MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives February 2004 - March 2006

[edit] By permission and noncommercial use

I think it would be good if we added language to the effect that it is not acceptable to upload images for which the copyright holder has granted permission for Wikipedia alone, or which are licensed for noncommercial use only. This fact is very confusing and counterinituitive for new users, and it's only discussed very briefly at Wikipedia:Image use policy. I'd also like to move "For more information, see our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available" to the top and reword it as "Before you upload an image, make sure you have seen our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available". Thoughts? Angr (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat similar suggestion was to add {{permission}} and {{noncommercial}} to the drop down menu so that at least people will tag the image correctly, and it can more quickly be dealt with. This addresses the related problem of people thinking they want only wikipedia to use it, not seeing it in the list, and then selecting a random tag. It's somewhat different philosophically than now, where we have (with the exception of "help me" type tags) only selections that are appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia.

To your question though, I wouldn't mind seeing wording like that there, I'm sure at least some people would read it. - cohesion 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Wikipedia only accepts free content (free content is not the same as "no payment"!) Do not upload images taken from other websites, they are not free content. (unless they explicitly state that they are) Images that not everyone is allowed to use (such as images where only a permission to use on Wikipedia have been given), or images that have terms limiting what purposes they can be used for (such as only non-commercial / educational / personal use beeing allowed), or images that have terms prohibiting modified versions to be made, are not free content and should therefore not be uploaded, even if theyr use on Wikipedia would fall under permited non-commercial, educational use. Again Wikipedia only accept free content. (For exceptions, see Wikipedia:Fair use, public domain and Wikipedia:Free image resources.) Copyrighted images with no valid fair use rationale will be deleted.

as a replacement for the current "no images from websites" box, a bit longwinded maybe? Hard to condense it down enough without missing important info... Any improvement ideas? --Sherool (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Possibly fixing the spelling? Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images found on websites or on an image search engine should

This message currently says "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.". This appears completely erroneous. As if it is the medium that counts, rather than the licence! —Bromskloss 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

People rarely upload no free images from other sources.Geni 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're taking it the other way around. Even if all non free images come from search engines, not all images from search engines are non free. —Bromskloss 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

the vast majority however are.Geni 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Do not lie to us. You will be blocked."

Do not lie to us. You will be blocked.

A mention of a possible block if you're uploading copyrighted material should be in the uploadbox, but this is IMHO not very friendly towards people who have never before uploaded an image. Husky ^{(talk page)} 17:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this wording seems a pretty direct violation of WP:AGF. What was wrong with the old wording? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I restored the old wording. —Mets501 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about bolding it though, and torowing in a mention of source too, like:

Users who upload content with false license declarations or who repeatedly upload images with no license or source declaration may be blocked.

--Sherool (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Runs over two lines and looks like legal text. It's about social engineering. People are happy to lie to machines but by using the word “us” you change that so they are thinking about lying to people. Well that is the theory anyway.Geni 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the whole "Do not lie to us. You will be blocked" phrase is kind of harsh and discouraging. Wikichange 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have archived this page as it is getting a bit long. If anyone has any concerns regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to tell me. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image not found

Since clicking on an image in an article which has apparently gone missing may send you to the Special:Upload page, would it be useful to have language on this page similar to that which appears on the "action=edit" page, such as

"If you expected an image to be here, and it is not, the image may not yet be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting to recreate this image."

since, sometimes, the purge function helps for images also. Of course, another way to handle this situation would be to send references to missing images "somewhere else" if that makes sense and can be done. --Big_Iron 10:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Do not lie to us. You will be blocked."

What the hell is this draconian Big Brother-like proclamation? Someone please revert this change. It's very disturbing. Please see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. metaspheres 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, per the discussion about this several sections above. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too long, too many fonts, too many colors

OK. IMO, the current version has crept into the ridiculous. We currently have emphasis through the use of

1. bold
2. italic
3. font size
4. bold and color
5. boxes with this color backgroud
6. boxes with another background color and larger font size
7. boxes with yet another background color

I say it's time to stop the insanity and move to the version proposed a while ago (see MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/Archive 1):

Your file will be deleted in one week unless you provide both:

1. The source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so. If the file is available online, include a link to the source.
2. The copyright holder and a copyright/license tag with an explanation of why you believe the file is so licensed.

