Wikipedia talk:File upload wizard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Spelling error

The upload mechanism itself works splendidly, but when the operation is complete, the following text appears: "Thank your for testing the experimental File Upload Wizard." Surely "Thank your" should be changed to "Thank you"? --Lemuellio (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Truer. Thankr your. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

I know more about chudasama rajput , so i want to edit this article , i know true history of chudasama rajput so give me a chance to do change.

49.202.168.205 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please make this request on the page in question, not here. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug report

Moved here from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't upload using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard I don't know why because I always stocked up with Step 3. For example, If I click This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. Nothing comes/pops out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphonsewan (talk • contribs)

Can you take this to Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard please, as it's a technical problem, not a copyright problem? Somebody made some changes to the script today, to fix a bug that apparently affected some people on some browsers. I hope this change didn't create new problems for other browsers. Is this a new problem you have only experienced since today, or has it happened to you earlier too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This was also reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image Upload Issue: Free, Non Free, Does not fit extra options are not expanding and bugzilla:39779. It has been fixed by [1]. However, long after the fix I tested upload in a Firefox browser where I had previously uploaded files, and nothing worked. It worked after I reloaded the page by holding down Shift and clicking the reload button. Many users will still have the old javascript cached so maybe the form should tell to bypass your cache if you have problems, at least for a while. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I just now uploaded a very low resolution, non-free file, using the wizard. The file did upload as I could see it in another tab in my contributions (it even displays properly), but the upload page still showed that the file is being uploaded. 5 minutes later I closed the tab without seeing the conformation. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Tool appears to be broken at this time. When i get to the point of choosing if it's a free image or not it doesn't do anything when i select one and i can't progress. Annoying...ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you bypassed your cache on the upload form as I wrote above? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No. The tool is working now. I mean it's uploading but i'm not getting the usual confirmation that an image was uploaded like usual. Is this because of the recent update to Wikipedia then and will be fixed if i clear my cache? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Multiple users have reported that nothing happens when they select in Step 3. There are probably many more who have failed to upload but not reported it, so I added this to Step 3: "If nothing happens when you first select an option then bypass your browser cache (this will remove already entered information)." [2] It can be removed when some time has passed (not sure how much) and fewer users will have the old non-working version cached. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not working

It gets to step 3 ok but then nothing happens after making a selection. --Rskp (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bypass your cache on the upload form. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Tried that - still not working. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Logo won't upload

I am uploading a logo and get as far as the page saying the file is uploading but never beyond it. The file is only 37K. Any ideas what the problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsoon Waves (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Monsoon Waves shows you have uploaded versions of the logo both shortly before and after posting here so I guess the upload works. However, you have uploaded it under three different names and attempted to add it to Climate & Development Knowledge Network with a fourth [3] and fifth [4] name but never one of the real names. I recommend copy-pasting file names to avoid such mistakes. I have added File:CDKN's logo.png to the article.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the redundant copies File:CDKN's logo (low-res).png and File:The logo of CDKN.png. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Non-free architectural work

The purpose of the template {{non-free architectural work}} has been changed from images in countries lacking FoP to concept art of proposed buildings, since it was determined at Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works? that as far as US law is concerned, such photos of copyrighted buildings anywhere in the world are OK. Accordingly, the option for non-free architectural works contains some incorrect/irrelevant parts. Could someone with knowledge of JavaScript modify it to reflect its current usage? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't Click Upload Button

I am trying to upload an image. All the fields ar filled out and Wiki confirms my targeted article, but the Upload Button stays grayed out. I have tried the flush cache procedures ad infinitum.

--HeavyDrop (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The flush cache only applies if nothing happens when you first select a box in step 3. If you get to see the Upload button (even though it's grayed out) then there must have been expanding boxes when you first selected in step 3 and the cache issue is no longer relevant. However, your account is new and not autoconfirmed so you can only upload to Commons and not Wikipedia. You should see a message starting "Your account has not become confirmed yet" at the top of the upload form. Are you trying to upload a free or non-free image? If you selected non-free then upload to Commons is not allowed and you will only see the grayed out Upload button to Wikipedia. The top of the form should show what other things you can do. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yawn

I got tired of the steps involved to upload a photograph I took, so I gave up. There have clearly been too many fingers in the pudding. - Dudesleeper talk 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

CORS enabled

bugzilla:20814 has been fixed, so your upload wizard can now directly upload to Commons in modern browsers and you could fetch commons categories without JSONP. When bugzilla:28700 is fixed, you will be even able to create a transfer-to-commons-wizard (not a fast one but at least something that does not require toolserver). -- Rillke (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Broken uploading over protected files

