MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork/Archive 1

Comments

A small note: "charitable" is misspelled.--Pharos 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Gmaxwell 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention this: User:Dschwen#Pre-filled_Special:Upload_description in section 2. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should set it up in the site wide, with it set to trigger on just the ownwork page? :) Thoughts? --Gmaxwell 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as overkill. Some people may find it useful to install, so it wouldn't hurt to advertise it. But...eh. I also hate junking up the sitewide JS. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

german translation

moved to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/deownwork

translation done

Admin!!..--Speck-Made 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your translation. I added it to the right page. You also need to translate MediaWiki:Licenses/ownwork. Please see Commons:Redesigning the upload form for more details about translating these forms. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Did it - would you..? It's also posted on the talk page.

(Well, those details... Atm I'm happy if I don't have to know them... But I'll have a look.)--Speck-Made 12:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Have had a quick look.. - Do all those listed elements (still) need translation?--Speck-Made 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The main elements are MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:Licenses, for /ownwork (now complete), /fromflickr, /fromwikimedia and /fromgov. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all derivative works are prohibited

After I translated this to Swedish, we had a bit of a discussion at the Swedish village pump starting with the objection that sculptures permanently erected in a public place in Sweden may be freely depicted.

However, while it is true that some derivative works are permitted, I do appreciate the reasons for being overly strict rather than overly permissive, and I don't believe this is a good form to use for permissible derivative works. With this in mind, I propose the following:

Step 1. Is this your work?

Photographs or videos you have created of: natural landscapes, animals, and plants people that are either public figures or are taken at public events useful or non-artistic objects (tools, dinner plates, etc.) Graphs, maps, diagrams, and audio you have created entirely yourself.

Works which consist partly or completely of works by others (derivative works): screenshots of TV shows, movies, DVDs, and software. photographs of art, sculptures, commercial packaging and often toys. drawings of copyrighted characters from TV, comics, or movies, even if you drew them yourself. These are not permitted except under certain conditions, so do not upload them unless you are certain that it is allowed! For example, permanent sculptures in a public place in some countries may be freely depicted, and freely licensed content may be modified and redistributed in compliance with the license. However, this form is only meant for works which you have created entirely by yourself. Use the general upload form for permitted derivative works.

I also changed statues to sculptures, as this is a more appropriately inclusive term.

Unfortunately, it's a bit more wordy, but after some consideration, I feel that we should not let fear of instruction creep lead us to make blatantly false statements. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky one. I would just insert a "usually" before the "not permitted" -- instruction creep is very insidious (and I'm guilty of it often enough too). Whatever you think works. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

Concerning this upload page:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork

I pointed someone to the page for uploading their own work. They just used "GFDL" in the permission spot without using the curly brackets. They must not have used the selector menu. So they got a bunch of deletion notices on their user talk page. See User talk:Akha

It looks like they just copied the form below to all the image upload pages (with more info filled in, along with the curly brackets for the overall template):

Information
|Description=
|Source=self-made
|Date=
|Author= 
|Permission=GFDL
|other_versions=

I went back and added curly brackets to {{GFDL}}

I now see that is not the correct permission template either.

Why is it so difficult to upload one's own work? Why not just put the "best practices" template code in the form to begin with as the default code?

Then even if people do not choose from the selector menu, then they are done.

I do not know what that "best practices" code is myself. So I can't go back and enter template code.

I suggest a sentence on the upload form saying that the default "best practices" code is entered in the form by default.

Explain what that "best practices" code means so they are informed. Then say that if they want other choices they should choose from the selector menu.

Most people just want to upload quickly using default settings, and then move on. They want to copy the form to multiple image uploads without fooling around with the selector menu, and further reading.

Also, I suggest adding a link to this talk page so that people can make further suggestions. --Timeshifter 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I went in and figured out how to add my name to the pictures. Maybe the admin can consider a simpler system of say cgi for adding donated pictures and making sure all their requirements are met so we are not guessing at them.

Maybe this will help. Matthew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akha (talk • contribs) at 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What are the best licenses for donating one's own images?

