MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The new thumb-syntax should be integrated into the MediaWiki-upload text, because it could prevent uploading a small and a large version of an image, because it is not needed anymore. I.e. the syntax [[image:NAMEOFTHEIMAGE.jpg|thumb|Text under the image]] could be recommended. Stern 19:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Simple version

I propose to remove the contents of this page (I have moved all the information to Wikipedia:Uploading images) and replace it with the following. — Timwi 14:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Use this page to upload images.

I mostly agree with this, but an extra line on how to add images would be really useful for those who have read the instructions before, and just need a quick reminder. Angela. 07:11, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for, since the form fields "Filename:", "Summary:", and the "Upload file" submit button, should be pretty self-explanatory. Nevertheless, thanks for your suggestion, I'll try to add something that comes to mind. — Timwi 00:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I meant the instructions on how to add the image to the article. I've replaced these now. Angela. 04:03, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ahhh, my eyes. This text is too big and too purple. No one is going to bother reading it now. Dori | Talk 14:49, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. This is such an improvement over the current, looks-like-fineprint version. I'm going to try to get enough consensus to get this implemented. If you are reading this because a message from me sent you to this page, please look over the Timwi's version above, and if you feel able to support it, please add your sig below (with whatever comments you feel moved to make). Let's get this fixed! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Support, provided Wikipedia:Uploading images is updated thoroughly. 00:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

from pump

Not having "To view or search previously uploaded images, go to the list of uploaded images." is inconvenient, and, unless it no longer overwrites files silently, removing the warning about that seems undesirable. Niteowlneils 01:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added that link. Angela. 07:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ideas

I am sure someone else has thought about this, but wouldn't be a good idea to include a check for already uploaded images with the same filename? It shouldn't be too hard to write, and very helpful. Also I'd like to see the "summary" field a lot bigger, like a text box instead of the small 1-line text field. Now I have to re-open all the images I upload, edit them, and then save them again to include all the info I want... --Vikingstad 23:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

You can suggest features at Sourceforge or on Meta. Angela. 23:53, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright vs PD in checkbox

The checkbox text is confusing; I had a hard time with it the first time. It says

  I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it 
  under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.

Well, for a public domain file, there is no copyright holder, and it can't be licensed under any copyright. But checking the box with a positive affirmation is required to perform an upload.

Maybe it should say something more like "there is no conflict with Wikipedia copyright" or "I affirm that the file is public domain, or that the copyright holder..."--Roland Walker 19:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This will change with the new software. See Testwiki:Upload. Angela. 23:17, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm also confused by that checkbox. I want to upload an image from an anime series; do I need permission from whoever created the image (if that person can be found), or from the creators of the anime series itself (who likely will find no reason to grant permission)? If I want to upload a photo of a calendar with pictures from that series, can I grant permission to use the photo I took, or do I still need permission from the creators of the series? It's not clear to me whether the "copyright holder of this file" is the person who created the file or the person who created whatever it depicts. I'd prefer if the checkbox read "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright or that it falls within fair use," but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's okay. Brian Kendig 21:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think an image from an anime series would be copyrighted to the creator of the series, but IANAL. Wikipedia talk:copyrights would be a better place to ask this. You might want to think about making a fair use claim for it if you can't get permission. Angela. 23:17, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

There's no way to make a fair use claim with the form as it's written right now. I can assert that using the image falls under fair use, but that still won't let me check the checkbox saying that I have permission from the copyright holder, and therefore the form won't let me upload. Brian Kendig 02:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, you need to lie when you check the box, and then explain on the image description page that it is fair use. This will change with the new version though. Angela. 07:55, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone add to the warning text on Special:Upload that people must use clear, unambiguous filenames? -- Tarquin 09:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela. 00:08, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that I can upload AVI movies up to about 2Mb. The upload warns that AVI is not a recommended format. Above 2 MB a technical error message is generated.