Attempt to upload file with names like File:1.jpg silently fails as this file is protected (I get <uploading, please wait> for hours, without any error message) (uploading to salted filenames does not result in problems, so one of ways to fix this is to replace Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace with filename salting) Bulwersator (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange: how did you even get to the point where you could start an upload for "File:1.jpg"? The script is set to reject that as an overly short name right at the beginning. Didn't you get the warning message "The filename you chose seems to be very short, or overly generic" etc., right below the file name box? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Strange, now I am unable to replicate this. Bulwersator (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No confirmation of upload completed

I have bypassed my cache and even cleared it completely. I still get no confirmation a file has uploaded and so i'm having to use 2 tabs - 1 to upload and 1 to see when it's done. Is there another fix for this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we expecting this to be fixed any time soon? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking into it, but I have to admit I don't really understand what's going on. This used to be working fine until a few days ago, and the code hasn't changed, so there must have been some change in the way the wiki server sends its responses. For the technically savvy: the script uses the old trick of loading the api server response of the upload form submittal into an invisible IFrame element, and then tries to access the contents of that IFrame to retrieve success status and error messages. This happens around line 2174 of the code. At that point, on FireFox, the script now throws an error "Permission denied to access property 'XMLDocument'". It didn't do that previously. My guess is the browser no longer recognizes the contents of the IFrame as belonging to the same security domain, but I have no idea why that would be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the change either...This time last month i was using one tab, whereas last night i had to use 29 as i uploaded a lot. Hope it's fixed soon ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Recently the response-headers by the API for frames were changed. Now it adds X-Frame-Options DENY. You can't read the output of the API from an iFrame any more. You may comment at bugzilla:39180 or use Schnark's CORS or proxy approach (I would be inclined adding something to our common.js that loads at a special page and allows e.g. uploads from en.wp. if you like to use both for stabiltiy or compatability) for your uploads to Commons in connection with a fileReader. For en.wp you could use the same or you target your form directly to Special:Upload.
Of course, if you like dirty tricks, you could also wait for an error on the iframe load event (as long as the file is transmitted, there won't be an error because the server does not send a response). $('iframe').load(function() { console.log(arguments); }); (run this in Firebug to see which argument contains the "error") and then querying the API whether there is a new file under the title you recently uploaded. -- Rillke (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. Thanks a bunch for explaining this. It seems then we are utterly f...d. As far as I'm concerned, I'm really out of my depth with those alternatives, and I can hardly afford the time of spending entire days rewriting this whole thing. The only of these options that I can imagine implementing is targeting the form directly to Special:Upload rather than to the API, but that would lose valuable functionality (Special:Upload still can't distinguish between page content and edit summaries and insists on writing the whole stupid description page into the logs, which I've always found an extreme nuisance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Mhhm. the UploadWizard's iframe transport still works in IE8. I even can access the contents through the iFrame. The reason is X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN at Commons for all API requests. On en.wp, however, it is X-Frame-Options DENY. You may file a bug so at least local uploading works again for you.
In http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/UploadWizard/resources/ you find various ways for uploading. Maybe you could find a way to "reuse" this code directly? First load everything with mw.loading.using('ext.UploadWizard', function() { /* and then overwrite what you have to overwrite */ }). The key file is mw.UploadWizardUpload.js which automatically switches to the "right way" of uploading (of course same origin only so you have to polish). Coding all your own will be a waste of time, I think. -- Rillke (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unable to upload an image

I'm trying to uploading the scan I made of a book cover for the sake of illustrating the book's article. I've resized the image down to about 200x300 pixels, only 46K, reduced image quality. But when I go through the steps, in the end, the "upload" button at the bottom is grayed out. (I'm new, one week already, so I believe I should be autoconfirmed, as you can see by this edit taking effect.) Choor monster (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be working. Are you sure you have filled in all the fields marked with a small red asterisk? Those are obligatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I did fill in all those fields. Anyway, I tried again, and this time it worked (well, it's in process). The button turned from gray to black the instant I started typing in the optional further information field.Choor monster (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Actually, sorry about that "in process" – it actually finished a long time ago, but currently the success message after upload is broken. That's because of the bug described two sections further up, which is unfortunately beyond our control here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Now the File:name.jpg file doesn't seem to be working. It's in the infobox for Ancient History (novel). I believe I remembered the exact name I gave it, but trying to search the newest uploads doesn't come up with the image.Choor monster (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The file you uploaded is File:Joseph McElroy, Ancient History, cover.pdf (not "...jpg") I suppose that's the one you wanted in the infobox? I've fixed that code for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Oddly, though, the "Summary" information did not parse correctly. That can't be my fault? I assume I will have to manually edit this? Choor monster (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You can see your Wikipedia edits by clicking "My contributions" at the top of any page. This shows the file name (it wouldn't have shown an upload to Commons). The summary failed because you wrote [[Joseph McElroy[[ with invalid syntax. It should have been [[Joseph McElroy]]. But pdf is not meant for images and causes problems for some users, for example when they click "Full resolution" at File:Joseph McElroy, Ancient History, cover.pdf. This will give them the original pdf version instead of a jpg conversion made by our software. Can you start over and upload it in an image format instead? jpg would be fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is all good. Yes, I'll redo this as a jpg. The only question will be deleting the pdf afterwards. Is that something I can do?Choor monster (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Only administrators can delete files. You can either mark it with {{db-g7}}, or post here and one of us will delete it (not before Ancient History (novel) can be updated to the new image). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you all very much--I've uploaded a jpg now, and changed the link, so the pdf can be deleted.Choor monster (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the pdf after updating the link.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

