Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The 50 files limitation

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T349368

New users have a 50 files limitation. When they try to upload more than 50 files the upload wizzard simply crashes and no files get uploaded. It is convenient that this happens after the user has completed all the work in naming the file, giving the description and searched for categories and put in a lot of work and effort, which is then gone in a second without a warning or explanation. The program should either block the upload of more than 50 files or inform the user about this limitations. This bug has created a lot of frustrations to new user and they have no clue what went wrong. This is an effective procedure to keep new users frustrated and deter them forever from contributing to Commons ever again. Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Giftzwerg 88: , thanks for raising this issue. I’ve opened a Phab ticket about it, and the team will take a look at it in one of the next meetings. I’ll keep you posted on this, but you can subscribe to the ticket and be aware of what’s going on there. Also, feel free to edit the ticket if I made some mistakes. Thanks! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong orientation bug

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T349369

The preview shows uploaded pictures without regards of the orientation. This affects pictures in portrait mode. The preview shows them tilted sideways in 90° angle. New Users that do not know about this bug often delete it and try it a second time or even multiple times before they give up. But they simply keep showing up in the wrong direction each time. They think they have done something wrong, or something is wrong with the camera or the picture. Others report on the user forum and ask about pictures that got uploaded in the wrong orientation. We even had cases where the picture was rotated by another user and then were upside down, all the while the uploaded picture does not even need rotation, it is just that the user got tricked into believing that the picture was uploaded in the wrong orientation. This annoying bug is a good way to introduce new users into a world with half-baked software designed to make beginners life harder and create confusion and make them doubt their choices in life. To contribute to commons for example. Soooo, please admit to the bug and tell the user ahead that in preview some pictures might appear in wrong orientation, ooooor fix it, that the user can see the true orientation of the picture. But long time users are no longer in panic, but annoyed by this bug too. Imagine you made a series of portraits and want to choose the best of the files. It is very hard to determine that you have picked the perfect file when you see it in the wrong orientation in preview. Our brains are not used to see and process portraits rotated at a 90° angle, and you no longer can see if the face shows the desired expression or emotion or the small differences between different versions. So please FIX it. Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I fall into this trap myself. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Giftzwerg 88: , thanks for raising this issue too. I’ve opened another Phab ticket about it, and the team will take a look at it in one of the next meetings. I’ll keep you posted on this, but also in this case you can subscribe to the ticket and be aware of what’s going on there. Also, feel free to edit the ticket if I made some mistakes. Thanks again! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Giftzwerg 88: , finally this bug has been resolved. A patch has been sent, and at the latest next week it should be included into code. Thanks for your patience! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Sannita (WMF). -- Ooligan (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two extra clicks again