Please see this talk section at w:Wikipedia_talk:Upload:

• What are the best licenses for donating one's own images?

I discussed this previously here, but I am much clearer at the above link.

I suggest doing the same thing here at the "own work" upload form.

In the upload form here it is Step 3 of the form that is relevant. It states: "Select a Free Content license for your work." That is where the suggested clarification is needed.

Here are what the 2 license templates produce on the commons:

---

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:

You may select the license of your choice.

---

{{PD-self}}

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

---

Go to w:Wikipedia_talk:Upload#What are the best licenses for donating one's own images? to see what the license templates produce there. --Timeshifter 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You suggest adding

If you don't want to read all the many options and explanations, and just want to know which licenses the community recommends, choose one of the following:

• {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}: "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)"
• {{PD-self}}: "All rights released (Public domain or waiver if the PD release is invalidated)"

to section 2.

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. People should understand licenses at least a little bit before uploading. Note that the two options mentioned are already in the license drop-down list. Lupo 09:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe link to the explanations for those specific licenses. If they are happy with what they offer, they can accept them. If not, they can continue reading. Right now they don't have that option, and people get very frustrated, and make poor choices, oftentimes picking a license at random from the drop-down list. At least with this method they make a good choice even if they decide not to read about all the licenses. I doubt if very many people read about all the licenses. --Timeshifter 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see also this related discussion:

w:Wikipedia_talk:Upload#Move_.22I_don.27t_know.22_to_the_top

Lupo wrote: "People should understand licenses at least a little bit before uploading." This is true. But which little bit? People in a hurry want to read about the best choices first. And they don't want to just take our word for it. So they need short summary pages. I can't remember the meaning of all the "CC-by..." choices. So there needs to be a link to a summary page about them. Commons:Licensing is way too long and difficult for someone in a hurry. That is the only help link on the "own work" upload page. --Timeshifter 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a related discussion here:

• MediaWiki talk:Licenses#Newbie uploading problem --Timeshifter 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we explain the "Best practices" choices?

See the previous section and the list of "Best practices" license tags for the "own work" upload form.

From the bottom of Commons:Copyright_tags#GNU_Licenses is this:

Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-2.5 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily.

I assume the single license of {{PD-self}} also avoids this problem. It also is in the "Best practices" part of the selector menu for the "own work" upload form.

{{PD-self}}

produces:

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

I would think we need SOME kind of explanation of "best practices" in the upload form instructions.

Here is an article with a longer explanation as to why the GFDL tag by itself is a problem for people wanting to print free images.

See also en:GFDL#Burdens when printing and en:MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-ownwork#User-friendliness. --Timeshifter 07:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The upload form is not the place to explain the choices. It is the place to link to another page that does explain the choices, however. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The main upload form explains the form entries for the {{Information}} template a little. So I don't see why the "own work" form can't explain the basics, too. Please see the following talk section, too. --Timeshifter 12:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Table of license tags. Links for more info

Maybe something like this can be added to the "own work" upload page:

Hover over an entry in the dropdown selector menu to see the license tag for that entry. To see what each tag produces click its entry in the dropdown selector menu. The license box for that tag will show up below the menu. Any of the tags in the table can be copied directly into the upload form. They can be copied into an image page after uploading if you have forgotten to add a license tag, or if you need to correct the license tag. For more info on the components making up the various license tags click the links in the table.

This way people can quickly scan the list of license tags, and go to the linked pages for more info. It's quick, it's easy, and it doesn't clutter up the upload page with information. The information is easily accessible this way. Also, the explanatory text on the linked pages can be edited and clarified by anybody. The "Best", "Better", and "Good" labels could be linked to explanatory pages, too. --Timeshifter 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please return the permission field

The permission field was removed by Gmaxwell without discussion on Feb. 18, 2007. See this diff.

Please see this related discussion:

• w:Wikipedia_talk:Upload#Remove "Permission" field from "own work" form

Why require part of the info to be in the {{Information}} template form, and part of the info to be below the template form? The Wikipedia "own work" upload form allows license tags to be placed in the permission field.

