Wikipedia talk:Upload/Archive/2011

Link "entirely my own work" to Commons
Free images should be uploaded to Commons directly, not first to the English Wikipedia. So the first link should be [ entirely my own work]. Pre single user login this would be a pain, but now I don't see any reason to not do this. multichill (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Commons should be first choise. If users for some reason do not want to use Commons they should have to choose it specificly. --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Agree with this. Yann (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm feeling bold, I changed it. multichill (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well, I also felt bold and reverted :-). Sorry gentlemen, such changes are not to be done with "two-people consensus". Commons link is clearly there, and there are multiple reasons for not uploading "my own work" there (WP:FOP and other tricky situations where "my" is incompatible with Commons, lack of control over what happens to "my" image on Commons, different categorization, intentional cover-up of a commons image, etc., etc). So please leave it be or initiate a wider discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes FOP can be a problem. But if images are copyvios they should be deleted no matter where they are uploaded. As for the lack of control you are right. If you are not active on Commons then you may not notice what happens there. But I or anyone else can move your image to Commons 10 seconds after you uploaded it to enwiki so the only thing achived is extra work. --MGA73 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let them copy "my" work to commons, don't push uploading "my" work to commons in the first instance. "My image" (taken with my camera) may be a copyvio in some countries, but not in others. It may be a very valid fair use image. Once copied to commons, it may be recovered here. Once uploaded there initially, it may be not. Trust me, we've lost so many valid images because they were uploaded directly to commons and deleted for "lack of proper attribution" or etc. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a copyvio in some countries, then it's not entirely your own work. Any file on Commons can be recovered by an admin; it's trivial to request undeletion for transwiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking not about me (I can cope), we a talking about en.wiki newcomers who have little or no understanding of Commons and copyright issues. Few people watch this page, and I have noticed the change only because it became a hassle to upload main page images. Thus, whereas I am truly indifferent to the outcome, I hope you understand why I have invited people WP:VP and Talk:Main page to this discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But I think this should be possible to manage. If 99 % of the images in the future will be uploaded to Commons then enwiki-admins will get more time and if some of those admins help on Commons then it should be possible to help users that need help. We could also make a "I need help with a file on Commons page" where users can request help. Also we could inform Commons admins that procedure changed on enwiki and that they therefore should pay extra attention to make sure uploader was informed properly and that they should concider to leave a note on users page on enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support you can't stop your work from being moved to Commons anyway. Wikipedia should work with Commons, not against Commons. Intentionally covering up a Commons image is wrong; since there is a block-list, the only use I can see is to "win" an edit-war by stomping on their image. At best it's confusing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No where above did you explain what reasonable justification you would have for covering up an image on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Imagine an image being used in multiple templates. It has English text. It is copied on commons where it is translated to several languages and again, used in multiple templates. You come there and say "look, I don't want all those languages in that image, they clutter". They say "sorry, its international, its not your wiki". Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One image is not going to have multiple languages in the image. Translations of an image get uploaded as their own file. If you're complaining about multilingual descriptions on the image page... I consider that absolutely silly and pointless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose-By all means, we ought to encourage people to upload their images to Commons. 99% of the time, probably even more than that, that's the right course. However, we still need the option to upload them locally for the other 1%. At the minimum, we need local upload available as an option, even if Commons becomes the default.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this changing that? Making "entirely my own work" a link to Commons doesn't affect Special:Upload at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This was in my mind for a long time. I think the default "upload" links should be pointed to Commons; all free images should be there, considering that uploading them here, would anyway one day be moved there. Although, for fair use and other non-free images, there should be an "option" to upload them locally, this "option" could be integrated to the licence selection area; you select one licence, and it uploads to Commons automatically, select the other, and it uploads locally. Don't know the technicals of that though. Reh  man  02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I had no idea that was still the case. --Jarekt (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comment. Linking to Commons without any explanation will lead to confusion. For example, what if someone wants to upload a new version of an image they already uploaded to En? They upload it to Commons, and the new version doesn't appear, and they