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T353654

I use predefined answers to the Upload Wizard questions (choice of license and whether I upload my own work); however, with the two new questions it is not possible to predefine the answers. This gives two extra clicks per upload, THIS IS A LOT. I mentioned this issue last time, nobody (including the WMF team) seemed to care. May be now people would care. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise for them to create something like "Special:UploadWizard (Beta)" separate from "Special:UploadWizard", so they could actually get community feedback before implementing these "improvements" (as is how it was reported on in Tech News 🙄). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed in detail above on this page, and my comments are also there. Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter Do you mind helping me translating your request into a Phabricator ticket? I guess we can work at making the two extra clicks pre-defined in the users' preferences, or at least I can ask the team if this would be feasible. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. User preferences would indeed solve the problem. Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For experienced users who happen to know how to tweak user preferences. There are some people who have edited here for years and don't know things that seem "basic" to others, like a WikiGraphist that has been here 17 (seventeen) years, but didn't know how they could change their signature in user preferences. While many "power users" could circumvent the 2 (two) extra clicks, this would still be a hassle for the vast majority of users who don't know about this. It might be best to link to user preferences somewhere directly inside of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard then. Especially since the vast majority of people who would become regular volunteer uploaders here might not like to constantly confirm that the image of an archeological museum exhibition isn't a selfie 🤳🏻. Ease of use should be accessible to everyone, not just the more experienced users who happen to know where and how to tweak things. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I created a Phabricator ticket for your request, and (I hope) I tagged you as a subscriber. Please, feel free to edit, add context, or correct it. As I already said in other threads, now there is the end-of-the-year freeze on new deployments, so this ticket will likely be analysed in January. I'll keep you posted about it, but feel free to ping me personally if you don't receive news from me. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot. Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another similar issue for which I don't think creating a new section would be due:
  • Copy information… default selection: Would it be possible to somehow store the recently used checked boxes under Copy information to all uploads following … or to specify a default?
    • I sometimes upload images from multiple CCBY scientific studies in a row and then always need to change the default selection to Copy caption, date, categories and nothing else. Until there is some kind of Study2Commons tool where you just enter a URL to e.g. a paper on nature.com and it prefills all the title and description etc fields that you then only edit as needed.
Also I'd like to briefly express support for Ease of use should be accessible to everyone, not just the more experienced users who happen to know where and how to tweak things – this often gets overlooked where things are considered 'solved' if somewhere there is an unknown barely used external script/nondefault gadget for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF) Also would it be possible to have a config in the preferences so that by default "Same as caption" is unchecked? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective I asked about it, it seems to be a bit more complicated than expected to have such a preference. I'll keep you posted about it, but it will have to wait. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I suspect the issue is mainly with providing preferences like that in general (which seems needed anyway), not about this particular preference which is just a boolean on the checkbox. Replying because I noticed one further issue: when copying "Caption" to other uploads, it checks the "Same as caption" checkbox even when one previously unchecked it and entered text into the description. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, it rechecks the "Same as caption" checkbox even when not checking "Copy caption". Things like this should not happen as one should test and consider such basic issues before rolling this out and because it requires explicit rechecking in the code which one should have never added. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective Thanks for this thorough analysis. I'll report it to the devs, and try to see if someone can look into it soon. It's just that this bug catching is becoming a problem for other scheduled work, so it might take a while, just so you know. I apologise sincerely for the time you'll have to wait. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V2C should integrated into MW

[edit]

Hi, FYI, I created a feature request: phab:T353659. Yann (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage next to progress bar while uploading (e.g. 14.2 %)

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T355340

Hi!

I thought about this longer, but I think it is useful to have a number in percent to see how far the upload progress is, similar to the percentage display when uploading a video on YouTube.

In addition, it would be nice to see how much megabytes were uploaded already and how large the total amount of size is that will be uploaded (e.g. 142 MB of 240 MB uploaded). This is particularly useful for estimating whether an upload will be fast enough for large amounts of data (fluctuations in the upload speed can make it difficult to predict the remaining upload time). Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support assuming it does not take much resources. Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @PantheraLeo1359531, thanks for the idea. Would you be so kind to open a Phabricator ticket for this? I don't think we can work on it in the next future, but at least it would get on our dev's radar. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will add it :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Task added --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358354

Maybe it would be a good idea to allow people to (optionally) add license tags if they fill in this field. Currently, there is no difference between clicking on this and saying that a work is entirely your own, but why a photographed work is in the public domain varies from subject to subject. So there could be an OPTIONAL field where people can add license tags to explain why the work is (partially) free. These license tags can then appear at the bottom with a special field below the uploader's own license. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Donald Trung, thanks for the suggestion. Can you please open a Phabricator ticket about it, so that I can put it on the devs radar? Thanks! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptable release rights steps

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T357755

There is still no response to my feature request for making the release rights step adaptable through upload campaigns. We really need this for the Wiki Loves Contests where most of the questions asked in this step are irrelevant but might confuse the uploader prevent them from uploading anything. GPSLeo (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo Apologies for letting you down. I'll raise this point in tomorrow's meeting, and let you know as soon as possible. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading files from Flickr with PDM

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T363493

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannita (WMF) (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of files end up in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review because files from Flickr that are uploaded with the wrong license.

I thought the users made mistakes during upload but I tested with File:Protecting U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield.jpg and the license on Flickr https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ is translated by the Upload Wizard to {{Cc-zero}} + {{Flickrreview}}. I had no chance to chose the license.