The permission field in the template form makes it simple to put all licensing and permission info in one place if desired. See the above discussion link for more info.

It is better for batch uploading of images to be able to paste in one filled-in template form for a bunch of images. I think it helps everybody if the {{Information}} template form can be filled in, and then copied and pasted as batch code without having to stray outside the template form to put a license tag. It confuses both newbies and more experienced editors.

Compare to Wikipedia. From wikipedia:Template:Information/doc is this quote:

Permission: Short description of the permission for use granted by the copyright holder. In the case of general permission (e.g. Public Domain), simply describe the media file's copyright status. Note that the media file must still be tagged with the appropriate license template! Select a copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. Don't forget to put the curly brackets around the tag!: {{}}

I think it is important to maintain consistency concerning the {{Information}} template form used on wikipedia and the commons. --Timeshifter 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistency between Commons and Wikipedia upload forms

I no longer care either way whether there is, or is not, a "permission" field. I see now that the bigger problem, in my opinion, is the lack of consistency between the commons and English Wikipedia concerning the upload forms on each.

So I would be happy with any solutions that create commonality between upload forms, and that explain them better. A better form with little instruction is not necessarily better than a mediocre form with good instructions.

I think that many people prefer the multi-field forms being discussed here:

• MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js.

In the meantime please provide the best, most succinct, yet complete, instructions possible on the upload page itself.--Timeshifter 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I copied the following comment from wikipedia:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/en-ownwork#Consistency between Commons and Wikipedia upload forms

Maybe you could get the Commons people add explanations of the various licenses to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork. The Commons upload form doesn't explain the licenses nearly as well as our own wikipedia:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

w:User:Remember the dot is an admin on English wikipedia. I think both upload forms explain various points better than the other. --Timeshifter 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

More confusion about license tags and talk pages

Note: I copied these recent comments below (between the lines) from

• Template talk:PD-self#Only to be used if uploader = creator? --Timeshifter 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't some of these be mentioned in the template page? I'm thinking about something like:

For other PD templates, see Commons:Copyright tags#Public_domain and Template:PD-user-w.

I had been looking a long time for such lists, and did not think to look at "Copyright tags" or at this discussion page... I'd have done this change myself already, but the page is protected. -- Jokes Free4Me 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe options should be better explained here:

MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork

Here is the related talk page:

MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ownwork --Timeshifter 22:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

(unindent) Shouldn't there be a talk page link from the "own work" upload page:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork

Otherwise many more people will get lost in the upload maze, and not know where to make suggestions for improvement of the "own work" upload page. It is counterintuitive and difficult to go to Commons talk:Upload.

The intuitive location to make suggestions, or to ask questions about, the "own work" upload instructions, would be a talk page linked from it.--Timeshifter 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SVG file will not upload

I tried uploading an SVG file and got this message:

"The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again."

I checked the SVG file, and can see it fine in IrfanView. I even downloaded a new version of the file from "Create A Graph," and it looked the same.

I opened up another browser window and went to the "own work" upload form and tried again. Got the same message. I filled out the form completely again too:

DescriptionUploadtext/ownwork/Archive 1	English: Second Intifada deaths. September 29, 2000 through April 30, 2008. The totals for each side are followed by the breakdown to the right of each total. This chart is in the public domain. No copyright. The statistics for the chart come from B'Tselem at this page. The chart was created at Create A Graph, a free online graph creation tool at the National Center for Education Statistics website. There is a variety of free charting and mapping help, forums, labs, tools, and software on the resource lists at Category:Charts and Category:Maps.
Date	See the description. The dates on the chart will be changed as the chart is updated.
Source	self-made
Author	Timeshifter
Other versions	Image:Intifada deaths.gif

I had picked the "public domain" license tag from the selector menu each time I tried to upload.

