Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard
| This page is for discussing maintenance of the image upload mechanism at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and improvements to it. Please do not use it for posting other unrelated material. |
| To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, MediaWiki talk:FileUploadWizard.js redirects here. |
Archives |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
|
|
Contents
Templates on MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js[edit]
Should all licensing-related templates transcluded in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, the "gears" behind Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, have cascading protection? I ask because after realizing Template:Non-free biog-pic was transcluded there ... after realizing that there was an edit request fulfilled there to remove "parameter 1", but then later found out personally that parameter 1 is still utilized in the file upload wizard, and thus reverted the related edits (all of this can be found on the template's edit history), I now worry that editing these templates could have a negative effect on the upload wizard if not performed correctly. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- (Pinging Sfan00 IMG and Paine Ellsworth to make them aware of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's just confusing when software code shows up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Some template or random categories. Some time ago, User:B changed the script so that the software wouldn't think that OTRS permission is needed for pages like this. Later, User:Redrose64 removed some other transclusions. Can't the script just get
nowikitags at the top and bottom? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Steel1943 and Stefan2: I don't see how cascading protection would solve the problem. The real problem is that people with the technical means of doing so shouldn't be editing protected templates without knowing that they are doing. There are only 118 people with the template editor privilege and so it's not as though disallowing template editors from editing these templates is going to solve a problem. (Yes, it would have stopped this one person from making the edit, but there's 1332 admins who would have still been able to.) Maybe the solution is to have a (yet another) big warning box on the talk page of the templates included here that admonishes you strongly to make sure your edits don't break MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js? --B (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- To Steel1943 and Stefan2: B is correct, and I take full responsibility for the removal of the parameter without first seeking a consensus for the change. There should be no need for cascade protection, nor for any new warning box, because there is already a large warning box on all template-protected edit pages that links to the "use" section of Wikipedia:Template editor. This type of edit and what should be done is expressly covered on that project page. I was wrong and consider this a good lesson, and I will certainly exercise more care in the future. Paine 02:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you follow my suggestion and add
nowikitags to MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, then MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js would no longer be transcluding any templates, so any cascading protection wouldn't actually protect any templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you follow my suggestion and add
-
-
- @Stefan2: That suggestion actually masks the problem: the fact that a page uses in a MediaWiki namespace page was edited in a fashion that potentially could have caused harm to the upload wizard, and the link on the MediaWiki allowed the template to have the MediaWiki page on its "What links here" lists. The problem is that the template had a "mis-edit", not the fact that it's transcluded here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The page MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js currently transcludes some of the templates which the upload wizard may insert while other templates are not transcluded, which is inconsistent. The appropriate way would seem to be to create a template like {{Twinkle standard installation}} and add that to the documentation page of all templates used by the upload wizard. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: That suggestion actually masks the problem: the fact that a page uses in a MediaWiki namespace page was edited in a fashion that potentially could have caused harm to the upload wizard, and the link on the MediaWiki allowed the template to have the MediaWiki page on its "What links here" lists. The problem is that the template had a "mis-edit", not the fact that it's transcluded here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Note that applying cascading protection to the templates themselves would be incorrect; you'd want to transclude the templates onto a cascade-protected page (e.g. Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items), or apply cascading protection to some page on which they're already transcluded, or just protect them manually. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Block being flagged earlier[edit]
Is there any way we could get the "Error: you have been blocked from editing" message/hard stop to happen earlier in the process than at the final stage (after hitting the "Upload file" button)? It's annoying to have everything set to upload a file and then have to re-do it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Might be possible; I don't think it's currently among the things that the script checks. On the other hand, we normally expect blocked editors to know they are blocked once they log in, so why would somebody still attempt to upload a file, knowing thy can't do it and aren't supposed to? BTW, how and when did you experience this problem? You don't seem to have been blocked on this account before? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I use a VPN a lot, and it's blocked. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, so it was an autoblock you got? I'm afraid that might not be possible to fix then, since I don't think the API has a function to query in advance whether your account is currently on an IP that would be subject to autoblocking. Those autoblocks only occur once you actually attempt to make an edit, so the script probably can't foresee it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yikes, haha. Could you program in some sort of function to check the IP too? Maybe by telling the system that you're trying to edit as soon as you click on the file upload wizard? Or would that increase the load on the system by too much? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, so it was an autoblock you got? I'm afraid that might not be possible to fix then, since I don't think the API has a function to query in advance whether your account is currently on an IP that would be subject to autoblocking. Those autoblocks only occur once you actually attempt to make an edit, so the script probably can't foresee it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I use a VPN a lot, and it's blocked. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Uploading Wikipedia images?[edit]
What sort of actions do I need to do if I were to upload an image of features of Wikipedia? Well, I know I can say it is in the Free Work category, but I don't know what sort of evidence to put in to images of Wikipedia. Where is the link about Wikipedia screenshots being freely licensed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have found a comment by some user about one of my previous questions: "If you mean an image with a license legally limiting its use to Wikipedia only, the answer is there's no way to do that, because all licenses on Wikipedia need to allow re-use elsewhere. If you simply mean an image that's intended for Wikipedia-internal use only, you can use this wizard just as any other upload method, choose the options for "free work" and the appropriate license and upload it locally". However, I am still not sure about what sort of evidence to put in. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, from now, Wikipedia-content-only images use {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Fix misleading link text.[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page says
Files for upload wizard
(recommended for new users)
but doesn't actually link to a Files for upload wizard. It links to a page that links back to this page (that is, WP:File_Upload_Wizard).
Please fix it so it accurately describes what it links to. Specifically, change the wording from
Files for upload wizard
back to
Files For Upload process
TIA.
- (If it were to link like this: Files for Upload Wizard then it would be accurate too.)
- (If it were to link like this: Files for Upload Wizard then it would be accurate too, once in place.)
--Elvey(t•c) 20:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Elvey:, I a little confused on exactly what you want it to be changed to, would you please you make the edit at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard/sandbox then reactivate the edit request tag above? — xaosflux Talk 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it is a confusing link! — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&diff=622580540&oldid=613371561 This is the edit that made the link confusing. It (in addition to making the page less maintainable) changed the wording
to
Files for upload wizard
from
Files For Upload process
.
I think my (revised) request is now very clear: Change the link text back. Sandbox edited. --Elvey(t•c) 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
ce:Википеди:File Upload Wizard[edit]
Did the master downloads as your Wikimedia Foundation. But it does not work. Please tell me what I did wrong? --Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. It seems like your version of the script at ce:MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js may have been copied off an older version of our script here, from before these [1] bugfix edits this summer. These were necessary to remove some function calls that are no longer supported by our standard jQuery library. Your version on ce-wp seems to choke on the first lines of code that call the "$.isDomElement()" function. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)