MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

change suggestion (January 2016)

I suggest changing the message in this associated page to the following:

Before uploading a file to OpenStreetMap wiki, please consider if it would be more useful to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons file repository instead. You can use (embed, link) Wikimedia Commons files in exactly the same way as if they were uploaded here locally ([[File:Example.jpg|thumb|some example text]] – unless a file with the same name exists locally on this wiki), and as an added bonus the file is available to be used by other projects (not least Wikipedia) which are using Wikimedia Commmons.
Information Media files that generally should be uploaded to OpenStreetMap wiki:
  • Screenshots of the OpenStreetMap main page or wiki pages. Of course, these images can be generally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but that project does not want 500 OpenStreetMap screenshots, just a few.
  • Screenshots of editors like iD (ISC License), JOSM (GNU GPL v2), Potlatch 2 (WTFPL) or Merkaartor (GPL).
  • Media files showing Bing aerial imagery, copyrighted software or web services that use OpenStreetMap data. Should only be uploaded for use in help or information pages. Remember this media files are protected by copyright and are the few ones allowed here in that situation just to help other users/contributors, nothing more. All users should keep at minimum this type of media.
  • Media files that are not covered by the project scope of Wikimedia Commons, but are useful in OpenStreetMap wiki pages: for example media of State of the Map conferences, Humanitarian OSM Team projects, mapping parties.
  • Duplicate content in a file format which is better suited for the content (e.g. SVG instead of JPG for drawings or charts). If there is an existing file in a raster format, upload the SVG file under a new name ("Example.svg"). Afterwards you may want to propose for deletion the other one like "Example.jpg", but ensure that the file is not in use anymore: check "What links here" in the "Tools" left side panel of the media file page and replace the file uses with the new ones, and also keep in mind that a file may have been uploaded here and been linked externally (e.g. from or in OSM user diary entries) which does not show up in the link list.
Information Media files that generally should not be uploaded to OpenStreetMap wiki:
  • The same media file (a duplicate) is present in Wikimedia Commons (the file in the OSM wiki will be deleted because it can be used by automatically fetching it from Commons).
  • Media files that are covered by the scope of project scope of Wikimedia Commons (summary) should rather be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons.
  • Media files which are not available under a free license or not in Public Domain (exceptions for Bing aerial imagery, copyrighted software or web interfaces that use OpenStreetMap data – see above).
  • Updated media files similar to a existing one but under another name, unless there is a good reason to have both versions available. To update a media file under an existing file name just go to the page of that file and click in "Upload a new version of this file".
  • Media files not related to OpenStreetMap.
Information Use the form below to upload files. To view or search previously uploaded files go to the list of uploaded files, (re)uploads are listed in the upload list, deletions in the deletion log.

Use the description box to give details of image copyright status. Provide map URLs for any locations relevant to the image.

To include a file in a page, use a link in one of the following forms:

  • [[File:Example.jpg]] to use the full version of the file
  • [[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt text]] to use a thumbnail in a box in the left margin with 'alt text' as description
  • [[:File:Example.jpg]] or [[Media:Example.ogg]]for directly linking to the file without displaying the file

This should be verified by some English native speaker and improved by other users because I don't know if this covers every situation in OpenStreetMap wiki uploads and if the message is correct. I know the message is a bit too long but I tried to keep it at minimum and at the same time informing users the best I could.

We could also add to the allowed uploads "Media files used in thousands of pages here that are not protected in Wikimedia Commons, but should be protected here". But this message is not necessary since admins don't need to be informed about this.

Although Wikimedia Commons can accept, generally, media from State of the Map conferences, Humanitarian OSM Team projects and Mapping parties probably they won't accept all media about these projects. At least this is my understanding. That's why I included it in allowed uploads.

I didn't include nothing about not accepting media without a license (should be?). We have at this moment the option in upload page in license field "I don't know exactly". May be we could improve first some license templates and may be adding a few ones permitted here.