My questions:

• What are the recommended (if any) formats for movies?
• Is the 2Mb limit an enforced limit is size, or a bug?
• If the recommended format is not AVI, are there any free conversion tools from AVi to the desired format?

t.i.a., TeunSpaans 07:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

• There is no AVI format, it is a container, i think the Ogg Theora format is reccomended, if not avalible use MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. However use Theora if you possibly can.
• Enforcement, kind of dumb for media besides images if you ask me
• As i said above, avi is not a format but a container, so there can be many formats being used inside that container and hence i cannot reccomend a converter, since it might be a multitute of formats. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:11, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Generalizing upload descriptions

Michael Snow implied in Wikipedia:Village pump#Unverified images that there is some effort underway to revise the upload form. I gather this is where it's being discussed. I would ask that any such effort also include (if it doesn't already) revision of all pages that talk about uploads as if they are always images. As an example, Special:Upload says "See Wikipedia:Uploading images for information on how this upload form works". It's not enough just to tweak the article text to include brief mentions of other formats. When I first used that form to upload an image, I had the impression after reading the entire form (yes, I'm one of those who RTFMs) that Wikipedia did not support sound, which turned out not to be true. (If I had known at the time what an "ogg" file was, I could have inferred that sound was supported, but I would argue that even mentioning more widely-known WAV files in passing does not correct the fundamental bias toward image uploading that remains in upload-related pages.) I would be bold and make the changes myself, except that I don't want to interfere with an existing process that I know nothing about. (Also, I'm still recovering from bruises I received during my attempts to broaden the Wikipedia:Sound text. ☺) — Jeff Q 14:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instructions for description page unclear

The instructions for uploading images are unclear as to where the image description should be added. I wasn't sure if I should type my multi-line description into the summary box, or if uploading the image would take me to another page where I should then enter the description. Eoghan 20:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formatting error

The bold formatting of the following text doesn't work, probably because of the line break:

By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the

<a href="../../../t/e/x/Wikipedia%7EText_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License_702a.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>.

KISS

Please try and keep this small. No one reads MS EULA length notices, and it defeats the purpose of having text there: Informing the uploaders. Dori | Talk 04:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested layout - Highlights Commons better

If your file is under a free licence, you are encouraged to contribute it to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content for all Wikimedia projects in all languages. Any file uploaded to the Commons can be immediately used everywhere else.

By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.

Error

"By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." This is not exactly correct. Say I upload something and release it under a compatible Creative Commons license, or some other free license. I have not licensed it under the GFDL, I've licensed it under the other license. Can someone reword this? I can't think of a better way of saying this right now. Dysprosia 03:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Whenever the text is removed it's put back. There's no graceful way, it seems, of saying "use the gfdl, or one of these other less restrictive licences." Further clarification needs to be made in the main paragraph rather than an extra tag-on element. --BesigedB 20:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dual license

Neutrality added this to the page: You may duel-license your file under a Creative Commons license, but this must be in addition to—NOT in place of—the GDFL.

I removed it, first of all I question the use of duel instead of dual here, it's either a spelling error or some rare synoum for dual, either way it's much rarer.

Second, it's both biased and unfactual, first, not all creative commons licences are allowed here, only a few copyleft ones and the more permissive ones, furthermore people may infact submit content under copyleft licences not compatable with the GFDL, however as I understand it if they hold the copyright to said file they autmatically dual-licence their content.

Third, this could be percived as spam, robbot recently got blocked for mass-messageing people requesting that they dual licence their content, although I won't compare this to such spam this makes it look like we officially endorse dual-licenceing, which we may or may not want to do, furthremore, if we do, I object to this bias towards one particular licenceing scheme, personally I'd much prefer people put their works in the public domain. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:07, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Requested addition to instructions

How about:

• If you obtained the image from somewhere on the Web, please include the URL where it can be obtained.

This is so that we can check the claimed copyright, look for higher-resolution versions, look for other similar images and so forth. Many users already do this, but when somebody doesn't I sure miss it. --Andrew 11:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template error

The bullet point specifying the licence doesn't seem to be working anymore. It displays as "Specify the licence of the file by adding the appropriate tag(s), e.g. {{[[template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, {{[[template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}, etc.". I assume that this is because the {{tl}} doesn't work for this. Could someone please fix this back? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you use {{template|template name}} it works. Alphax ^τεχ 04:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mystery addition

If you want to use an exclusive free license other than the GFDL or public domain, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

This was recently added; why, and what does it actually mean? I have no idea what the instruction is actually telling me to do. --Andrew 21:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you own the copyright (i.e. if it's a picture you took) and you want to upload the file here, it must be licensed under the GDFL or released into the public domain. If you want to use another license - cc-by-sa or CeCILL or some such - you must upload it at the Wikimedia Commons. This seems fairly clear to me, but feel free to suggest a wording which is more easily understood. — Dan | Talk 22:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I've been trying to understand this for a while. It's the omission of the "if you own the copyright" part that had got me - as it stands, it seems to specifically exclude a lot of freely licensed images from en. I think the context needs to be made clearer: put this sentence and the previous one in the same paragraph (with the same font). Perhaps a slightly clearer version would be:

If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must licence it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Alternatively, you could upload your file to the Wikimedia Commons under a different free license. Lupin 23:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a new and startling restriction on the images that can be uploaded to wikipedia! Where was it discussed? I suppose it replaces the totally bogus little checkbox which forces most wikipedia users to lie when uploading images (if I upload a NASA image, there is no copyright holder, so forcing me to click and agree that they agree to license it however is pretty dubious).