New upload wording

"However, they belong at our sister project, the Wikimedia Commons." This strikes me as inaccurate since that's only preferred if the image is of use to more than one wiki right? Also since people have the choice to keep them local it renders the wording redundant and kinda aggressive towards uploaders (at least that's my opinion). Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this has been a matter of debate for ages. My own position continues to be that we should not be too pushy about directing people to Commons, for a different reason: the proportion of bad uploads among the declared "free" ones made by new editors is still alarmingly high. For practical reasons, it is far, far easier to patrol these and take care of them when they are uploaded here. We should only begin pressing people towards Commons once they've tried their first steps here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I can think of another reason too. File Mover Permission is obsolete if we force people to use the commons rather than local wiki and would lead me to many more mistakes i couldn't fix and frankly wouldn't know how to and probably give up on. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is really just a matter of patrolling new uploads to one category on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
... where many of us who have admin rights here lack them, where average admin respose time is abysmal, where standard tools for automatic tagging are much less flexible as our Twinkle, and where the patroller has to go through a very significant amount of extra work when he wants to check each contributor's related article editing patterns. I find patrolling images on Commons offputtingly onerous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Dito! I spent about 2 weeks just trying to get a category sorted out on the commons and 2 admin here weren't able to help me, nor were countless other users who also didn't particularly know how to go about this. Local uploading is still the better choice because at least we have some control over it and the uploads, whereas very few editors here appear to actually know how the commons actually works or how to get things done there. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No button to start upload

In Safari 5.1.6 and Chrome 22.0.1229.79 (current), there is no button to use for starting the upload of a file. Augur (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean it doesn't become visible at all? That's the first time I hear of such a problem. Which type of file were you trying to upload? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Note step 3 says: "If nothing happens when you first select an option then bypass your browser cache (this will remove already entered information)." There should be expanding boxes with more selections when you select in step 3. Does that happen? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unable to upload photo

I tried to upload a photo a few minutes ago from two different computers with two different browsers (Firefox on a Windows PC, and Camino on a iMac). Neither was able to upload. I got a message connecting to Wikipedia, and then nothing. Having no other problems accessing Wikipedia. Also it is hard to know if a photo has been uploaded because I get no confirmation. The window that does the uploading never changes. The only way I know if it has uploaded, is to try to put the photo into an article.Jacqke (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is really slow today; it finally uploaded. I never have never had to wait several minutes before. Still would like to know if there is a way to get a confirmation that a photo has uploaded. ThanksJacqke (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help

I found an image on google images that I saved as a .jpeg for an article, however, I am unsure what type of upload this would be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubycrystal (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug in Firefox

In Firefox 15, uploading files does not ever show a confirmation notice, even though the files are uploaded successfully. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload not working

The (local) upload wizard says "connecting to wikipedia" in my browser info field and the main screen says "Uploading File". But the upload never completes and no file is ever uploaded. This is failing on two computers (one Windows and one Linux) and two browsers both IE and Firefox (versions 14 and 15). Clearly there is a major issue with this wizard which needs to be fixed. Richard J Myers (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the upload as such is working; what's not working at the moment, unfortunately, is just the confirmation message after the successful upload. This used to be working fine, but then unfortunately the MediaWiki developers made a change to the server settings which broke that functionality. That change is beyond our control here, and I have not been able to figure out how to work around it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but it is not working - I have spent 2 days trying to upload 3 files and none of them can be seen in my sandpit article. I have been forced therefore to try to use the commons uploader which is OK but am unable to understand how to get the copyright information correct - so my attempt to get my next article out is totally stalled! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard J Myers (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