Can someone else create a test chart at Create A Graph and download the SVG version of the chart, and see if they can upload to the commons? --Timeshifter 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it, and it turns out the so-called .svg files produced by that site are actually gzipped SVG data. It needs to be decompressed to plaintext XML before uploading to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! After some research I unzipped it with 7-Zip, a popular [1], free and open source file archiver that unzips gzip and also works with Unicode. See w:Comparison of file archivers. The image is here: Image:Intifada deaths.svg. Click it to enlarge it. --Timeshifter 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Multilicense with cc-by?

I guess I haven't uploaded one of my own photos for a while... normally, I like to multilicense cc-by and GFDL (just to ensure there are no GFDL compatibility issues), but that option is not in the dropdown of the "usual" licenses. Is there any reason for that? cc-by-3.0 is up there, but not a multilicense of cc-by-3.0 and GFDL, which seems counterproductive to me (since multi-licensing is recommended). I'm pretty sure it used to be there... can it be put back? Carl Lindberg 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. See my user page. I have links there for the old dropdown list for this upload form.

I looked at this: Image:MediaWiki SpecialUpload interface labelled.png and found this: MediaWiki:Licenses. It has the dropdown selector list for Special:Upload. I don't know where the page is for the dropdown menu for the "own work" upload form. --Timeshifter 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats with the new form??

Putting in custom copyright tags is a pain in the butt. It doesn't let the file proceed if no copyright template is selected. As it is now, I need to put "I don't know the license" then delete that later. Why? -Fcb981 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To make things harder for drive-by copyright violators. There's an option in your preferences to get the old form back. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are the choices in that dropdown license selector menu explained in detail? Including the multi-licensing reasoning. There should be a separate editable non-popup help page just to explain this particular license menu. No other choices should be explained on that help page.

The short popup help page from the question mark (?) link does not explain all the options in the dropdown menu.

Links can be provided to the other huge copyright license tag pages. We need to keep this particular help page focussed on "own work" license tags. Otherwise we defeat the purpose of this upload form. --Timeshifter 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -Fcb981 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the form does allow placing license tags directly into the permission field. It should be able to recognize most license templates. If it still doesn't recognize a particular template, tell me on my talk page, and I'll add it to the list of known license tags. Lupo 12:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the talk page for the multi-part upload form?

{{editprotected}} I forget where the new multi-part upload form template for this particular upload page is located. And its associated talk page. Can someone direct me to those pages?

I also put up an {{Editprotected}} tag temporarily so that someone answers this question, and the ones in the section above this one. I don't know if admins are watchlisting all the talk pages for the many different upload forms. --Timeshifter 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do any of these pages linked in the table below cover the upload form used here? --Timeshifter 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Read or make upload form suggestions also at:
MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation	Talk
Commons:Redesigning the upload form	Talk
MediaWiki:UploadForm.js	Talk
The Wikitech-l Archives.

I created this table awhile back, and update it now and then. It is at the top of Commons talk:Upload. --Timeshifter 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the talk page for the popup license help?

{{Editprotected}}

When I click the question mark next to the licensing part of the upload form one sees some popup help info.

It has this in it:

"In all cases, you remain the owner of the copyrights on your work, and you are free to license it to someone else under different terms, or to try to exploit your work elsewhere commercially."

That is confusing because everything on the commons is FREE to use anywhere both commercially and non-commercially.

