Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anomie (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 25 November 2011 (rm irrelevant comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Could the text:

View deletion log?

Be added to near the "view deleted edits" section? As a non-admin, it's very frustrating to try to find the deletion history of an image that has a red link and going to Special:Upload. GracenotesT § 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there should be a message at the bottom linking to the log already if you follow a link to a deleted image. It'd be a lot clearer if this page wasn't such a mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o_O ... I personally think that it would be better located at the top, unless we want to move the "view deleted edits" item down. It seems to make a bit more sense to do that. GracenotesT § 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the view and restore on top, people who click redlink images usually want to see a log probably, not upload. Anyway, I changed it so both are at the top. - cohesion 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; it works. GracenotesT § 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "View deleted edits" even as a non-admin on the upload form is a bug. I filed a bug report ages ago about it. Not a high priority to get fixed, as non-admins can't see Special:Undelete anyway. ^demon[omg plz] 14:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to work in some cases. Example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Harvest-Let%27s+Fight.ogg goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Harvest-Let's (no .ogg) (Check the Fight.ogg deletion log?) but the link to Special:Undelete is right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Harvest-Let%27s_Fight.ogg).

deletion log works Fight.ogg deletion log doesn't. Kotepho 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use "restriction"

{{sudo}}

"Note that images of a living person or extant building may not be uploaded under fair use."

Right... so... every fair use image we have that contains a person or a building needs to be deleted? Er... I think not. Can this be re-worded to avoid giving that impression, please? – Gurch 12:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Not done The essay Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people explains what's going on. Basically, if it's theoretically possible that a free image could be obtained, a fair-use image shouldn't be used according to WP:FUC 1. (This is somewhat controversial, but it's what the policy says at the moment.) I won't make this change so as to keep the upload page consistent with policy; but note that CAT:REFU sometimes gets very backlogged, so maybe admins in general agree with you. (Such images do need to be deleted according to current policy; see WP:CSD#I7 and Template:Replaceable fair use! Bear in mind it only applies to living people and existing buildings, because these things can in theory have free-licenced photos taken of them.) --ais523 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about any fair-use photo that might be of something else completely, but incidentally happens to contain one or more people or buildings. Some of those people/buildings might still exist, but other elements of the photo may mean that it isn't replaceable with a free equivalent – a photo of a historical event, for example. Surely then it is acceptable? But the way this sentence on the image description page is worded, it sounds like no photo that contains any living person or existing building can be uploaded under fair use at all. I cannot believe that that is the case – Gurch 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the criterion for valid fair-use is "not replaceable with a free equivalent", then can it please be reworded to this?
"Note that images of a living person or extant building may not be uploaded under fair use, if an equivalent under a free license exists or could be created."
– Gurch 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. --MZMcBride 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new wording makes it clearer what the instruction means. --ais523 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

test sample —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.204.50 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

{{editprotected}} Please remove the quotation marks from Images that you just "found somewhere". I see no rational for their inclusion. Thank you. Reywas92Talk 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks for finding that :) - cohesion 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

Just to let you know, the word "licenced" is misspelled. This is on the line that says "An explanation of why you believe the file is so licenced." An administrator or anyone with sufficient privileges should correct it to "licensed". You may use a spell checker to see for yourself. --Alex rosenberg35 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done. Thank you. --BigDT 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

{{sudo}}

Enclose this message with <div id="mw-uploadtext"> ... </div>, so that it can be referred to using CSS. Thanks – 86.133.139.4 10:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done —METS501 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My God!

Does anybody actually read this thing? It's the worst case of interface fruit salad I've ever seen on Wikipedia! --Carnildo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have any concrete suggestions for improvement? Superm401 - Talk 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can figure out what it's trying to say, I will. --Carnildo (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version

I've got a new version of the upload header at User:Carnildo/Sandbox-upload. Advantages of this version include:

  1. No fruit salad, so there's a chance people will actually read it.
  2. Step-by-step directions, so there's a chance people will understand it.
  3. Positive statements rather than warnings and threats, so there's a chance people will pay attention to it.