I suppose this means if I want to put my cc-sa image on Wikipedia I need to get a friend to do it. What about images with joint copyright (e.g. a cc-sa image somebody else created and I modified)?

Since it is not at all clear that it is even possible to release one's work into the public domain (Wikipedia:Granting your work into the public domain) this would be rather awkward. What is the goal of this restriction on uploads? Is the intent to forbid dual-licensing of images? I prefer to use {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} (or in fact {{NoRightsReserved}}) for my images, but am willing to also license them under the GFDL; do I have to start getting someone else to upload my images? --Andrew 03:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If this restriction is actually a good idea, I think Lupin's phrasing is better.

You may upload your images under any free license or combination of free licenses you like; you simply must do it at Commons. Yes, dual-licensing is permitted here, but the GFDL must be one of the licenses. As for the other inconsistences, they're things that Wikipedians have decided to live with. — Dan | Talk 03:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Um, what wikipedians? Where was this discussed? --Andrew 08:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

From public domain: A copyright holder can explicitly disclaim any proprietary interest in the work, effectively granting it to the public domain, by providing a licence to this effect. A suitable licence will grant permission for all of the acts which are restricted by copyright law. Such a license is sometimes called a free use or public-domain equivalent licence. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here's the link I botched before: Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain. It started because someone (I forget who) wrote the US copyright office and obtained the opinion that it is impossible to release one's work into the public domain. Note that our PD-release tag does not specify what if any rights are released; it just claims to release into the PD. It does not do what is described above - and we cannot change the license that people have applied to their own work after the fact.

That said, the current "consensus" is (as I understand it) that here (rather than the commons) we allow:

• Users can upload their own work if:
  • It is under the GFDL (only)
  • It claims (possibly incorrectly) to be PD
• Users cannot upload their own work if it is under any other license, such as the PD-equivalent {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{NoRightsReserved}}, and so on.
• Users can upload others' work if it is under any free license, or is fair use.

What I'd like to find out is how this was decided and by whom; it's certainly news to me. --Andrew 22:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur - this is an extremely odd policy if it is correct. For example, anyone may create an image, license it exclusively under a free non-GFDL license and get anyone else to upload it to en, but they may not upload it themselves. Can this possibly be right?

I am also interested in how this policy was decided. Lupin 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what the "policy" actually "says", this is my understanding of the present state of images at Wikipedia. Anything release under the GFDL is OK, even if it is ALSO released under other licenses. Images need not be EXCLUSIVELY GFDL. In addition, Public Domain images are acceptable. Fair Use is a more nebulous region, but there's general acceptance of them as well. PD-Equivalent or a truly "free" license would also be acceptable. I say "truly" meaning that the copyright owner would have to disclaim (as much as possible) any exercise of copyright. The reason that they would be acceptable is that the resultant images are functionally and substantively in the public domain. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

PD/release all rights

If it's true that there are legal problems with granting stuff into the PD (Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain), then perhaps the text on this page should be altered to say "if you own the copyright, you must either license it under the GFDL, or grant it into the PD or otherwise release all rights to the work." This would allow copyright holders/uploaders to use tags like {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. kmccoy (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Propose adding image tutorial

I suggest that these instructions mention Wikipedia:Picture tutorial or Wikipedia:Images briefly but prominently. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Disappeared_image_of_Green_Anole where a novice user thought that, "you could go to the page that you wanted the image to reside, and just click upload, and Bingo it would be there." Bovlb 19:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea. I added a bolded intro and reference to wikipedia:images to the "how to use it" bullet. Good enough? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, Bovlb 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

please change image to Image:Commons-logo.svg --Paddyez 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Drastic cut proposed

The current notice is very unreadable, and often ignored. Here's my draft of a radically cut version.