One of your uploads: it's here!
Sorry for the inconvenience. Actually, you did make a couple of uploads; they can be found in your contribution history (contribs) and also here: [7]. They have not yet been included in your draft article, but that is not something the upload script can do automatically anyway; you need to insert them manually just like those you uploaded on Commons. For instance, to get your image A potrait of the tenor Ernest Pike.jpg included in your article, you need to insert code similar to the following:
[[File:A potrait of the tenor Ernest Pike.jpg|thumb|right|... your caption .... ]]
Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you so much for your help. It appears that the filenames are not the actual file names that I uploaded - so I could not reference them with the original name. They appeared to have been renamed to short filenames, but it appears that I filled in the wrong field and the filename has been given a full text description - which is fine as its not too long. So now I can reference them in my article. Its also useful to know about the uploaded file list where I can check in future. Regards Richard J Myers (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

this form is worthless

I CANNOT upload http://www.highheelracedc.com/HHR/Welcome.html

This form is so complex to do something which usually takes two clicks.

I hate how beauracratic this site has become. I give up. Dragdrag (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

this is the reason why: "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it." Dragdrag (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Try uploading to the Commons instead. You can access it from the Wikipedia homepage. The autoconfirmed restriction is to police this a bit but i can upload the image for you later if you would like? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason uploading is a bit more complex here than on most other sites on the Internet is that we have to take copyright seriously. We cannot just let people upload whatever they want, as many other sites do, but have to make sure users are aware of the relevant policies before they upload and that they provide a certain minimum amount of information about their images. Otherwise, what happens is just what happened to your upload on Commons now [8].

By the way, the restriction that to upload locally on the English Wikipedia you first have to have an autoconfirmed account is not new; it's been like this for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you need help uploading an image, you could also try WP:FFU. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

checkYProblemo solved - Thanks all ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'criterion'

This wizard told me this:

Remember that the use of non-free files must be minimal. This can mean several things:

  • Don't use more files per article/topic than necessary
  • Don't use the same file in more articles than necessary
  • Don't use larger excerpts of a single work than necessary
  • Don't use images of higher resolution than necessary

Please explain how the intended use of this file meets this criterion.

There are four criteria listed there, so it is a little confusing to refer to 'this criterion'. (Which one of the four is meant?) Could somebody who knows how please alter the last sentence to read 'Please explain how the intended use of this file meets these criteria.' I'd do it myself but I can't work out how to get at that text to edit it. Thank you. GrahamN (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) I believe the word "criterion" is being used in reference to the broader concept of it being minimal, and that it can be interpreted in a number of ways. That said, the page can only be edited by administrators, so they can weight in appropriately here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that part of the problem is that it's unclear (to me, anyway) whether you just need to meet one criterion out of the four listed, or that you need to meet all four criteria. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When I up-loaded a file the other day I tried to explain in the box how it would meet each of the four criteria in turn. (I actually wondered why there weren't four separate boxes). But I now think the intention is just to solicit a general explanation of how 'the use of the file will be minimal' and that the bullet points aren't intended to be read as 'criteria' at all, but merely as examples of the kind of thing we should consider. I think that is what Jethrobot was saying, above.

The word 'criterion' causes confusion. I propose that the sentence

Please explain how the intended use of this file meets this criterion.

be changed to

In view of this, please explain how the use of this file will be minimal.

Do I have a seconder for my proposal?

GrahamN (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've implemented your suggestion. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This wizard is excellent

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that unlike most other people who have commented on this page, I think this wizard is excellent. It works smoothly and it leads the user by the hand, making the whole process as painless as it could possibly be. In the past I have complained bitterly about Wikipedia becoming gummed up with ever expanding layers of unnecessary and complicated bureaucracy. But this is a great example of the opposite. Whoever created this wizard has turned a necessarily complicated and necessarily bureaucratic process into a completely straightforward experience for the user. Bravo, whoever you are. GrahamN (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to hear some people are appreciating it. It was quite a lot of work, especially for a person with little prior experience with Javascript programming. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The js page belongs to certain red categories.

I do not know why you have put the page MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js into categories which are not created at all. See Category:" + cat + ". Is that an error? The page has its final edit on 14 October 2012‎, which means it is not undergoing any construction work right now. I am asking it here because its talk page redirects here. Thank you.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 11:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for spotting that. Some confusion about the source code getting (partially) parsed like a Wikipedia page. For some reason, the parser picks up literal "[[Category:....]]" strings that occur in the source code as if they were also regular wiki syntax. I seem to remember there was some trick for stopping that from happening, but I can't quickly think of what it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js is rendered without categories for me but the categories are shown in preview, and the page is shown in the categories. It appears the whole .js page is parsed as wikisource, including template expansions, when categories are determined. If the lines
      cat = "\n{{Category ordered by date|" + cat + "|" + 
      fuwSubst("CURRENTYEAR") + "|" + fuwSubst("CURRENTMONTH") + "|" + fuwSubst("CURRENTDAY2") + "}}";
are parsed as wikisource then they produce
     cat = "\n[[Category:" + cat + "|99999999999999]]";
which adds the page to Category:" + cat + " under a "9" heading. I suppose this could be avoided by adding code which stops processing of wikisource but not JavaScript, such as:
// <!--
JavaScript here
// -->
I don't know whether this would work properly without unintended side effects. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There are three red templates too (', opts.NFExtraLicense, ', ' + simpleLicense + ' and " + license.standard + "). All other templates used here are protected, but these 3 are not. Does it cause any security risks as a vandal can attack on it?