--Carnildo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that it's shorter, with less random colors and possibly distracting logos (this may be what you mean by fruit salad). However, I think it should have at least one warning that images may be deleted. Also, it should address non-free use rationales more directly, suggest uploading to Commons, and ask for a link to online content. Superm401 - Talk 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of thing that led to the mess we have now. I'm not trying to come up with a comprehensive document covering all possible image-uploading situations (I tried that once; gave up after fifty or so pages when I still hadn't adequately distinguished between free and non-free images), but a set of basic instructions on how to upload an image. --Carnildo (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that 95% of the world isn't going to read a word of it. If you make the one (and only) important thing stand out - don't upload random stuff you found on some random website - then we probably go up from 5% to 50% reading and comprehending that particular concept. The old one was way too much probably didn't help. The one thing that you need to get from reading that form is that under penalty of fire and brimstone, don't upload random stuff from the internet. Anything else they get from it is bonus. --B (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One fruit-salad box is too much. If we're going to have a screaming red box, we might as well not have any of the rest of it, because nobody's ever going to read it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to read a word of it right now. The one and only important message to communicate is that Wikipedia, unlike myspace, blogspot, whatever other websites this user hangs out at, is not somewhere that you can upload photos that you find on any random place on the internet. Make that one message stand out and it gets read. Give them lots of stuff in normal type and none of it gets read. Someone using this form is not going to understand that they shouldn't upload copyvio images. Having four colored boxes doesn't help either - that ensures that none get read. But having the one most important message that if you don't read anything else you read this emphasized is about the only way to get the point across. --B (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black text on blue background is defintety not going to be read. It's just another online upload form that people don't read.Geni 14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geni; users are much more likely to pay attention to contrasting templates than to the plain blue and black. Not "fruit salad" at all - but that would be better than now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a link to the deletion log ("Check the deletion log?"). As the missing image might have been on commons, should the commons log be linked as well? I added this as a trial [1]. -- User:Docu

If the image was on Commons, will the MediaWiki software provide the information needed for the log link to show up at the right times? --Carnildo (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the Wikipedia deletion log shows up even if the deleted file was on commons, e.g.:
Now, both samples now display two links and one of the two is always the right one. -- User:Docu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 May 2008

Moved back to MediaWiki namespace

Sorry guys. $1 doesn't work when transcluded, so it needs to be here. You'll have to use editprotected to make requests to change this, unless someone knows of a workaround to allow this. --- RockMFR 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is $1 used in? Can we use something else other than whatever is using $1 now? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
$1 is used to pass in the name of the image so we can link to the deletion logs here and at commons. Very handy feature. --- RockMFR 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea. Can just the text be moved to another page, and then transcluded into this page? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be possible to move most of the text to another page and transclude it. I've re-arranged the text a bit so this can be done quite easily if need be. --- RockMFR 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Where is the best place to put the transcluded subpage? From looking at the table of transcluded text at the top of Wikipedia talk:Upload it seems that the subpages are all using the Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/ prefix. See the list pulled up by Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext. How about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-main
I am just guessing though at an appropriate name and location. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed fair use rationale

Is there a simple method to get from the Special:Upload to a preset tag with the detailed Non-free use rationale? I know this sounds like a question for the help desk (and it is if the answer is yes), but it seemed to me that the only method to add the detailed rationale was to copy/paste it from the non free rationale guideline. Am I missing something or is this a deliberate choice among upload options presented by the wizard? Protonk (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we create our own pages?

I know of a leading female scientist in the University system, she has won several awards. She is also one of the leading women scientists in the field of Climate Change. I would to be able to organize data and hard evidence\ facts, to legally create a Wiki page. Would appreciate some feedback! :D

Does anyone have any Idea how I go about this?

Chili287 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Chili[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Starting an article. In the future, questions like this should go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specify that an URL is useful?

Hi, after a discussion with another user, I have realised that specifying that a link to the webpage the image was taken from may be a good idea. This user was merely saying that the images were from Flickr, rather than linking to the page from which they were taken. Would anyone have an objection to this being included? Does anyone have an idea about how this could be done? J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me to ask for more specificity in the source parts of upload forms. Did you have a particular upload form/page in mind? Or did you mean all of the upload pages? For a table of all the upload pages and their talk pages see the top of Wikipedia talk:Upload. You might want to ask at the main discussion page, or one of the other talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En wikipedia basic upload form

Hello. Had a few suggestions for the basic en.wiki upload form (Special:Upload). First of all, please remove the new preview feature (or move it to the bottom of the page). Its extraordinarily annoying for it to push the rest of the page down. As an uploader, I should take the time to make sure the image is correct before uploading it, and this preview feature promotes ignorance in my opinion. Second, can we copy what Commons does and make it so the form is partially filled out? 

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

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Does anybody watch this page? Who has permissions to edit the coding? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might try {{editprotected}} as any admin can edit this page. ΔT The only constant 15:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something that required edits to mediawiki and not just the wikicode.... but may as well give it a shot to bring in some attention. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Try starting a discussion at WP:VPT, both to gather ideas on how to do any of this (it seems Commons uses some major Javascript) and to see if consensus actually supports it. Anomie⚔ 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext&oldid=462424869"