If this message or after changes by other users is suitable and implemented in MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en, it can be translated to other language pages. I can help in the portuguese page MediaWiki:Uploadtext/pt. Zermes (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Reneman (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You should mention that you've changed some bits in the text above ;-) The links are fine (very similar to mine), I just would not add the link to Special:WhatLinksHere because the linked page is not really of much use. Having only textual description where to find the right link (on the file page!) seems to be better for me. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a good idea. A suggestion from me, based on yours: diff (not permanently changed in your suggestion above). I have used internal wiki links where possible, removed the vandalism exclusion (that's obvious and our non-vandal users do not need to be told this), some minor wording. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Linked new suggestion. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've copy edited the new text, for flow and readability, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all suggestions. In "What Links Here" we could link to (although I don't like redirecting users to other sites if it can be avoided, could be confusing to them) or create a page here in OSM wiki with that content (some content CC BY-SA and more recent in CC0), but this would be duplicating content, and seems not really necessary. I think telling What links here on the left side panel in Tools seems acceptable. The code [[Special:WhatLinksHere|What links here]] could be confusing to some users showing this page Special:WhatLinksHere/Special:Upload like Aseerel4c26 said, so I changed. Aseerel4c26, I'm lost in history of this page. Don't know if everything you did is now present in the actual revision of this page (I added some of your changes you did it that "lost" revision). These are non-controversial edits, changing a bit here and there but every edit in this page kept the essential message. Thanks to everyone for the feedback and changes. Zermes (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick answer, no my changes were not permanent, as I did not want to change your suggestion ans your signed comment here. For more clarity and as requested, I have overwritten your suggestion now (incorporating the "tools" thing and the abbreviated "GPL"). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: the current suggestion here has been applied by Reneman. I will do a translation suggestion to German in the next few days. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Danke, aber ich arbeite bereits an der Übersetzung :) --Reneman (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Auch gut! :-) Dann ... lese ich nur Korrektur. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, umm, no, pigsonthewing, Yes, there is a point mentioning the problem: you should just not propose deletion if there is a chance of an external link or embedding ...!
Umm, no, number 2, Wikimedia Commons is not only for Wikipedia articles. Read its scope. Wikimedia Commons is not just the image source for Wikipedia. Have a nice, mappy weekend @all! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is always "a chance" of an external link. And where do you imagine that I claimed that Wikimedia Commons "is only for Wikipedia articles"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is the chance, and users should be aware of this when thinking about deletion.
You've changed the text to: "that project only needs OpenStreetMap screenshots that illustrate article topics". Okay, right, you did not say "Wikipedia" - but "article", which is not true too. What about this?: but many roughly similar OpenStreetMap screenshots are not useful for Commons. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

change suggestion 2 (January 2016) - Icons

It seems icons are in the scope of Wikimedia Commoms, I didn't found nothing in the documentation about them but I found this Category:Map_icons so they are accepted and organized. I know we should not put specific cases in the template or can be a mess, but since is not "obvious" that icons are for "educational purposes" we could include this because here we have many many icons here:

Just add including icons in [[:wikipedia:commons:Category:Map_icons|Category:Map_icons]] It's just a few words more. There are other categories like Category:Icons by theme and Category:SVG icons but we should keep it simple. Zermes (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay for me. What about this? "Media files that are covered by the scope of project scope of Wikimedia Commons (summary), including map icons, should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons." --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

change suggestion 3 (February 2016) - promote link templates

Let's change

"Provide map URLs for any locations relevant to the image."

into something like this:

"Provide map URLs for any locations relevant to the image (e.g. {{CoordLink|location of image's map|51.5149|-0.0933|15}}location of image's map)."

Advantage: we can easily change all the location links the next time the OSM website changes its URLs. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

we need translations

once the English version has settled a bit we need more translations! Currently we have those. At least for the top 5 languages in the OSM (wiki) world we should try to have translations.