This upload wizard is really very helpful and userfriendly. A couple of days before, I uploaded an image (for the first time on wp) and I didn't face much difficulties. Thank you!···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A Javascript page works in the same way as a normal page, except that the page looks a bit different. If the code contains [[Category:London]], then the source code is categorised in Category:London. If the code contains [[London]], then the page appears in Special:WhatLinksHere/London. If the code contains {{subst:npd}}, then the template is substituted directly in the source code (which may look a bit strange when reading the code). If the code contains {{delete}}, then the page is categorised in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which can be very problematic if you do this by mistake. To avoid accidental categorisation and references, you could put <nowiki> tags around the code. For example, check my User:Stefan2/common.js where there are "nowiki" tags on comment lines at the top and bottom of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks a lot for that. That was the trick I was trying to remember. I've added those now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Letting through too many images without permission

The wizard is now designed to let uploads through where there is no evidence that permission has been granted by the copyright holder so they end up "live" but with only the message "Evidence: Will be provided on request." From here they can be reused when the use may not be permissible. Shouldn't this option be disallowed or all such images tagged for DI immediately if the OTRS pending template isn't attached? NtheP (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Other tools also allow people to upload files with insufficient/unacceptable information. For example, sometimes people upload files with {{subst:permission from license selector}}, which seems to originate from some kind of tool. I guess that these might stop some people from uploading copyvios as own works, which would be even worse and harder to spot. I do a search once in a while for the text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." and tag the vast majority of those as missing evidence of permission. Some should not be tagged since they are {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-old}} or something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I added that option mostly because it was my understanding that it reflected prior practice: OTRS evidence is not strictly obligatory for new uploads but is required on a reviewer's request. Most such items do in fact end up di-'ed, but there is some scope for individual judgment; there may be occasions where a reviewer feels they can legitimately accept an uploader's word for it (for instance if the uploader is a highly trusted Wikipedian, or if it is evident from the uploader's editing profile that they are acting on behalf of an article subject). We should also consider that this option offers the uploader an easy way of admitting that a work is not their own; if we removed it, many uploaders might instead end up choosing the convenient dodgy road of declaring an item their "own work", making them more difficult to discover as copyvios. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be careless not to tag such files with a DI tag. If I decide not to tag an image, someone else might find it several years later and tag it then instead. It's better to tag images as soon as possible so that the uploaders still are available and still are in contact with the copyright holder. On the other hand, it's better to have copyvios marked with "Evidence: Will be provided on request." as it makes it less likely that they'll be overlooked. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the opinions. I think part of it was my concern that I was getting trigger happy in DI-ing images. Now I'm more reassured its not just me and i have changed licences when applicable. I tend to look at new contributors but if I wanted to check more widely is there a specific category that images with this message on end up in? If not could they be? NtheP (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Check out Category:Maintenance categories used by File Upload Wizard, especially Category:Files licensed by third parties. If anybody wants to expand or tweak that category system, more could easily be added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I typically just type in the exact words "Evidence: Will be provided on request." in the search box at the top of the page. Just make sure that you search for pages in the File namespace. The default is to only search for articles (I think). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2012

i would like to publish the picture, as required. thanks. marco


Marcoilgrande (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide additional information, I'm not sure what your question is right now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Small display bug

Hi, when I use the wizard, I get in the "Summary" section of the resulting image "File:myimage.jpg" page a section "Source" which contains

'''Original publication''': (Then some book or website's name, not bold)
'''Immediate (Then scan or source name, wrongly bolded)

where as shown the three quote marks before "Immediate" are not followed by three (closing) quote marks, or for that matter a ":" to match the one on the line above, so the whole line runs on in bold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that; this [9] should fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't launch under Windows 8 / IE10

Works fine with Chrome (Version 23.0.1271.64 m), though. As a side note, the upload tool is much improved since I last used it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can't believe we have yet another compatibility issue. Any hint where and when it fails? Can anybody replicate this problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. I did try it several times, and Chrome worked instantly, but maybe there was some connection latency or something. Apologies if false alarm. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