I can see there were an old discussion on Commons_talk:WMF_support_for_Commons/Upload_Wizard_Improvements/Archive#What_happened_to_the_choice_for_Flickr_licenses_in_the_Upload_wizard? but I'm not sure if the problem was 100% the same.

If uploader think that Flickr user is the photographer it should be possible to chose {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}. It would also be great if the uploader could chose another PD license tag. For example {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-USGov}}.

@Ooligan, Leoboudv, Adeletron 3030, and Sannita (WMF): as info. --MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 would you please file a Phabricator ticket for this? If you need help with it, I can help you with that. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF) Reported as T363493. Hope I did it okay. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 It looks good, thanks! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73, @Sannita (WMF), Here: User talk:Ooligan#Public Domain images (PDM) photos from flickr is my recent reply to MGA73, which I wrote before reading this discussion here. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: Right, the wizard should offer {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} by default for PDM-marked Flickr uploads per COM:PDM.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a bug. While we might come up with another way to do this, the Public-Doman mark on its own does not tell us the rationale for being public-domain, which Wikimedia Commons requires. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jmabel, if a "bug" to which you referred is a software bug, then this appears to be one.
From the Wikipedia entry, "A software bug is an error, flaw or fault in the design, development, or operation of computer software that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways."
The Upload Wizard tool is certainly producing "errors" (changing to a different Creative Commons license than the license used at the file's source webpage) and its actions "produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways."
Did you notice this phabricator ticket submitted by User:MGA73 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T363493[1]? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: I'm sorry: yes, CC-0 is a mistake; marking them as needing review is not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, @User:Sannita, @MGA73, Yes, hopefully after the correct license is applied to "PDM" files being uploaded, that will eliminate the Flickr public domain images needing human review step.
Better would be a choice menu to add the more specific PD-USGov tags here: Category:PD US Government with the added ability to add that same specifically chosen tag to multiple files with one click before uploading with Upload Wizard. It is a good tool that will become even better. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Humans should chose the license and that is why the uploader should add it. If user on Flickr uses {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} it does not specify why it is cc. We just assume that the Flickr user is the photographer. Its the same here. We assume that the Flickr user is the photographer and chose {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} unless we have reason to think its not own photo. For example if it is a photo or a painting from 1905 for example the license should be PD tag to tell copyright expired. I see no reason why the uploader should not have the option to chose the correct license during upload. If needed we could have the option that if uploader does not specify a license then the Upload Wizard picks cc-zero. --MGA73 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Flickr user put a PDM mark on their own photo, that probably signals the intent to put their file in the public domain, but it also suggests someone who does not understand copyright well. That is certainly not the intent of the PDM mark on Flickr: if that is your intent, you should use CC-0.
We absolutely should not put CC-0 on a photo where the rights-holder did not specifically grant it. {{PD-user}} would be much more on the mark, except that it is only for our own users. We probably should have an analogous {{PD-Commons-user}}. The problem with CC-0 is that it has a specific waiver and public license fallback that are in no way implied by PDM. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think whoever made the upload wizard this way thought that CC-0 is a temporary template to use while someone (uploader) picks the right license. It would perhaps be better to create a "PDM-needs-check" to add on files where uploader does not pick another license (as a better temporary template than CC-0). If uploader pick a specific license I think the Flickrreview bot can pass them. If I upload a photo from the internet and claim PD-USGov for example there will in most cases be no review by someone else. So it's not a big problem if Flickrbot confirm that the file was uploaded as PDM. If anyone thinks the license is wrong they can add the correct license or nominate the file for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancing Wikimedia Commons' Upload Wizard for Large File Handling and details

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358982
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T355613

I am puzzled by the enhancements to the Upload Wizard given that uploading a new version of a file over 100Mb remains impossible. Additionally, the requirement to wait until after the upload to enter file details like title and description—potentially taking hours—feels unnecessarily cumbersome. In contrast, the Internet Archive allows for the seamless upload of large file volumes without such constraints. It's concerning that our upload wizard still does not support large files.

Here's how to replicate the issue:

  1. Attempt to upload a new version of a file by clicking "Upload a new version of this file."
  2. The process is blocked if the file exceeds the 100 MB limit, even though the original file may be larger.