don't understand why. If the image has already been moved to Commons, they may not be permitted to upload a new version, because Commons accounts must be at least 4 days old to overwrite existing images. Additionally - I've seen this happen several times - sometimes when people click through to Commons without realising it, they will go on to create an article on Commons, only to later realise that the article already exists on Wikipedia and their effort was wasted. We do need to encourage more people to upload directly to Commons, but they should only do so with full awareness that they are going to another website to do so, and understanding how the precedence works. Dcoetzee 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is not a reason to oppose. I mean, this problem could be solved by means of notices/warnings/etc... Reh  man  04:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was opposing the proposal in its original form, but certainly if the issue is addressed then I won't complain. :-) Dcoetzee 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see :) Reh  man  07:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to upload a new version of a file you will probably click on the link "Upload a new version of this file" below "File history" on the excisting image and therefore this change should not be a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. as users do upload a personal photo for their userpage these files are not within commons scope and will be deleted. Also a Commons Admin has no way of knowing that the upload was from here so if there is any issue with an upload that needs to followed up they will get no response and delete the image. The User uploading will not be advised by Commons template warnings over issues including licensing and deletion discussion. Commons is a seperate entity and users that edit on here can be blocked on Commons thus prevented from uploading. Then theres the vandal uploads to wp that get dealt with efficiently here, but would require assistance of commons admins. Gnangarra 09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * COM:SCOPE also says: "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." Dcoetzee 11:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you can simply add Userpageimage on the file. As long as the file is used on a file it should be safe. --MGA73 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias without local uploads (such as the Swedish one) already have to deal with people getting confused about the two sites and warnings that do not reach their Wikipedia user page. The former is handled by saying "when you want to upload an image, you go to Commons". I think that could be the normal advice also here, with local uploads something for advanced users. The latter is a problem that should be handled the same regardless of whether local uploads are allowed: use a link to the SUL home wiki to acknowledge users. --LPfi (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with alternative proposal: I suggest that instead of forcing all users to upload directly to the Commons, our techies can design the upload page at the English Wikipedia and other projects to detect when people select a free licence, and display a notice suggesting they upload the image to the Commons instead (and explaining why). But whether or not we implement such a feature, human beings will still need to check the uploads. There will be false positives, because quite a number of people whack on free licences to images that are not free, either intentionally or because they are unaware of the niceties of copyright. (Maybe there is a way of automatically categorizing such images into a category like "commons:Category:Images the licences of which require checking" so they can be reviewed by volunteers?) — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of this is to avoid extra work. Most users would probably not care if the file is on Commons or en-wiki. They just click the first option and upload the file. That makes more work for us all because first the file is checked, then it is moved to Commons, then it is checked on both Commons and enwiki and at last it is deleted on enwiki. If file has a new name on Commons the usage on enwiki needs to be replaces. Therefore I think it would sawe time if the link points to Commons. The few users that want the file to be on enwiki can use a special link to force upload to be on enwiki. In short: Standard is Commons but you can choose enwiki. --MGA73 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - until Commons leaves messages to the original uploader on his own home wiki as well as in the captions of pages where images are used when the images are proposed for deletion. The admins on Commons are unaccountable to the projects, and they tend to behave as if they sit in their own ivory tower. Their application of their "precautionary principle" has lead to many unnecessary deletions. Their standards of proof for an image being free may be impossible to meet for almost any image. It is a playground of copyright fundamentalists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about "own work" and as long as it is not a derivative work or there should not be many problems. If users start to upload to Commons then Commons will also be their home wiki. If your user talk is changed on Commons you can get a notice via e-mail if you choose so. Therefore uploader should be informed. However, if file is uploaded to Commons and someone else moves it then original uploader will not be informed. Therefore it would be better for the uploader to upload to Commons in the first place.