--41.203.67.51 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Initiating the file upload

There is NO way provided for initiating the file upload after filling out the File Upload Form & uploading the file to WikiCommons. The only action available is "Reset Form". I came here to simply add content, NOT to discuss Wiki-Fails. What is so hard about providing a button to save and finish the image upload and post it? This is nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzio101 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "initiating the file upload after ... uploading the file to WikiCommons". You uploaded commons:File:Buddings 010.JPG 15 minutes before posting here. Is that the file? If it's already uploaded then what do you mean by "initiating the file upload"? Are you talking about displaying the image in an article? Images can be displayed in 0, 1 or more articles, and they can be formatted in different ways, so it's not as simple as clicking a button. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploader not working?

I just uploaded two files 15 minutes apart. The first uploaded fine, the second didn't upload at all, but i was taken to the same screen as usual and handed a link to the file. I left it about 15-20 minutes and it's still not on my watchlist. Has anyone else reported the uploader failing to upload sometimes? I know i filled out all of the sections properly but it just didn't upload, and the link doesn't work, so it definitely failed...Opinions welcome. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I've tried several times to upload a file about a week ago. I gave up and tried again today, it is still not working. I'm 100% sure I filled everything out correctly, the link just doesn;t work for me either. I have tried using both safari and firefox, no difference. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can not upload file

From here. Trying to upload this image. Win7, Firefox 17.0.1 --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

I've uploaded several files in the past and never had a problem. I've been trying to upload an 800 kb JPEG image for two weeks now. Every time I upload it it says it has uploaded but checking my contributions or clicking on the link to the supposed file shows that it does not exist. I have tried uploading using both the latest version of Safari and Firefox for Mac. Does anyone have any idea why this is not working? Freikorp (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where do you try to upload it? To Commons? To English Wikipedia? Asking as your filelist on Commons is empty: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=50&user=Freikorps --Malyacko (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to upload it to English wikipedia as the file is not my own work but I can demonstrate fair use. Freikorp (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Also you spelt my username wrong in your URL (easy mistake to make) - my commons file list is here [10]. You actually reminded me I needed to update the one file I have uploaded - I just uploaded a new version of the image and it worked fine. So commons is working fine for me, just not the english wikipedia. Freikorp (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying once every other day with both Safari and Firefox - still not working. Freikorp (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I still have no idea what might be causing this, since it evidently is working for others. Have you tried bypassing your cache? Sometimes there have been problems after MediaWiki software updates, when somebody was still using an old version of the script. Although I don't really know how this could be happening now, because the script hasn't changed in quite a while. If you try the bypassing, make sure you do it on the page as loaded with the script, i.e. first press the "start the wizard" link, then do the bypass-cache command. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank for your reply. That didn't work (though I should note I'm not 100% sure I did it properly). Anyway I just tried uploading using the plain form and that works, so I guess I'll just stick to uploading via the plain form now. Freikorp (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Restart wizard" link/button?

Hi. Nice wizard! How about adding a "Restart wizard" link or button to the final "Upload in progress" page? (Or have I just missed it?) CsDix (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...or, as I've just found that the following works, a message along the lines of "Click the [Project page] tab to restart the wizard"..? CsDix (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Upload" Never Activates

I have filled out the wizard in several different ways always being sure to fill in required fields. The best I've been able to get is Upload to Common to activate which is not appropriate. The photo is of the person the article pertains to, and from his book dust cover, so technically not free. The photo was provided by the owner / author to me directly. But I've tried both free and non free uploads. Regardless, the Upload button never activates for either IE or firefox. Cache cleared. The plain form seems work for others, but I don't have access to it. Really is there just a simple form that works? Asoncha (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably a good thing it didnt activate. If someone wants to donate their copyright image to be used freely by anyone for any purpose, we will accept it. However, copyright images for living people are NOT allowed to be used without that that release of copyright (except for certain iconic images which would qualify for the WP:FAIRUSE policy). So we cannot use the dust jacket copy, you will need to personally take an image or Kunhns/the copyright owner will need to directly contact the WP:OTRS giving free public use to the image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well and good, but the photographer, credited for the photo on the dust cover, directly provided the photo for this specific use. So, again, as a fair use image, why doesn't the form operate appropriately? Asoncha (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It is NOT a fair use image under wikipedia policy. read WP:FAIR - FAIR use does not apply to images of living people (unless the specific image is iconic and the image itself has been the subject of discourse and comment.) if the copyright holder is not willing to fully participate in creating a free encyclopedia by the release the copyright under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 - we dont want the image and will not take it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing non-free promotional?