I now prefer Rick Block's version below, so I've removed my old draft. Feel free to review the old one here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll tweak it for a bit, then put it up for comments... JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2nd version. Moved stuff around a bit, added link to Wikipedia:Uploading images (where all the detailed info should go). I am also proposing some changes in MediaWiki:Fileuploaded(the text that appears after a file is successfully uploaded), and MediaWiki:Fileexists(the warning you get when the name already exists). JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the text "indefinitely without warning", we don't want to scare people too much. I'd also like to see a link to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Other than that it looks good. JYolkowski // talk 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to link to the IUP, but I'm not sure how best to include it(and it is prominently linked from the Uploading images page); feel free to suggest ways to include it here... JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to include the caution against uploading random images found on the internet. And, does it have to come in 3 different colors? I suggest we use size and/or font to distinguish the important stuff vs. the really important vs. the really REALLY important. For example, this version. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Your file will be deleted in a few days if you do not follow the following guidelines:

1. Provide detailed information on the source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so. If you got it from the Internet, provide the URL. Most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia.
2. Specify the licence of the file by selecting it from the drop-down list below.

Users who upload content with false license declarations may be blocked. Do not state that an image is public domain or licensed under the GFDL unless you have a valid argument for why you believe it to be so.

You can also upload files under a free license (no fair use!) to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content which can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. Uploading your files to Commons is highly recommended.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Uploading images.

I like this new version. I went ahead and put it in place. Perhaps we could shorten / simplify / strengthen the Commons message. Something like the following. dbenbenn | talk 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If your file is under a free license (no fair use!), upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content that can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages.

• I think these sort of changes should be at least mentioned on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. My only problem with the change, is you removed all the links to tell users how to use images. I know what the pages are called and it still took me 5 mins to find the help page for it, doing it the normal way. Now we have VP questions on how to use images. Although this is normal, it was at least easily accessible from the Upload file page. Also the new bg color makes it really hard to read all of the text now, I dont' see what was wrong with this version [1]. However, if nothing else, I think this text, or a form of it should be on there:

After uploading the file, insert the file or image in relevant articles using the syntax
 [[Image:File.jpg|thumb|Caption]], and other media with [[Media:File.ogg]]. See
 Wikipedia:Images or Wikipedia:Extended image syntax for further instructions.

As it is not on the provided link. Thanks. «»Who?¿?^meta 04:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that I forgot to mention it on the Admin's noticeboard(I don't read it regularly, so I didn't think of it.) I will do so in the future. Regarding how to use images, this is on the Successful upload page(MediaWiki:Fileuploaded) and I've now added it to the linked help page(Wikipedia:Uploading images). Is that sufficient? I'd rather not have it here, as it distracts from the central purpose of this page, which is to say how and what to upload, rather than how to use the images afterward. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that MediaWiki:Fileuploaded is only displayed if you overwrite an image with another one. But I agree that a thorough explanation on Wikipedia:Uploading images is preferable to trying to explain wiki syntax here. dbenbenn | talk 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wikimedia commons: Could you change the text to Please upload all files with a free license (no fair use!) to Wikimedia Commons instead, a shared repository of content that can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. There is simply no reason to upload free files to local wikipedias anymore. // Fred-Chess 13:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I hate to seem as though I'm crufting up the notice, but I've reinserted the statement that images uploaded by the copyright holder must be licensed under GFDL or released into PD, as I can't find any evidence that this has changed, and it's important to mention before media is uploaded. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible change, IMO. What about people who agree to let anyone use it for any purpose but retain the copyright? What about people who upload it under an attribution or attribution-sharealike Creative Commons licence? What then? We should replace this with "you must license it under a free licence or release it into the public domain". I'm not sure what Wikipedia: page defines a "free licence" -- if there isn't one, there should be. But nevertheless, this currently pretty much reads like a "f*** off" to people who don't want to release their images under the GFDL or into the public domain. It has to go. Johnleemk | Talk 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New language added

I have amended the language so that users repeatedly uploading images with no license declaration are also warned that they can be blocked. This seems to me common sense - such blocks are already being doled out to problem users that repeatedly violate this, on the basis that it is a disruption. If anyone has a problem with this, just revert and we can discuss further. Regards, Fawcett5 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

File upload confusion - help needed...

Could someone who understands the image upload page please take a look at this discussion [2] and see if they can help out? Appreciated. Trollderella 21:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change

I'd like to propose a few changes to this page. See my proposed version directly below my post. I think that the advantages of this version are that it:

• arranges things in an IMHO more logical fashion and streamlines the wording
• mentions the need for a fair use rationale
• asks people to provide URLs for both source and the licencing information

Let me know what you think. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Your file will be deleted in one week unless you: Provide detailed information, including URLs for images obtained on the Internet, on:

1. The source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so. Note that most images on the Internet are copyrighted and are not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia.
2. The copyright holder and the licence of the file, including:
   • A copyright tag, either selected from the drop-down list below or included in the upload summary
   • An explanation of why you believe the file is so licenced
   • A fair use rationale, if uploading a fair use image
   • If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain.

