Wikipedia talk:File upload wizard: Difference between revisions

This page is for discussing maintenance of the image upload mechanism at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and improvements to it. Please do not use it for posting other unrelated material.

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, MediaWiki talk:FileUploadWizard.js redirects here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

i like it

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

I was logged in with my username and tried to upload a new image to https://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

When a new user presses Upload File- they land here. Most of the time they need to land at the Commons Upload Wizard. On a normal page, there would be a prominent hat-note to take them there- obviously I can't add one myself. When the new user arrives here, the first thing they see is the large link to the WP(en) Upload wizard, what I would like to see is a 80% link underneath- linking them to the commons wizard. The problem that a trainer faces, is that there is no easy way to describe where to find the little link in the big blue box at the left hand side- no eas way to put it into documentation. Please ping me when a solution has been agreed. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, before a new user can decide whether they should use the Commons or the local upload, they first need to understand the difference between free and non-free items, and that's something the wizard tries to teach them in the process (giving them another option to go to Commons after they clarified what kind of file they have). If we wanted to add such a prominent link right at the beginning, we'd also have to confront them with yet more explanative boilerplate about rules at that point (and people never read that). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point (feel your pain)- but I had never really understood why beginners- and potential donors were having so much difficulty with Upload file because personally and in the classroom I was always on Commons when used or demonstrated the Upload file link. Last night, while cleaning up a help page I discovered Upload file (en).

• Could you look at the Upload file (commons) link, the copyright issue is raised on page 2 of the form, and if the user doesn't select checkbox one- they are thrown back out. As an IT dinosaur, I would have queried the idea of uploading images before doing the paperwork serverside, but nothing is published until all syntax and criteria are OK. It works.
• My big issue as a trainer is the need to speak simply- I want to say, follow the link and press the pink button. It doesn't need to be at the top- Upload file (en) can be modified to give me something better than what we have at the moment.
• There seems to be a great inconsistency between, me expecting a tool (as in Upload file (commons)), and the aim to make this a tutorial, to enhance understanding and minimise damage.
• The graphics on Upload file (commons) are so much better, and encouraging to neophytes. The source code does not allow an easy cut and paste! Certain improvements can be made just using wikitext but that will require the will to change. The UI must be donor friendly oriented and donor friendly directing them to the tool they need. I do think it will be worth the effort. ClemRutter (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that certain combination of non-free uploads e.g. tv screenshots end up displaying n.a. as the response to WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 in the resulting fair use rationale e.g. File:Jeremy in English as a Second Language.jpg The use of not applicable does not appear to be in keeping with the requirements of the WP:NFCC to give a full explanation as to why an image meets the criteria. While some boilerplate to meet these two criteria probably is ok, it shouldn't be n.a. Any suggestions for improvement in wording or should it not be boilerplate and the uploader needs to establish reasons for themselves. Nthep (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 61#"A non-free rationale ... needs to clearly address all 10 points in WP:NFCC". As the person who drafted the current system of standard rationale components in this script, I've defended the use of "n.a." in these cases and I have nothing much to add to what I said in that discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N/A don't make a whole lot of sense when we have standardized fair use rationale templates for a wide variety of categories that fill in the information for you. The use of {{non-free use rationale 2}} needs to be deprecated in my opinion and replaced with the more specific templates. Failure to actually fill in all the required information does not meet fair use policy and the use of N/A was a poor choice when we have templates that literally do the work for you. --Majora (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and FPaS, the legal field is full of boilerplate language because of the necessity of it. Standardized material covers everyone because the standardization of such things ensures that the necessary steps are followed and are valid. Copyright is a legal area through and through. Your fight against such language might have made sense if we were forcing people to copy and paste such information themselves. We aren't. The templates do it for you if you use the right template. Failure to have a complete and valid FUR is against policy and we should be doing everything in our power to avoid that. --Majora (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use rationales have nothing to do with the law. Nothing in what we ask uploaders to say in their FURs is legally necessary. The last thing a court of law would do, if ever a situation were to arise where our use of non-free material were to be challenged legally, is to read what FUR templates an uploader placed on a file description page – the suggestion that such templates would be necessary or even helpful to "cover" us is ridiculous. What FURs are meant for is to nudge uploaders to consider the right questions and (hopefully truthfully) tell us the crucial pieces of information while uploading. For that purpose, boilerplate language is absolutely the worst possible thing to have around. And all the existing "standard" FUR templates are completely useless when it comes to FURs that have to be composite of standard components and individual, user-supplied information. That's what this wizard has been trying to guide users through (with moderate success), and what all previous systems of standardized templates were absolutely hopeless with. No, it is simply not true that those standard templates could "do it for you". They just don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you favor the continual violation of our policy here is truly shocking. If you want to do that get the policy changed. Otherwise, every use of the wizard you wrote is a violation. WP:NFCC is a legal policy. It says it right there. There really isn't any way around that. If you don't like it get the policy changed. Otherwise, Nthep should fix the .js script to avoid the continual violations that have gone on, unchecked, for years. --Majora (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy violation. Nothing in the policy demands that a fair-use rationale needs to explicitly talk about each and every NFC criterion to demonstrate that they are all met, in cases where that compliance is self-evident. (If that were the case, it would lead to the absurdity that every rationale would have to self-referentially assert and confirm its own existence, among other things.) If there were such a policy written somewhere, it would be so idiotic and so obviously out of touch with actual practice that it would be prima facie invalid (and yes, in that case it should be changed, as soon as possible). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is only standard practice because you made it so. Unilaterally. Your decision is even written as a comment in the script. I hate FURs filled with trivial/predictable/redundant verbiage, so we'll just cut it short. And don't anybody dare complain that that's not a valid FUR. You had no right to unilaterally make that decision and for you to do so and then claim that that is now "standard practice" is ridiculous. That is dictatorial.

WP:NFCCE states, Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. A valid rationale states why the image meets all 10 required criteria. Your unilateral action has made it so tens of thousands of fair use images do not have a complete, valid, FUR. We all know that most people have zero actual grasp on the necessities of images here (or anywhere). To default to an incomplete FUR because you don't like boilerplate language with the knowledge that most people will just ignore it because they don't know any better is facilitating a policy violation. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeat the myth that a rationale is valid only if it explicitly mentions all ten criteria until you're blue in the face; it won't make it truer. Not even your "standard templates" do anything of the sort. Have fun trying to delete all images whose rationale doesn't explicitly address NFCC#9 and #10. This wizard has consensus, because it was presented to the community, tested under its eyes, and has been running like this for five years. Now go away and do something useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fut. Perf, given that several people are now disagreeing with you on the matter, the status of its having consensus is clearly in question. Even if it once did, consensus can change, and when multiple people are in good faith questioning the practice, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it does (still, if applicable) have consensus. I didn't even know the Upload Wizard did that. I know some other people don't either, because I've seen them get after people for using the "n.a.". In fact, that just came up at a Teahouse question, and led to a new editor being chastised for that, and getting thoroughly confused having no idea what they did wrong. Generally speaking, I want a rationale to show that an editor actually carefully considered the NFCC before uploading a nonfree image, and came to the conclusion that the use does indeed meet each and every one of them. I might support boilerplate in some of the "identification" cases where use is widely considered acceptable, but it should still at least be there to show how the image passes it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]