A user at media copyright questions was trying to upload under a {{Non-free promotional}} license, but that option doesn't seem to be available in the upload wizard. It probably should be added again. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The form offers "non-free promotional" as one of the extras that can be added on top of some other tag, along with others such as "with permission for Wikipedia" or "free for educational use" (under "Special source and license conditions (optional)", choose "from promotional press kit"). This is because these conditions don't really stand for a specific type of image nor for a specific class of NFCC justifications, which are the basic decision criteria the form is structured after. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto NEVER ACTIVATES

I use firefox I expect a free media site that used free technology to support it ! :) No really - upload is known to work on my browser though not on sites hacking in newish permiscuous java code it crashes my browser if I turn it on while using Wikipedia. Debian sarge ...

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050517 Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.81.124 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have problems uploading files to English Wikipedia, please describe your steps and which exact problems you faced (e.g. error messages or such). The Upload Wizard does not use Java, but your browser software is 8 years old and we do not test if everything works well for such old software anymore, which might be a reason. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But I am logged in

I tried to upload a free image using IE8 and Wikimedia commons but it failed; said I was not logged in, but I am logged in. Now what? Parveson (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate why you were sure that you were logged in? Not that I question it, I rather wonder how you found out or where you could see it. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WP screenshot

Tried to upload a screenshot from wikipedia. Could not find a suitable copyright button. Weird. -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a copyright button? Maybe you are looking for https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use section "Licensing of content"? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
copyright button = a radio button with a copyright claim, as appear in the upload form. In the upload (local, en:) I was asked to point to the original copyright situation. I just found: this is how is should have been done:

Step 3: Provide source and copyright information

First radio button: "this ia a free work"

Then third radio button: "from a free published source"

Then in the "License" dropdown list choose "... (cc-by-sa)"

So it was there, hidden three steps deep. Now probably my upload has the wrong license ref because I could not find it. Or maybe, since you point to another page of the copyright descriptions (ToU does not mention cc-by-sa), it still could be wrong. -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Can you only add images to an article that has been accepted?

Does that mean an article for creation that has been declined and is being edited, cannot have images until it is accepted as an article?

Lisafoster8 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you mean non-free images, then I'm afraid the answer is yes. Freely licensed images have no such restriction though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How long does this normally take?

I uploaded a picture for the first time a few days ago, but it still hasn't loaded. How long does it normally take for an image to be accepted? MTG1989 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded pictures become visible immediately. I see no sign your account has uploaded any files. Try again. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
K, thanks. MTG1989 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC) PS - Here is my original attempt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NHL_2K7_cover%2C_PlayStation_3.png
New attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NHL_2K7_cover
I still see no sign of uploads. Special:Log/upload shows others are uploading with File Upload Wizard. Do you reach a clickable button saying "Upload" in Step 3? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes! MTG1989 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you have now uploaded File:NHL 2K7 PS3 Cover.png. The resolution 902 × 1,044 is too high for a non-free image. See WP:Image resolution. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
How do I make it smaller? I uploaded a better image but it has a higher resolution. MTG1989 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no image editing tools. You have to reduce the resolution with external software before uploading. I don't know your software but try right-clicking the file on your computer and look for an "Open With" option which can edit images. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This wizard is unusable

For one thing, it doesn't explain to the uploader that "free" doesn't mean "I didn't pay any money for it". On the "given to me by its owner" and "from a free published source" choices, the license selection list is very limited and doesn't have our most popular recommended license - dual licensing cc-by-sa-3.0/GFDL. "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so" is a horrible option and should only be a "trap" choice that asks the user to immediately obtain a letter of permission similar to WP:CONSENT and forward it to permissions-en. But the older form was much easier to use for anyone - novice or expert - I would think. --B (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. For starters, the old form resulted in more than one third of all uploads by new users coming through with completely blank information fields. People evidently did not understand it (and I could go on and on about why that was the case). About the definition of "free", you're welcome to tweak the description. I thought the current line "I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose" gets the point across fairly well. The issue is of course that we must strike a delicate balance between completeness and information overload. It's extremely important that the wording must be kept as concise as possible.
Similar for the licensing options. The selection currently offered is just taken over from that in the old forms. If you want others added, that can be easily done; just make sure it can be explained in a sufficiently brief way.
About the "no evidence" options, we've discussed them repeatedly here. I'm aware of the objections, but up to now I'm not convinced their presence causes more harm than good. Please check out the earlier discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013


Sumanraman (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Glitch

I just tried this wizard for the first time. It's an outstanding piece of work that is a very great improvement on the old process! Congratulations to the author Future Perfect at Sunrise. However, I'm afraid I encountered a glitch. I filled in all the fields and clicked the button to do an upload to enwiki, and I got the "Upload in process" page. But nothing happened. Repeating the process using Special:Upload showed the reason: I had chosen to call the destination File:Links to highbeam.com.svg and the slightly dumb MediaWiki rejected that claiming the extension was ".com" (instead of ".svg"). If curious, see my talk for what I was doing.

