be "Files for Upload Wizard", because using italics there feels nonstandard. Another thing is that I think "Click here to start the Upload Wizard" should be replaced with "Start the Upload Wizard", because I think "click here" is generally advised against. Enervation (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How to get Wikipedia-exclusive images?

How do you upload an image with exclusively of Wikipedia and not of anywhere else, such as an image for WP:TWINKLE? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What does "with exclusively of Wikipedia" mean? I can't make sense of it; the grammar doesn't work. --Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It means upload images to Wikipedia rather than to Commons. Personally, I'd just use Special:Upload rather than the wizard if I needed to do that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jackmcbarn. I'd've said "How do you upload an image just for Wikipedia and not for anywhere else...?". I can't see how Kltpzyxm Qwertyxp2000 came up with that wording. ... (Visits userpage.) Hm, New Zealander, maybe that's it, a dialect I'm not familiar with.

Back on topic: Qwertyxp2000, why not take Jackmcbarn's suggestion? --Thnidu (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000: if you mean an image with a license legally limiting its use to Wikipedia only, the answer is there's no way to do that, because all licenses on Wikipedia need to allow re-use elsewhere. If you simply mean an image that's intended for Wikipedia-internal use only, you can use this wizard just as any other upload method, choose the options for "free work" and the appropriate license and upload it locally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Upload failed: Invalid token

Can someone please tell me what this means? I have never gotten this error before, but now I am unable to upload an image because of it - even though I am doing everything correctly.--Madotsuki the Dreamer (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, can't say about this one. It might just be some server-side issue similar to the "loss of session data" error one sometimes gets during normal editing; in that case your best bet is to just try again after reloading the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried over and over again and kept getting the same error message.--Madotsuki the Dreamer (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Please see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Fix the File Upload Wizard. BethNaught (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading is an unpleasant experience. It is time-consuming and any fault gives cryptic messages. I attempted the upload to Creative Commons but the file was rejected for having "consecutive commas" or some such.

Terms and conditions aside, it takes three clicks to upload a photo onto a forum website. I must have spent 25 minutes trying to put the photo here, and I have, as yet, no certainty that it has reached the right page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGMason (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

GaryGMason: Yes, it's awkward, and not as clear as it should be. To quote the above, "Please see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Fix the File Upload Wizard."

But forums don't generally care about copyright considerations, and Wikipedia has to, most scrupulously, in order to survive.

By the way, please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~

Thnidu (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Block being flagged earlier

Is there any way we could get the "Error: you have been blocked from editing" message/hard stop to happen earlier in the process than at the final stage (after hitting the "Upload file" button)? It's annoying to have everything set to upload a file and then have to re-do it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Might be possible; I don't think it's currently among the things that the script checks. On the other hand, we normally expect blocked editors to know they are blocked once they log in, so why would somebody still attempt to upload a file, knowing thy can't do it and aren't supposed to? BTW, how and when did you experience this problem? You don't seem to have been blocked on this account before? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I use a VPN a lot, and it's blocked. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it was an autoblock you got? I'm afraid that might not be possible to fix then, since I don't think the API has a function to query in advance whether your account is currently on an IP that would be subject to autoblocking. Those autoblocks only occur once you actually attempt to make an edit, so the script probably can't foresee it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, haha. Could you program in some sort of function to check the IP too? Maybe by telling the system that you're trying to edit as soon as you click on the file upload wizard? Or would that increase the load on the system by too much? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Wikipedia images?

What sort of actions do I need to do if I were to upload an image of features of Wikipedia? Well, I know I can say it is in the Free Work category, but I don't know what sort of evidence to put in to images of Wikipedia. Where is the link about Wikipedia screenshots being freely licensed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found a comment by some user about one of my previous questions: "If you mean an image with a license legally limiting its use to Wikipedia only, the answer is there's no way to do that, because all licenses on Wikipedia need to allow re-use elsewhere. If you simply mean an image that's intended for Wikipedia-internal use only, you can use this wizard just as any other upload method, choose the options for "free work" and the appropriate license and upload it locally". However, I am still not sure about what sort of evidence to put in. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, from now, Wikipedia-content-only images use {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Templates on MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js