On the upload form I want to put a link to the main talk page for all the popup help. I may create another table somewhere like the ones at the top of Commons talk:Upload and w:Wikipedia talk:Upload. --Timeshifter 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not confusing at all. It appears in the license help for "own work" upload forms only, and is thus targeted at uploaders who own the copyright of the file they are about to upload. I have come across several cases where contributors were usure whether they could indeed do the things mentioned because they feared to give up all their rights through a free license. That is not the case at all. Someone may license an image freely here and still license it under more restrictive terms and in exchange for financial compensation to someone else. But of course, once you've licensed a work of yours freely, it may get harder for you to make money from it, because your prospective clients may just as well get the image for free from the Commons. Lupo 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As an example, suppose you upload an image of yours under a CC-by-sa license. Anyone is, as you say, free to use it. However, any modifications published by others must be subject to the same licensing terms. Now suppose someone wants to publish a modified version of your image without making their modifications free. The statement you refer to is there to clarify that you do not give up the right to grant them such a permission and that you are free to accept monetary compensation for such deals. I agree with Lupo; the statement is not confusing. Canceling the editprotected tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem. You say that it is not confusing, and expect your statement to make it so. It does not make it so. It is still confusing. Wikipedia solved this kind of problem by opening up the editing of nearly all the upload documentation for editing by registered users. This way we can make stuff not confusing to more people. Just because you are not confused does not mean that something is not confusing to others. I put back up the edit protected tag to see if I can find an admin who also thinks that it is confusing. I suggest LX, Lupo, or other admins take some of the info that LX and Lupo wrote here, and add it to the help info. I suggest also that admins try to be more helpful.

Technically, you are misinforming people if you give them the false hope that they can necessarily get away with applying more restrictive terms to their images elsewhere. They may come back later and justifiably ask why you misinformed them. It creates bad feeling on their part. If others find out that the original creator of the image gave up a particular right at Wikimedia earlier, then they will not pay attention to the later more restrictive terms. I think this is deceptive (whether intentional or not), and I will take this up at the admin noticeboards if necessary. --Timeshifter 01:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

License selector needs to be indented to the left

{{Editprotected}}

I can't read all the options in the dropdown license selector. Some of the options extend past the right side of the screen and there is no way to scroll to the right to read those options.

Maybe it can be indented to the left. Since it is the most important part of the form it might help to make it stand out this way, too.

Where is the talk page for the form itself? --Timeshifter 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rendering of dropdown boxes is controlled by the user's web browser. Looks fine for me in both Firefox/Iceweasel and Konqueror on both my laptop and my stationary computer. When dropped down, the list expands to the full width needed to display the contents. Microsoft Internet Explorer (running under Wine), however, cuts off the contents. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at it in Firefox and in MSIE at 1028 by 768. The top 2 multi-license tags are cut off on the right. I am referring to the dropdown license selector in the "my own work" upload form:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork --Timeshifter 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere where you brought that up (I forgot where it was. That's the problem when you bring up the same point in several places...), changing the layout of this might break RTL language forms such as the Hebrew upload form. And I think it would make the upload form look strange. The problem is dependend on window size, font size setting in the browser, and the length of the titles chosen in MediaWiki:Licenses and its subpages. Which means there is no easy quick fix except using shorter item titles in the drop down and making sure that the important stuff is mentioned at the beginning of these texts. Lupo 08:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It looks like the admin, User:Remember the dot, fixed the problem by shortening the long entries in the menu. See this diff. I don't see how making the menu drop down more to the left here would break Right-to-left language forms such as the ones on the Hebrew Wikipedia upload form. Shouldn't the code be written differently for RTL versus LTR forms anyway?

I still don't see why (other than taste) the license selector form itself couldn't be moved to the left here. It is the most important part of the upload form. People with smaller screens (such as many laptops with 12 inch to 15 inch screens) will still have problems with the shorter entries in the license menu. One good thing about the Hebrew Wikipedia form is that all the forms are aligned on the left side of the page. So all the dropdown menus have plenty of room for their entries. That would solve the most problems in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the RTL layout on the Hebrew form is done through CSS. Lupo 09:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How does the Hebrew form get all the blank lines of the form to line up on the left side of the page? Is that through CSS? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Three million files

Now that Commons has three million files, can we update the form to say so? Harryboyles (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Done. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommended image license in license selector menu

Wouldn't {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} be a simpler, better recommendation than "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended)":

• {{self |GFDL |Cc-by-sa-3.0}}

I thought I read somewhere that people were trying to move more towards Cc-by-sa-3.0:

• http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

See:

• http://nic.suzor.com/blog/2008/20081106-gfdl_v1.3_released/wikipedia_can_relicense
• http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/04/0150230

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be relevant: meta:Licensing update/Result --Timeshifter (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

---

---

---