I don't know if this script could do anything to account for that kind of problem, but I have a suggestion from what arose next. After entering all the wizard fields, I could not see any way to repeat the process using what I had previously entered. It would be nice if the wizard added a text summary of the final result to the "Upload in process" page—it would include all the text fields entered by the user as a nice summary that would be useful if the text were needed again. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Hi I have an image of the Oriental hotel I would like to add, as it currently stands with barricades around it. This relates to the section within the article regarding its proposed demolition. This article is protected so therefore I cannot proceed. Gruber Gruber Pikerider (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid I can't follow which article about which Oriental Hotel you are referring to. But if you have a photograph you would like to upload, you can go ahead and do that irrespective of the protected status of the article – you just won't be able to paste the image into the article yourself right now. Just go ahead and upload the file itself (preferably on Commons, provided it is a freely licensed image). After that, you could post on the article's talk page asking somebody else to insert the image on the page for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible suggestion

Given that for a new editor, this will likely be the first page they hit if they are considering uploading an image (it's the most obvious link being on the left toolbar), I wonder if we should have a textbox that would be present on reaching this page (before starting the submission process) that briefly says what they will be expected to provide, pointing to WP:NFC and possibly to WP:CONCENT, and any other appropriate links. Not so much to explain all of image policy here but to give them pointers to where to read more if they need to. It should not be big - maybe a lead para and a few list links but that's it, but just enough that the reader can understand the process before they start the remaining submission process. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: why is this a crummy upload ...

Egglamk posted this comment on 17 June 2013 (view all feedback).

why is this a crummy upload wizard instead of the "dead-link" with deletion reason?

In other words, why do file redlinks not show the deletion log? Any thoughts?

Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: and @This, that and the other: Any examples you know of? Examples always help us understand what we're talking about. :)
I'm guessing that it might refer to a redlink that didn't show a deletion log, because the file was originally on commons:?
I.e. How do we arrive at the wizard, via a redlink? Clicking File:CBB-layout-problem.gif shows me the deletion log... Or what other action led to this complaint? –Quiddity (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what file Egglamk was looking for, but I ran across this issue in an older version of Fran Hauser. Based on another feedback notice that implied the picture was there before. Note that the issue has since been fixed, but (assuming the file was indeed deleted) shouldn't the redlink have taken me to the deletion log?
And actually, no, clicking File:CBB-layout-problem.gif does not take me to the deletion log. Perhaps it's a preference setting for my account? Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Me neither, from this page. But if I click the same link at the top of Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 10, then it takes me to the double-red-box page. Maybe Image: works differently than File: ?
Gah, the software seems to autocorrect "Image: -> File:" when I hit preview or save, so I can't even provide a demonstration link here.
That is annoying. I'll see if I can find a bug report, or similar comments elsewhere.
A Test with preceding colons: Image:CBB-layout-problem.gif and File:CBB-layout-problem.gif. - Yup, that's the trick. Hmmm. I'm not sure how we'd "fix" that, as different people will want different actions in different circumstances... –Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not easily fixable, it's a "bug-that's-been-declared-a-feature" in Mediawiki, and it's quite annoying. Apparently the developers still think that the normal desired action on the part of a user coming across an image redlink should be to upload a file for that redlink. In about 99% of all cases, that is in fact very much not what we want users to do, because the existence of a (non-coloned) image redlink almost always signifies that an image was deleted (usually, one would presume, for some good reason), so what we actually want users to do is to go to the deletion log to see what happened to it. The software is programmed to direct all clicks on such redlinks to whatever is the default local upload form. What makes matters worse is that in doing so, it sends the name of the intended file upload in the form of a "&destFileName=" url parameter, which the upload form has no way of actually picking up, so even the intended functionality of triggering an upload of a new file for that redlinked filename won't work. (Note that the latter problem is not exclusively a problem of this upload wizard; it was the same with the custom upload forms we had earlier.)
If I remember correctly, this was brought up at Bugzilla at some point, but the developers refused to do anything about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that is exactly what I was trying to do. Guess I'll try a colon trick in the future. Thanks both of you for the help. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I found bugzilla:6909. If you would go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=CBB-layout-problem.gif rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard?wpDestFile=CBB-layout-problem.gif, you get the deletion log. Can we either add the deletion log for the wpDestFile to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, or make Special:Upload the default destination for image redlinks? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC) RANA are RANA hehehhe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:File_upload_wizard/Archive_3&oldid=1142151224"