Should all licensing-related templates transcluded in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, the "gears" behind Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, have cascading protection? I ask because after realizing Template:Non-free biog-pic was transcluded there ... after realizing that there was an edit request fulfilled there to remove "parameter 1", but then later found out personally that parameter 1 is still utilized in the file upload wizard, and thus reverted the related edits (all of this can be found on the template's edit history), I now worry that editing these templates could have a negative effect on the upload wizard if not performed correctly. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging Sfan00 IMG and Paine Ellsworth to make them aware of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's just confusing when software code shows up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Some template or random categories. Some time ago, User:B changed the script so that the software wouldn't think that OTRS permission is needed for pages like this. Later, User:Redrose64 removed some other transclusions. Can't the script just get nowiki tags at the top and bottom? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Steel1943 and Stefan2: I don't see how cascading protection would solve the problem. The real problem is that people with the technical means of doing so shouldn't be editing protected templates without knowing that they are doing. There are only 118 people with the template editor privilege and so it's not as though disallowing template editors from editing these templates is going to solve a problem. (Yes, it would have stopped this one person from making the edit, but there's 1332 admins who would have still been able to.) Maybe the solution is to have a (yet another) big warning box on the talk page of the templates included here that admonishes you strongly to make sure your edits don't break MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js? --B (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• To editors Steel1943 and Stefan2: B is correct, and I take full responsibility for the removal of the parameter without first seeking a consensus for the change. There should be no need for cascade protection, nor for any new warning box, because there is already a large warning box on all template-protected edit pages that links to the "use" section of Wikipedia:Template editor. This type of edit and what should be done is expressly covered on that project page. I was wrong and consider this a good lesson, and I will certainly exercise more care in the future.  Paine  02:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, if you follow my suggestion and add nowiki tags to MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, then MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js would no longer be transcluding any templates, so any cascading protection wouldn't actually protect any templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Stefan2: That suggestion actually masks the problem: the fact that a page uses in a MediaWiki namespace page was edited in a fashion that potentially could have caused harm to the upload wizard, and the link on the MediaWiki allowed the template to have the MediaWiki page on its "What links here" lists. The problem is that the template had a "mis-edit", not the fact that it's transcluded here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The page MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js currently transcludes some of the templates which the upload wizard may insert while other templates are not transcluded, which is inconsistent. The appropriate way would seem to be to create a template like {{Twinkle standard installation}} and add that to the documentation page of all templates used by the upload wizard. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• (Super delayed response) @Stefan2: This idea definitely has some merit, and should be implemented. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note that applying cascading protection to the templates themselves would be incorrect; you'd want to transclude the templates onto a cascade-protected page (e.g. Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items‎), or apply cascading protection to some page on which they're already transcluded, or just protect them manually. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fix misleading link text.

The page says Files for upload wizard
(recommended for new users)

but doesn't actually link to a Files for upload wizard. It links to a page that links back to this page (that is, WP:File_Upload_Wizard).

Please fix it so it accurately describes what it links to. Specifically, change the wording from

Files for upload wizard

back to

Files For Upload process

TIA.

(If it were to link like this: Files for Upload Wizard then it would be accurate too.)

(If it were to link like this: Files for Upload Wizard then it would be accurate too, once in place.)

--Elvey^(t•c) 20:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey:, I a little confused on exactly what you want it to be changed to, would you please you make the edit at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard/sandbox then reactivate the edit request tag above? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is a confusing link! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

[https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&diff=622580540&oldid=613371561 This is the edit that made the link confusing. It (in addition to making the page less maintainable) changed the wording

to

Files for upload wizard

from

Files For Upload process

.

I think my (revised) request is now very clear: Change the link text back. Sandbox edited. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ce:Википеди:File Upload Wizard

Did the master downloads as your Wikimedia Foundation. But it does not work. Please tell me what I did wrong? --Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like your version of the script at ce:MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js may have been copied off an older version of our script here, from before these [1] bugfix edits this summer. These were necessary to remove some function calls that are no longer supported by our standard jQuery library. Your version on ce-wp seems to choke on the first lines of code that call the "$.isDomElement()" function. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank helped. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenprint horror

Again. I made a screenprint from Wikipedia, and made adjustments (annotations). I uploaded it, but I could not get how to describe the licence correctly. I just made some guesses.