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

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), strongly consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content that can be used on all Wikimedia projects.

For more information, see our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available.

No-one's replied, so I'm going to make the change. JYolkowski // talk 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Direct link to Commons upload

How would you feel if I added a direct link to the page that allows uploading to the Commons? --  Denelson83  04:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. JYolkowski // talk 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and was coming here to do that actually. I just watched a novice user trying to upload something and when they clicked that link it was obvious that their expectation was to be taken to another upload page, not the generic commons page (which was confusing for them). I'm going to change it now since a couple people agree, if anyone disagrees feel free to change it back and we can talk about it more :D - cohesion★talk 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons, a shared repository of content that can be used on all Wikimedia projects. Files can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons at the Wikimedia Commons upload page (you must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to upload files).

There is an example of what I think would be good. It's a little repetitive, but it might be helpful to drive the point home that you will be clicking to another "site" I'll leave that up for a few days to see what people think then change it if there are no objections. - cohesion★talk 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Drop down menu

This really needs to be updated, how is that done? Specifically {{web-screenshot}} is very dangerous, most people seem to be using it for anything they find online, I don't really think it's intended use is even common enough to warrant inclusion. Category:Screenshots of web pages is very full of incorrectly tagged images. - cohesion^t 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The page is MediaWiki:Licenses. I've removed {{web-screenshot}}. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now all that's left is cleaning out the category, haha :) - cohesion^t 08:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, we know there are lots of images you can download off the web. We don't want them."

I've been bold and added a notice I proposed on WikiEN-l to the page. While I was at it, I also made a few other changes to the page in separate edits. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious as so very much of the beautiful edifice that is the mailing list is. Try again. -Splash^talk 03:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

By way of being constructive, can I suggest a Red Box of the nature of Commons:Special:Upload which says something like "Images taken from website are NOT usually suitable", with a wikilink somewhere sensible? We should lose the faintly painful blue background as part of de-cluttering the page and making it say what we really want it to sayL

1. Do not upload an image unless you know precisely where it came from and are absolutely certain it is availble for free for absolutely any purpose and;
2. Please upload free images to Commons unless you don't want to.

-Splash^talk 03:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel a Commons-style red box is less offensive, I'm fine with that. There is now a big red box on the page with wording similar to your suggestion above. I've left the blue box as is for the time being. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the "most internet images are copyrighted" caution to the text at the point where we ask them to tell us about the source of the file. I know this is redundant with the big red box, but I think it is most useful at this point and perhaps bears repeating. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Too long?

On the one hand, I think the recent additions are well-meant and add some clarity, but this page is getting too long again. It required drastic downsizing before and it's getting that way again -- people simply won't read a long list of bullet-points of instructions. If the idea is to scare them away from uploading instead of wasting our time with images we can't use for whatever reason, it might work, but as it is now, I can't even see the actual form for uploading on my screen, as it's pushed down far below the instructions. Is there some way we can trim this back to the barest essentials, please? — Catherine\^talk 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the following? Feel free to add/change. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this, but that red box might be useful, it hasn't really been up long enough to tell though, I wouldn't want to take it down before we can see if it helps with the problem. - cohesion^t 21:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

That's much better, Rick -- thank you. Made a few changes. What do folks think? I don't object to leaving the red box up for bit if the size of the purple box is decreased so the form is visible. — Catherine\^talk 22:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've strengthened the caution, since it's not just an issue of compatibility. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! — Catherine\^talk 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Login link

The part about uploading to Wikimedia Commons links to commons:Special:Login, but that link is broken and should be changed to commons:Special:Userlogin. (It's protected, so I can't fix it myself...) --Tifego 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. -Splash^talk 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest: Change source wording

I propose we change:

If the file is available online, include a link.

to something like this (hopefully somebody can say the same thing, while being more concise):

If the file is available online, include a link to the specific page it is on, and also give a link directly to the image.

I find a lot of people are giving a link to the home page of a web site where they got the image, and the image is not on that page. Or they give a link directly to the image, but you can't see the page it was found on, so you can't find any actually information about the copyright. --Rob 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (I'm the one who wrote the current version quoted above.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)