Please note: Most images on the internet are copyrighted under terms intended to prevent them from being freely used on other sites, making it inappropriate and/or illegal to upload them to Wikipedia. Users who upload content with false license declarations, or who repeatedly upload images with no license declaration, may be blocked.

For more information, see our image use policy and our guide to uploading. See the list of image copyright tags for an explanation of compatible licenses.

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this.

Shorter is better. Fewer colors, fonts, and backgrounds is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely looks a hell of a lot more professional and user-friendly! metaspheres 01:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try to squeeze in something along the lines of "non-free licensed material should only be uploaded if all the criterea outlined at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are fulfilled." somewhere. Most people seem to know that fair use is allowed, but the fact that we don't accept fair use material to simply ilustrate what objects or persons, that is is possible for anyone to photograph (if at the right place at the right time), look like is unknown to most people. --Sherool (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do shortening it up a bit. —Mets501 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? [1] —Mets501 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translating to russian language

I translate this template to russian language. Please move MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ru to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ru. Thanks. --Kaganer 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for translating, but this is the English Wikipedia. I think your translation might better be better on the Russian wikipedia, or Wikimedia commons. —Mets501 (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interface message languages can be changed in preferences; when I edit the German Wikipedia, for instance, I have the interface messages in English. The Russian upload text will appear to anyone who's set their language to Russian if it's moved as suggested above, so I've put the editprotected tag back up. --ais523 13:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this message on Commons already translated ;)

Please compare en (customized text) and ru (standart text from languageRU.php). I use russian interface => i see uncorrect message, without warnings and useful links.--Kaganer 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved. However, it doesn't seem to have changed the effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=ru - I wonder if there is a timelag? I also wonder if, instead of fixing something, I broke something very, very important. Eeek. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comes up with the customized Russian message for me now, so it's probably just a timelag. --ais523 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see how it works. Cool. —Mets501 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it works. Thank goodness, I was worried I broke something I didn't understand. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! All OK. Also minor edit: please change "выданных поисковыми машинами" to "выданные поисковыми машинами" (it's my bug). --Kaganer 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to add

There are probably thousands of images that are simply uploaded and because the uploader doesn't know how to use the image link/display of Wiki they reupload an image that is only reduced in size. Could we add some kind of notice to the page that it is not necessary to reupload an identical image just for the smaller size, and Wiki can handle that. Maybe something like: "Do not upload identical images only to reduce in size. See Wikipedia:Images for information on how to control image size and other tools." --MECU≈talk 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, a note that says changing the extension is also not needed. For example, many images are uploaded with .JPG and then re-uploaded as .jpg. The extension capitals are not relevant as an image call can handle .JPG or .jpg, it's the same. The user must just use the right name of the image. Both of these would reduce the impact (in hopes) of redundant images being uploaded. --MECU≈talk 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, my personal opinion is that anyone doing this would be unlikely to notice the message telling them not to. I could be wrong, but I don't know if it's a pressing need to include on the page. - cohesion 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resizing

The size of this message is very large. So, it makes the shape of the page not good. Can't it be smaller? --Meno25 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to something much more like the version suggested above. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It does look nicer now, but I think people may not be getting the message anymore as seen from some of the more recent questions. - cohesion 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information gathering

I'd like to suggest that this page carry an information box source text similar to how Commons:MediaWiki:Uploadtext does, making it easy to cut/paste the box into the description and fill it out when uploading files. Their box looks like this (but is inside table tagging so it only takes up a small amount of the total box size instead of the whole page width:

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

What do people think? Having a box like this in the description area tends to result in better descriptions of images and more information about sourcing and provenance. our {{information}} template is currently (almost? exactly?) identical to the one on commons. I realise that we want to try to keep the size and garishness of this to reasonable levels, of course. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

Because Wikipedia's content is freely copyable under the terms of the GFDL, your file will be deleted within one week unless you provide both:

1. The source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so. If the file is available online, include a link to the source. Please choose a descriptive title for the file before uploading it since uploaded files cannot be moved (renamed) in the same manner as regular pages.
2. The copyright holder and a copyright/license tag with an explanation of why you believe the file is so licensed. If you hold the copyright you must license the image under a free license or release it into the public domain. If you are uploading a fair use image you must include a fair use rationale.