What is missing is the straightforward copyright option: "This is a screenprint of a wikipedia page so the copyright situation is obvious" + url. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@DePiep: please upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead and use the license {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} there. Though if you want to keep it locally here on Wikipedia, we have {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, great. (This one is local because it's just a talkpage illustration). -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha

There is a dreadful Catch-22 in this wizard. If you are being a 'good boy' and using the draft page wizard instead of creating an article directly, you will find that:

This wizard demands that the image be assigned to an existing page.

You cannot comply, because the wizard does not recognise draft pages as existing.

Seems you have no option but to publish directly if a page needs to contain an image. Asking for a review of the page with a missing image would seem like a bad idea. --Anteaus (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason behind this might be that non-free images are not allowed in drafts, and free images should (almost always) be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. As for the lack of images in drafts under review: images are not an inclusion criteria so it won't prevent an article from being accepted. "Supporting materials" is a B-class article criteria, however, so it might affect assessment. I would suggest notifying the reviewer that an image will be uploaded upon being reviewed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploads by new users

Please also allow New users to upload files. Nihal Takar (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(I am re-adding [and re-titling] this recent section, which IMO is a legitimate addition to this page but which has been caught up in the edit-warring over Siwarsaab's vandalistic insertion of Arabic text about global warming. And ISTM that this page may need semi-protection. --Thnidu (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

It might be a legitimate addition to the page, but Nihal Takar is blocked for vandalism, and he may not be the same as Siwarsaab. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually blocked as sock of Becambuisness not Siwarsaab. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin and DMacks: Ah, that makes sense. I had no idea. --Thnidu (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Support for InternetExplorer 8 had been dropped from MediaWiki

Please note that JavaScript support for IE8 had been dropped and there is some upload handling in MediaWiki's JS libraries now. It'd be nice if the script could be updated accordingly; Bartosz Dziewoński is eager to remove the SAMEORIGIN exception. -- Rillke (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Information about copyright permission

Hi, can anyone please inform me about license permission type which should be used through which someone can publish their image on Wikipedia but not for commercial purpose? Mr RD 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no such permission option. It's part of Wikipedia's policy that we accept only images licensed in such a way that they can be re-used freely, for all purposes, including commercial ones. The only exceptions are those described in the WP:NFC policy, which is unlikely to apply in your case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

this page is so difficult to upload photos - it took me twnety minutes jsut to upload one photo!

• Bulleted list item

Deutsch

Warum gibt es keine Version File Upload Wizard? (Why is there no German version of File Upload Wizard?) I am just asking this in curiosity. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking about uploads on sister projects such as the German Wikipedia, or about uploads here on the English Wikipedia when using a German user interface? As for the first question, the wizard was written specifically for the English Wikipedia and is taylored to our needs here. I believe a few other projects have in the meantime copied it over and translated it for their own purposes, but that's entirely up to each local project. The German Wikipedia has image policies very different from ours here (no non-free images etc.), so I doubt they'd have much of a use for it. As for the second, since the wizard is written as a mere local Javascript program, it's outside the scope of Wikimedia's normal interface localization mechanism, and I'm afraid no localization of its messages in all the many user languages have been attempted so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Are you asking about uploads on sister projects such as the German Wikipedia..." Yes.

"...or about uploads here on the English Wikipedia when using a German user interface?" No. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will be using Duolingo (because I am only 44% fluent in German) so that I could actually study their Policen (policies) and would not have to pull up Oxford German Dictionary on my iPod Touch for every German word which I do not yet know, which is doubtless tiresome, and possibly ask questions on English Wikipedia. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As for copyrighted material on Deutsch Wikipedia, I guess that it does not matter because, even if I were to have lived in Deutschland, I can still always switch from Deutsch Wikipedia to English Wikipedia just to study the copyrighted material tagged under the "Fair Use" rationale; therefore, there is no need for me to "beg" for such media on Deutsch Wikipedia when I can still gain access to the media on (English) Wikipedia anyway. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me get this image onto wikipedia?

http://russia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lets_get_married_from_youtube_2008_show.png