 * As you should know then general comments on other users (like all admins on Commons are xxx) should be avoided. --MGA73 (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The precautionary principle is an issue and so is the ability to communicate to 'pedias if a page moves the person over to commons to upload then this needs to be communicated so that commons admins know where to send messages/contact uploader cross wiki communication is the one part of this that cannot be overlooked or brushed aside. PK is right commons admins work in the best interest of Commons not other projects recent issues on commons policy only confirm that 'pedias dont understand commons needs/obligations either. Before we throw editors to the wolves Commons we need to fix the cross project communication. Until then why cant a bot just copy/move images in Category:Self-published work to commons after two weeks. Gnangarra 16:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that "own work" is not clear. Commons admins do not recognize that. They will lambast contributors for submitting their "own" photos of billboards or works of art. They will harshly accuse an uploader of "copyfraud" when someone contributed his own scan of his own copy of an out of copyright photo as "own work". Permblocks are issued without cause. While questionable uploads of admins often survive deletion nominations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Pieter: If DW is the main problem then we should put on a big notice on the upload form: "HEY! Read this before you upload photos of statues, paintings etc." As for the admins on Commons I agree that some are not always friendly to new users. If you trust that enwiki admins are generally more helpful you are most welcome to make them help on Commons.
 * @Gnangarra: Bots can transfer images but it will create a lot of extra work (and cost extra space on servers). To get this to work properly all uploads on enwiki should be checked just after upload (to make sure copyvios are deleted or relicensed as fair use. OK files should be marked "ready to move to Commons". Bots should be improved to make a better transfer (Multichill made one: imagecopy_self.py but it is still in test). Users should check the info on Commons - including categories etc. Files should then be marked as "reviewed" on enwiki. Then local admins can delete the file. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @PK its not own work if its a copy of someone elses work what ever the source, if its out of copyright its a PD image but it still needs source and author information. Gnangarra 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The subtleties of copyright... Commons means aggressive tagging - "no source" ... "no author information" ... "will be deleted" ... without the original uploader getting a message on his or her home wikipedia. It is my impression that Commons admins do not want outside involvement in deletion discussions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues of copyright are standard even here, "no source" ... "no author information" ... "will be deleted". PK this isn't the place to bash commons admins(myself included) like all admins they work within the requirements of the community, the uploader of an image is a member of the commons community. Cross project communication is an issue that needs to be addressed before redirecting editors to Commns to upload, we cannot reasonably change projects with out first ensuring that people who are uploading still recieve the same level of notification they would if they'd uploaded it here. We cannot also redirect our problems or make demands on their resources without first ensuring they have the resources they need to do the work. Commons has a very small participation rate beyond uploaders, there is only a small group of active admins doing the work. Commons needs to have a way of en.wp admins taking some responsability to ensure and address issues will be directed from here by such a move. Maybe that is auto confirming/conferring admin rights on Commons to admins who already hold the right on other projects. Gnangarra 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I ofcourse agree with Gnangarra. It could be that too many images are tagged on Commons. But the problem could also be that too few images are tagged on en-wiki and that it therefore seems easier to upload here. I bet there are thousands of files with bad or no source and sometimes I even find some old ones without a license. We need to have the same standard world wide. I think the best way to get that is to put all free images in the same place and upload fair use locally. As I said if all free images are pushed to Commons then en-wiki admins should get more time to help on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The only difference between uploading an image locally here or at Commons, is that Wikipedia in English allows images under non-free rationales or which are PD in the US but not at the source country. That's all. Beyond that, copyright rules (what is and isn't a copyright violation, an own work, a derivative work, a work ineligible for copyright, etc.) are the same everywhere. Besides, it may mean being "harsh" with some users when their uploads are deleted, but it's a neccesary evil: copyright law is a really complicated thing, and it's not based in project policies but on real-world laws. Commons does not have an "Ignore all rules" policy because of this, Wikipedia has such a policy but copyright-related topics should be off-limits to it anyway.
 * In short: Wikipedia can use some licences that are not allowed in Commons. But for licences that are equally valid at both places, such as PD-Own or PD-Art, if a certain image is acceptable with certain authorship and under a certain licence or it's a copyright violation, is a question that should have the same answer anywhere MBelgrano (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Makes sense to me. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Now that there are unified accounts, is it possible to create a bot that, when a user gets a warning at Commons, generates a similar warning at the project that the user has as the main one? MBelgrano (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. But such a bot should only warn users that chooses that option. But you can always enable e-mail notification so you get an email if someone edits your talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Status so far
I have made this status per January 6:


 * 9 users like the idea more or less (Multichill, MGA73, Yann, Prosfilaes, REHman, Jarekt, Dcoetzee, LPfi and MBelgrano).
 * 3 users opposed or gave negative comments (Materialscientist, JackLee and Pieter Kuiper).
 * 2 users opposed or gave negative commonts that is now addressed (Fyre2387 and Gnangarra). One of the oppose was given with the reason that it should still be possible to upload to enwiki. It is Special:Upload so I think the concern is taken care of. Another of the oppose was given with the reason that Commons does not allow personal photos. It allows a small number per this. So I think this concern is also taken care of.

I can not tell if the two last mentioned users still oppose or they are now neutral or even support the idea. But I think there is enough positive comments to make this change. However, I will leave this discussion open a little longer to allow users to protest if they think that I have misunderstanded therir comment and to let new users comment/vote. --MGA73 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Has allready been changed - not as suggested but looks ok to me. Suggest we end discussion here. --MGA73 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with how it is now. "Entirely my own work" links to a page that's kind of a soft redirect to the same upload form on Commons, but with a link to upload it to Wikipedia (if you look closely). I think this will definitely help get more free images uploaded to Commons and fewer to here on Wikipedia. :-) Jsayre64   (talk)  23:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Upload trouble
I'm having trouble uploading files at present. The upload reaches an 'Unable to proceed' page and says the page has been protected so only administrators may use it. Hugahoody (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New look
Muchos gracias on the new look. Looks much cleaner! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm glad you like it :) Hugahoody (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Wizard
Is there a reason we're sending people onto this script instead of allowing them to choose their method at the standard upload form? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a much friendlier way of uploading files. Besides which; it's not like you are being FORCED by the Wiki software to use it! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Breawycker, 14 May 2011
should be changed, because the page is no longer semi-protected.

Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, How are you? I would like to know can I use a Photo on Wikipedia here for an image from http://www.zimbio.com website If I ask for permission there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Licensing drop-down box
Where is the text stored which appears as the list of options in the Licensing drop-down box of the Upload form? I ask this question in order to implement it on another language Wikipedia. --Redaktor (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Upload warning
I am trying to upload an image, but when I click "Upload file", I get a warning that says "File extension does not match MIME type." I also check the box for "Ignore any warnings", but the warning keeps appearing every time I click "Upload file". Why is this? Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This happens when you try to upload an image of one format (say, a JPEG image) that has a wrong filename extension which belong to another format (say, image.png). Fleet Command (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Preloaded option for film posters
Would it be possible to create a preloaded upload form for film posters, like what we have for album covers? There are almost 85,000 film articles and counting, and most of them use non-free posters in their infoboxes, so having a preloaded form linked directly from the main upload page would help ensure consistency in the licensing and fair-use rationales required. Film poster fur would be the summary/rationale form, and Non-free poster would be the license tag. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Armbrust, 13 July 2011
Change this: "Please upload it to the Wikimedia Commons through this upload form." to "Please upload it to the Wikimedia Commons through this upload form or this upload wizard." to have a link to Commons' upload wizard.

Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

New Design
We should incorporate the change on wikimedia commons to the wikipedia upload process. It is easyer and is much less overwhelming. Noahk11 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uploading from iPhone, iPad, and similar devices
Today, seemingly most people have at least one iPhone, iPad, or similar device, and it is not uncommon for all or most of one's internet usage to be on such a device. But the way things are now, it is impossible to upload with such a device. There should be an easy method for those who have these devices to upload the pictures they take with them directly onto Wikipedia. It is possible to upload videos straight onto YouTube, so why can't it be possible to upload them onto Wikipedia? Any support for this? Sebwite (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion might be better held at Village_pump_(technical). Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly apple would not incorporate this feature into safari. We could add it to the Wikipedia app. Or develop a cydia tweak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahk11  (talk • contribs)  02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a limitation of the default iPhone browser, Safari, and not a limitation of Wikipedia. I am able to upload files using Opera Mobile on a Samsung Galaxy S II running Android 2.3.4. Safari does not conform to web standards. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Add an NFC licencing template
Can be included in the licensing choices available when uploading a non-free image? Then one wouldn't have to use a temporary template that later needs to be replaced with this one Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Filling in the basic upload form a la Commons
I've noticed that the basic upload form on en.wiki doesn't have one of the very nice additions that the basic upload form on Commons has, that it that it automatically fills this out when you load the page:

Is there any way we can have this show up when you load the basic upload form? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)