What occurs is that the upload limit of 100 MB is inadequate for uploading a new version of a file originally larger than 100 MB. Ideally, the file should upload without such restrictions.

We are using Wikimedia Commons, and this has been an ongoing issue for years. It is frustrating. I suggest we implement a feature that allows entering all necessary details for files—such as file name, description, and category—during the upload process. This change would enable us to leave files uploading overnight without having to return to input details post-upload, streamlining the entire process. Related tickets: [2][3] Wilfredor (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: thanks for your message. As I said, I'll try to get both tickets on the devs' table as soon as possible, but I also asked you for clarifications on the second ticket. You can answer in Phabricator, so that I can update the ticket. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you upload an image to a platform, you typically follow a procedure where you first upload the image and then, only after it has been uploaded, you can add descriptions, tags, or other metadata. This can be inefficient if you have multiple images to manage, as you have to wait for each image (and all images) to upload before entering its information.
A better approach could be to allow users to input all relevant data for each image (like title, description, tags) at the same time they select the image for upload. This data would then be processed together with the image upload, streamlining the workflow and saving time, especially when handling multiple files. This method would eliminate the need to wait for each image to upload before entering information, making the entire process more efficient. Wilfredor (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: sounds like you'd rather use Special:Upload. Is there anything particular that you are getting positively out of using the Upload Wizard? - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to upload a new version of the same file you need use the Special:Upload Wilfredor (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 MiB upload overwrite limit can be bypassed with User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor @Sannita (WMF) To clear this up: revision upload is not handled by the wizard. Files larger than 100MB can only be uploaded with chunked upload. There are some tools that handle chunked upload. If you do not want to use such a tool, you will need to click on the link to the right of "upload a new version" (which is limited to 100MB, as it is not chunked), that is called "chunked upload" and starts the bigchunkeduipload tool by Rillke and mentioned by @PantheraLeo1359531. Also, if you use this tool for uploads you need to enter all the information BEFORE you select the file to upload but this does actually not matter, as for revision uploads this information is disregarded anyway and only the upload comment is actually used. On the bright side: Rillke's tool is very stable (only Offroader is more resilient). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, correct :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't work, I've tried it hundreds of times in thousands of possible ways over the years. It is a well documented bug. A good example is this image that I had to upload several times [4][5][6][7][8] Wilfredor (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crashes

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T375778

I use FF the newest version and Windows 10. I repeatedly experienced crashes of the upload wizard. Fire Fox freezes and after several minutes it resets to square one. I happens unsually at the end of the upload process, just before you enter the metadata. Sometimes after you submit the metadata. You need to go back to square one. It is not all the time, but often enough to be really bothered. It seems to be more frequently in the last couple of days, maybe one out of 4 upload attempts and more often with a longer file list (50+). Is it just me? Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Giftzwerg 88, can you please file a bug on Phabricator and please put me in the list of subscribers? Or to link it here? I'll try to put it on the devs' desk as soon as possible. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never filed a bug on Phabricator, sorry. It is just not what I do.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I'll file one for you and then link it back here. I'll keep you posted about it. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Default text in description field

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T376476

@Sannita (WMF), I'm still not fully on board with the direction you've gone with the caption/description fields in the new upload wizard, but since it's the direction you're going, one suggestion:

When I fill out the caption field and then uncheck the "same as caption" box, the description field appears and is initially blank. Since the description will generally be an expanded version of the caption, the first thing I do is almost always to copy and paste what I had put in the caption field into the description field. It would be more convenient if, when I uncheck the "same as caption" box, the starting text in the description field was what I had put into the caption field. This behavior would also help make it clearer to users that, if they leave the "same as caption" box checked, the two fields will indeed be the same.