It is from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tXAXPkzL4g

Thank you

(This comment was written by Moscowamerican on 17 April 2016 at 02:21 CTZ.) Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted image, so it could only be uploaded under the rules for "non-free" items, if at all. Choose the section "This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work", then follow the instructions on what further information to provide. Please be aware that there cannot be a guarantee that you will end up with an acceptable upload. The wizard is as complicated as it is because it has to be: most images out there on the web simply aren't useable in Wikipedia, and if this wizard doesn't seem to show you an easy and straightforward way of uploading it, the most likely reason is that your picture really doesn't fit in any of the legitimate use cases. In the case of a TV screenshot like this, you will have to provide a convincing reason why a reader would need this particular screenshot to adequately understand the content of the article. This will only be possible if the specific scene shown in the picture is the object of substantial discussion in the article. Since you already have another picture about the show as a whole, an upload would otherwise be hard to justify.

By the way, please learn to sign your postings on talkpages, by putting the code "~~~~" at the end of your posts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Things have changed...

...since I was here last. Xaosflux, Was any beta testing done on this tool? The initial page loads up with some incomprehensible gibberish below the "Click here to start the upload wizard" button, and why does it not allow users to license their work via CC-BY-SA 4.0? Specifically, the page I get looks like this:

File:Upload wizard error page.jpg

screenshot of upload error page

One more thing: wouldn't it make sense to tell uploaders that this upload tool should only be used for images that are going to get a fair use argument, and that otherwise all media should be uploaded through Commons instead of Wikipedia? Because the vast majority of Wikipedia media uploads get shifted there anyway. KDS4444 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up the display problem in the links. Those are apparently due to a recent change in a template used [2]. The CC 4.0 versions aren't there yet because nobody got around to updating the form since they were introduced. As for the question of how to treat or discourage local free uploads, that's been discussed repeatedly here on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

can I ask a question

Can I ask a question Carlostench (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Carlostench: Have you looked into Help: Files? You may find the answer there. See especially the section Help: Files#Uploading files. --Thnidu (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Worked well

I just used this tool to upload a logo for a university, and it worked very well!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  04:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover Page of a magazine

The template is not at all clear and is much more complex than the old form. I take a picture of a magazine cover. Does that make me the Author? If so, how do I sign - by tildes or what? or is that the design artist, or is it the publisher? This is a common enough category to require something like a boilerplate or at least help with what is supposed to go into the categories. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you're not the author, the publisher of the magazine would be. (You're making a faithful/slavish reproduction of a copyrighted work, which is not considered to create a new copyright via US law). --MASEM (t) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not want the answer, I want it made clear in the uploader. I see that once you have uploaded it, some moderately helpful information appears, which would have been useful before. If anyone else is having trouble, see Template:Non-free use rationale serial publication. Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:Chemical Engineer. It's much more clear how it's supposed to be done after you upload the image and see what you did incorrectly. There should be a "show preview" button or something. I'm almost tempted to fill out the required fields with gibberish and upload it so that I can edit the file page directly. Lizard (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I need some help tonight to send a magazine cover on a Wikipedia profile on here. On a Wikipedia The National Police Gazette

What can I put something on I have on my IPhone to put it on this. Thanks Hayes Runner (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No probs

I'm fairly WP savvy but usually get confused by the ambiguity and vagueness of file upload instructions. It's a lot clearer now. Thanks. (May still be a bit of a challenge for newbies - don't know - but at least this ten-year veteran isn't left scratching his head any more.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

F11

Can we please disable the ability to upload files with this option?

I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so.

Files uploaded under this option are immediately eligible for speedy deletion in 7 days under F11. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot proposal to automate placing di-no permission on certain files uploaded with the Upload Wizard

Any input you may have on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Errors when uploading

Has anyone been experiencing upload problems? I'm getting the error message "An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad"." -O.R.^Comms 17:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not make it mandatory for users to upload free files to Commons?