Side question: Does anybody know a method to at least display a link (along with the MediaWiki default message) to the English version if a translation is not available? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suggest to transclude the page like {{:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/de}} at MediaWiki:Uploadtext/de-at, because redirections do not work as you can see: Otherwise, an administrator could delete MediaWiki:Uploadtext/es for instance, then it should fall back to English. We once had a similar discussion at Talk:Wiki.
@Aseerel4c26: Which are those five languages (or reasonable ones in general)? If I knew them I could try to contact translators in the wiki. I think that Dutch, Polish, Russian, Spanish could be useful. I also have the impression that there are some Indian users uploading images that could go well to Commons, but I do not know their interface language... --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 15:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dcapillae: @Władysław Komorek: Are you interested in creating a Spanish/Polish translation? --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 22:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Thank you, @Tigerfell:. I could create the translation in Spanish. However, there is already a MediaWiki:Uploadtext/es page and I don't have permissions to edit it.--Dcapillae (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This page was created automatically for all languages, but I can overwrite it. I copied the relevant parts from the English version to Mediawiki talk:Uploadtext/es. You can edit it there and then I can copy it over. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 07:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, @Tigerfell:. I have added a Spanish translation. --Dcapillae (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tigerfell: I don't have permission to edit it, but I left the Polish translation in "". --Władysław Komorek (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that you copy MediaWiki:Uploadtext to MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/pl and translate it there. I can copy the content to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/pl afterwards. We currently use the Translatewiki version for all interface languages except for Austrian German, British English, Canadian English, English, German, Spanish, and Swiss German, but since we altered all of those translations, they do not match Translatewiki anymore. That is why we need those "local" translations. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)



Please correct "Media files not either available under a open license" to "... an open license". maro21 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition of two basic statements

Hi! While struggling with the categorization of image files I wonder, what we could do to prevent further copyright issues. Regarding a file upload two basic statements that are very important in my opinion are:

I. Please do not upload any file without clarifying and indicating the appropriate license!
II. With uploading you do accept the file and content you are uploading to be published under the same license as of the wiki, that is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0) - as far as you do not specify another license or parts of the content of your upload don't allow to be licensed with CC BY-SA 2.0.

These would be great to have clear and bold on the file upload page! Can you agree with these statements and if so could you please transport them to the special upload page? --Chris2map (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Would include also (or maybe instead) a source request which is even more useful (if source is known then more experienced person can retrieve license info or be sure that it is a copyright violation) - while something carrying just "Public domain file" without further info is not really useful
"I. Please do not upload any file without clarifying and indicating the source!
Include either
  • link to place where you found the file
  • state something "I took this photo"
  • If you used map data, other images - please mention it ("map made from OSM data", "composite of images XYZ and ABC")"
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be some text saying that each file should have the license specified. This text should be short and visible when uploading a new file. The text should say that if the uploader is the author, then they should make the file available under a free license, and if they copy from another source, then the source should be given and the file must be under a free license. If these conditions are not met, the file will be deleted within a month. That's how we can prevent new files without a license.

I would delete the second point. Giving the license automatically is not good, because someone could copy the copyrighted file. The license should be explicitly stated.

I wrote the above in my own words, but the text that appears when uploading could be, for example:

  1. If you are the author of this file, you must make it available under a free license.
  2. If you are not the author of the file, the file must be under a free license and you must provide the source.
  3. If the above points are not met, the file will [may?] be deleted within a month.

Short and simple. What do you think of it?

There are many new (on the Wiki) users who upload files so instead of wasting time and reminding every one of them on their talk page about missing license, we can have such message on the upload page to save our time. maro21 19:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And I think we should remove the text from the first line of the license selection from "I don't know exactly" or move it to the very end, because people will choose it as the easiest option that does not require thinking of the license "I don't know, it's not important, it's just a photo from somewhere". maro21 19:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"I don't know exactly" should remain default - we want confused people to select this one because this way we get list of especially suspect files. If default would be {{CC0-self}} then distinguishing valid and confused selections of that entry would be hard to distinguish Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I see your points. Let's try a conclusion:
I . Please do not upload any file without clarifying and indicating the source!
II . a) If you are the author of this file, you must make it available under a free license.
b) If you are not the author of the file, the file must be under a free license and you must provide the source.
c) In any other case you have to clarify the legal use and compatibility with OpenStreetMap Wiki. A file without source and license will be deleted later.
(The linked pages would still have to be created.) What do you think? Please check my wording. --Chris2map (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Technically, seems to trend toward allowing at least some unfree images. But maybe it is not necessary to mention it in summary, just link to full version somewhere? But it would be nice to clarify upload text before we handle fair use and have some clear policy on that. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest we continue the discussion in the linked thread on Talk:Wiki given the general impact with regards to file uploads. --Tigerfell This user is member of the wiki team of OSM (Let's talk) 13:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

More changes proposed

See Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)