Cheers, Sdkb talk 20:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdkb, thanks for the suggestion. Would it be a problem if you file a "requested feature" ticket on Phabricator about it, and then link it back to me? If you have problems, I can do that for you. As soon as we're ready, I'll relay it to the team (even though, being a new feature request, it's probably going to take some time to be evaluated). Let me know! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Sdkb talk 14:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb Thanks, I already flagged it to the team. Hopefully I will let you know soon. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated population of metadata for derivative images

[edit]

When uploading a new image, if the user selects "This is someone else's work and is free to share.", it would be great if one of the resulting options was "this is a derivative image of an existing Commons image", with a field to enter the relevant file name. The Wizard should then populate the upload form with data from the source image, then allow the user to modify it before submitting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be useful and imo even better would be a button to "creative derivative". Either or both should also set the {{Extracted to}} or e.g. {{Other version}} template at the source file which is currently missing in a roughly estimated half of files that have derivatives or other versions. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this would be awesome (see also COM:VP#Best way to upload a derived image?). Not only would a tool like this save me time, but it would save other people time. I generally do just enough to make the upload wizard happy (perhaps not ideal, but that's life) and I often see somebody else come along and fix up my descriptions, add the right templates, etc. It's great that they do that, but if that could all be automated, so much the better. RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the right pairings of templates are {{Image extracted}}/{{Extracted from}}, {{Derivative versions}}/{{Derived from}}, and {{Derivative versions}}/{{Retouched}}. There might be some other pairing I am not thinking of. There is also {{Extracted from deleted}}. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other versions

[edit]

Would be good to add better support for specifying other versions, e.g. if the user uploads multiple versions of a file and would like to link to each other. Currently, the |other_versions can't even be filled at all with the UW – ideally this wouldn't only be enabled but one could also do something like do a multiselect for a file to select other versions from the files one has uploaded at the same time (maybe also already existing files). It should make use of <gallery>. Example. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CropTool currently provides decent support for this, but there is a fundamental problem in that, currently, every crop is treated like a fork and thereby increases the maintenance burden. Fixing this is something I'd classify as high-effort but high reward. Sdkb talk 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not allow users to specify other versions in the UploadWizard, does it? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the Upload Wizard, no, as CropTool doesn't run through the Upload Wizard. I haven't ever needed to specify another version when I'm using the Upload Wizard — what sort of workflow do you have (or, more significantly, might a new user have) that creates that need? Sdkb talk 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. if the user uploads multiple versions of a file and would like to link to each other and Example (other example). Not "new" user, any user. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'd say that the best solution would be by creating more "add-on's" for users using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard rather than include these options by default. There are already an incredible number of clicks and options added the make the MWUW difficult to understand for new users, as an experiment, I showed a friend the MediaWiki Upload Wizard a few days ago and asked him what he thought a step meant, this is someone who has never made any edit on any Wikimedia website in his life and it was just a topic of conversation, most options that look "common sense" to us only made "Commons sense" to him, in other words, they were confusing because he didn't really understand the Wikimedia Commons, and this guy is a math PhD. So, what would a new user think "Other versions" might mean? Well, they could mistake it for meaning a related file (something MediaWiki categories Wikidata depicts function for). It's no different than new users not knowing how to properly overwrite files.
Now, if the MediaWiki Upload Wizard was customisable to the point where users who commonly upload alternative versions could add this option it would be preferable, as having to include this might confuse people and the amount of text needed to explain them would annoy experienced users. I genuinely believe that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) should work on adding more optional tools for power users, there should be no user right or minimum uploads associated with enabling these options, simply the knowledge that they exist and where to find them, preferably in user settings but advertised somewhere in the MediaWiki Upload Wizard itself. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a preference. Better than that would be showing it as a field in the Additional information field that is collapsed by default which new users would not uncollapse or even notice. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed on our new proposed changes to UploadWizard

[edit]

Hi everyone! As part of improving the way users can add metadata to uploaded media in UploadWizard, we are suggesting a way to improve the way users can select the appropriate category. You can look at the proposed mockups at the landing page.

In case a category has one or more subcategories, users will be able to click on an arrow that will open the subcategories in the form, and will let them choose the correct one. The parent category name will be always shown on top, and it will be possible at all times to come back to it.

We think exposing more clearly the category structure can also help users understand the difference between “depicts” and “category” fields in UploadWizard. We also expect it would be easier for people to add the correct category, and so we expect a decrease in the amount of work for volunteers in fixing/creating new categories.

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to reply here.

Thank you in advance for your consideration! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:WMF_support_for_Commons/Upload_Wizard_Improvements&oldid=987250094"