The backlog of files to copy to Commons is huge on the English Wikipedia. It can very easily be explained by the fact that users aren't forced to upload their files to Commons. It's just a suggestion made to them during the upload process. On the French Wikipedia, it's mandatory to import free files to Commons since the end of 2006, so there's no backlog since at least 2013. Why not do the same here? The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed here repeatedly. See, for instance, Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard/Archive 3#New upload wording, Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard/Archive 2#Commons pointer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• !Vote for Commons

Otherwise, change the text at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard which tells new users, "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account". If we do not automatically direct people to Commons, then we should at least be more direct in telling them that probably they should be at Commons. Almost no new users can upload a Wikipedia-compliant non-free file. Almost all new users with a Commons-compatible file should put it at Commons.

I know this has been discussed before. I am not persuaded by these raised arguments from the archives:

• "it's also objectively more difficult to get much of the editing context on Commons"
• "this could cause problems for people with SUL conflicts on Commons"
• "where many of us who have admin rights here lack them"

I came here because the current process rejected a new user who wished to share a free file. The current process imagines that new users anticipate that there is a separate media repository at Commons, but in fact, almost no new users expect this. I do not think it is reasonable for a new user to read, "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account" and to understand that they have an option to upload on Commons. New users should be more strongly directed to Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

OTRS

I do not know where to send the email from an image copyright owner giving permission to use that image. Can someone please help me locate where to send that email ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carroll F. Gray: In this case, you would send it to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If you were uploading to Commons, you would send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bug: mis-following of redirects for article of nonfree image

If one selects an image as nonfree, there is a "This file will be used in the following article:" box. Entering various non-"article" pagenames here has some magic, for example, converting the name of a redirect to its actual target. But it looks like at least one of the standard additional templates placed on redirect pages can break this feature. If I enter "Taxol", where Taxol is:

#REDIRECT [[Paclitaxel]] {{R from trade name}}

the text field becomes "International nonproprietary name", which is a link in the expansion of {{R from trade name}}, rather than "Paclitaxel". Is it pulling "last link in the template-expanded file" rather than "link following 'REDIRECT'", or something like that? DMacks (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Again: why can not I say that I edited a Wikipedia commons file?

Again: why can not I say that I edited a Wikipedia commons file? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing is certain: my last upload will have a wrong clearance because of this. Do you know the Wikipedia commons source file does not even mention the licence text as this upload page optionises (asks for, drop down listed)? That is: Upload asks for a licence that is not mentioned on the source's page while that is a Wikipedia page. -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ṁąḧạɖḭ ḦḁŠáñ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadi Official (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Denver Public Library as special source

If one selects an image as nonfree, there is a "Special source and license conditions (optional)" popup that has an entry "Denver Public Library". By plain-language, that means images from this source have some special licensing arrangement, but there is no further detail there and I don't see a way to have this (or any of these) menu items link to more specific information. Does Denver Public Library have some special collection, for which this option facilitates bulk uploading? Selecting this option tags the image with {{Non-free Denver Public Library}}. At a minimum that needs to become blue with something like {tl|Non-free ESA media} and others in that menu. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The template link was wrong; it was meant to point to {{Non-free Denver Public Library image}} (now redirected). It's a rarely-used template, but it existed as part of Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags when this script was created, that's why it got included. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

api error-permission denied

I was logged in with my username and tried to upload a new image to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Joomla. I was not able to upload a new image using "embedded file".

And when I try to upload it using the Visual Editor (via Insert > Media), the Media Settings screen displays the error: apierror-permissiondenied. How can I solve that? Pe7er (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I love It

the file upload Wizard was awesome i love it very much, thanks(BirialaGday (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

i like it

shamsuddin sheikh 11:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamsuddinsk97 (talk • contribs)  

Adding a note about replaceable non-free images

Was wondering if it would be possible to add something to the upload wizard specifically about uploading non-free images of living people? I understand that there is a bit about non-free content in "Step 3", but I imagine that most editors do not bother to stop and take the time to go a read WP:NFC or WP:NFCCP before continuing on with the wizard. Maybe a check box which says something like "Is this a photo of a living person or persons?" could be added somewhere to the wizard that when checked would provide information like what's found in the note given in Template:WikiProject Biography when the |needs-photo= is marked as "yes" in BLP articles. This might stop some people from uploading such images and reduce the time and effort spent finding them and deleting them. There are some certain cases where such an image might be considered acceptable per WP:NFCC#1 as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but most of the time the files are clearly replaceable fair use which only end up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)