Last modified: 2006-09-07 20:57:42 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 3229 - New Special:Upload page
New Special:Upload page
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
All All
: Normal normal with 5 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-08-22 21:39 UTC by Matthew Flaschen
Modified: 2006-09-07 20:57 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Matthew Flaschen 2005-08-22 21:39:21 UTC
English Wikipedia has unanimous consensus to create a new Special:Upload page
fitting the criteria listed at
 Below is the description of the new page and the existing conversation about
it.  Given the extreme level of support, we would be grateful for a quick

Better Upload Page to Get More Images Tagged

Over at the policy section, some people have crafted an idea for a better upload
page to encourage people to tag their images or at least provide the information
needed to tag them. You can go there for details, but basically we want a check
box that says, "Is this a photograph you took yourself, or an image you created
from scratch?" On the page where it says, "If you upload a file here to which
you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation
License or release it into the public domain. Alternately, you can upload your
file to the Wikimedia Commons under a different free license." change it to "If
you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it
under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you specifically release it
into the public domain. Alternately, you can upload your file to the Wikimedia
Commons under a different free license." Then, say, "If not, do you have the
image tag? If so, please enter it.". Then, "If you don't have a tag, please
explain the source of this image in detail in the box below." Below can be the
summary box that's always there. Server-side(not client JS) validation should
ensure that either the first box is checked, the second contains text(preferably
ensure there is a valid tag, but that's more difficult), or the third box
contains text.

If the first is checked:

If there is nothing in the second, add {{GFDL-self}} to the summary. If there is
something in the second, add

The uploader owns the copyright to this image. By uploading it to Wikipedia, he
or she agreed to license it under the GFDL, unless he or she released it into
the public domain below.

If the second is filled,

Check whether the form of the field is {{*}}. If it is, just add it to the
summary. Otherwise, add {{<FIELD>}} to the summary.

If the third is filled,

Add it to the summary.

Can someone implement this, or at least provide feedback. If you are unsure what
I am proposing, I can create an HTML mock-up. Superm401 | Talk 19:46, August 6,
2005 (UTC)

    I think this is a great idea, and would urge others to show
support/criticism so this idea can hopefully be acted upon. Martin (Bluemoose)
08:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

        Great idea. - Omegatron 19:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

            Good thought; an element of a larger effort needed to shift more
work onto the engine, in part by using form elements other than one giant
editable text field. — Xiong熊talk* 21:07, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

                Agreed. --Workman161

                    Okay, then. Developers, can this be implemented without a
change to the MediaWiki software? Superm401 | Talk 04:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

                        Any objections from anyone? Superm401 | Talk 03:49,
August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment 1 bdk 2005-08-22 22:43:11 UTC
Some hints:
* See also bug 1552.
Important: There should always be the default option "unknown" for the licence field - otherwise we will be confronted
with uncountable files wrongly tagged with any licence just because people are too lazy to read the instructions. The
files marked and categorized as "unknown" could still be checked manually afterwards. 
Comment 2 Chris McKenna 2005-08-22 23:06:22 UTC
I think the tag field should be a drop-down menu of all allowable tags. 
This will obviously need to be updated, this could be done by reading templates
from a category (meaning anyone can add or remove tags from it) or, if only
admins should be able to add or remove tags then read it from a protected page
in the MediaWiki: namespace. I'd personally prefer the first of these, but if
protection is felt to be required then I'd accept the second.

The drop-down option should either default to "unknown" or default to a
non-valid "please select" and make "unknown" the first item in the list. 

If at all possible, a preview of the tag selected should be seen so that when
someone selectes e.g. the cc-by-sa-2.5 tag they can see it to check it is the
correct one. Templates that take a paramater (e.g. freeuseprovidedthat) might be
problematical, but perhaps the parameter could be read from the box below. You
would need instructions to this effect though.
Comment 3 Matthew Flaschen 2005-08-23 14:14:00 UTC
I could accept something like .  I'd like
to add a "Are you the original creator?" box though and if it's checked add a
GFDL tag automatically.
Comment 4 Chris McKenna 2005-08-23 18:17:27 UTC
I don't think that a GFDL tag should be added automatically. I have uploaded
lots of pictures, and I use the GFDL for very few of them as I don't like the
complexity of this liscence for reusers. Most of my pictures are cc-by-sa, and
some are public domain, almost all my text is dual liscenced into the public
domain. It should not automatically be assumed that I want to use the GFDL.
Comment 5 Matthew Flaschen 2005-08-23 21:31:52 UTC
You are not officially allowed to upload pictures you have created to Wikipedia
under the cc licenses, though Commons accepts them.  Public domain images are
accepted, and the version I originally proposed says it's only licensed GFDL if
it's not public domain.  Again, this is not my rule.  The page currently says,
"If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it
under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain."
Of course, with any system doing automatic licensing, there would be a warning
at the bottom saying, "By uploading an image you have created to Wikipedia, you
agree to license it under the GFDL, unless you specifically release it into the
public domain" or similar.  We wouldn't be deceiving anyone or making hidden
Comment 6 Chris McKenna 2005-11-17 09:25:48 UTC
Marking bug as closed as the drop-down list of licenses has been implemented
Any problems/changes with this should be new bugs imho.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.