Please note: Most images on the internet are copyrighted under terms intended to prevent them from being freely used on other sites, making it inappropriate and/or illegal to upload them to Wikipedia. Users who upload content with false license declarations, or who repeatedly upload images with no license declaration, may be blocked. For more information, see our image use policy and our guide to uploading.

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this.

Please Give detailed information with the following code for copy and paste in the summary (fill in the variables):

{{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }}

Description of the content; use as well a descriptive and concise filename without special characters. Source like a web link or give a statement like "own work". Date of creation or publication if the former is unknown. Author(s) of the file. if you're not the author: Permission of author (quote)- please also forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org; you still have to select the appropriate license in the dropdown box or add one below the summary. optionally: other_versions given via a wikilink; can be left out.

... perhaps with the background in purple too, and with the info links going to the right places here instead of commons. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends how these things can be parsed by the bots. I wouldn't want to start doing this and lose orphanbot for example. - cohesion 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So ask Carnildo then what his bot needs to see?? What other bots use this info? ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

too long to much text.Geni 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Login link is incorrect

Special:Userlogin, not Special:Login.

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this.

Chris Cunningham 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woohoo!

Deletion log link finally works. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yee-haw :-) —Mets501 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long, too many fonts, too many colors (again)

Per the thread #Too long, too many fonts, too many colors above, I changed the warning to this version on December 29. Visually comparing the immediately previous version to the current version, I notice they are nearly identical.

Is there some reason we must have so many styles? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

so it looks nothing like youtube and the other places where you can upload files on the web.Geni 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have so many people who obviously can't be bothered to read the instructions off their own bat, we need something to attract their attention and distract them from the almost-orgasmic excitement engendered by uploading which can be the only excuse for the total failure to answer our very reasonable questions with any degree of accuracy or care. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there some evidence anyone can reference that indicates the current version helps? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

none whatsoever but since there is no evidence the other way it doesn't really matter.Geni 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the version you reverted away from infinitely more readable and clear. Nothing stands out on the new one, it all just makes my eyes glaze over. The jumpy font sizes don't make anything stand out because there's so many different ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer minimalism. The simpler version is much more readable. What I don't understand is why Geni removed the parameter $1 in the link to Commons. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This version seems simple enough to not confuse, yet get the point through. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French version

The French version of this message seems very interesting. It leads you through step by step. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that a lot. You also have to scroll through a load of text before you can do anything (stupid). Suggest someone draws up a version along those lines. ed g2s • talk 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to force users to scroll to get to the upload form (and I realize the current version does for most screen and font sizes), we should have a convenient way to make the verbose warnings go away. Annoying users who upload many images in the hopes that we'll get fewer copyvios from new uploaders by annoying everyone seems like the wrong tradeoff. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't even read the upload text because I know what it says. A new version that makes me scroll down would be very annoying. Perhaps having a [dismiss] link would be useful. Clicking [dismiss] would mean we know the person has seen it too, if we ever wanted to get to the point of someone claiming they didn't know such information and we wanted to prove they had to. Though, being able to force it back open if there was a significant change would be needed too. --MECU≈talk 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who's already read it and needs to get the job done quickly will know to press CTRL + End to jump to the bottom. We're not asking them to do a EULA-esque scroll, check and click. It's really not that much of an inconvenience. ed g2s • talk 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

people presented with large amounts of text will tend not to read it.Genisock2 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Special:Log

From an unknown reason, the link to special:log does not appear at the upload page. Does anyone know why? Was this perhaps posted to bugzilla already? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It only shows up when there's an image name specified, so if you go to the sidebar upload link you wouldn't get one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)