MediaWiki talk:Upload

Don't upload file
Swept from the pub:

The sidebar link "Don't upload file" takes you directly to WTShared, which is the right place to upload files. Should this not be changed to "Upload file", or are we discouraging people from uploading until after the migration to WMF? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:12, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Peter that's correct. I guess, that some bureaucrat have to change it. Jc8136 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
 * I would change it, but it's admin-locked. Please go ahead: MediaWiki:Upload. JamesA  >talk 15:52, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Didn't know that it is now only admin level, so i changed it. Hope it works! Jc8136 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
 * It seems to work. I figured out how you changed it, but not how one would add a link to the sidebar. Do you know? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:28, 27 September 2012 (CEST)
 * You can add a link at Mediawiki:Sidebar. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 04:22, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

We should probably be encouraging contributors to upload to Commons, since we're going to have a significant merging process. At the same time, though, it's still unclear in what form we will be hosting local files. I'd like keep a shared repository for the travel project for non-free content that wouldn't be permissible on Commons, so we don't have to duplicate effort hosting images across language versions. We'll see, I guess. --Peter Talk 04:48, 28 September 2012 (CEST)


 * I personally think that a local repository along with Commons will just be disorganised and confusing. Of course, I haven't contributed to shared: much so don't have a huge amount of knowledge of how things work there. I feel that if individual languages feel they need a non-free image, they can upload it as the need arises. I can't imagine many cases where many language versions will need the same non-free image. Could you give some examples of some non-free content that would need to be hosted please? We don't have that many logos, etc, do we? JamesA  >talk 04:59, 28 September 2012 (CEST)


 * For our purposes? Lots. Basically all attractions in the realm of art and architecture... Take a look at the draft Non-free content policy . Also, we do currently have a local repository along with Commons—how confusing and disorganized that is, is up for you to judge ;) --Peter Talk 05:51, 28 September 2012 (CEST)


 * I wasn't even aware there are laws against photographing some public architecture and buildings! Show's how knowledgeable I am with the topic! This is something that we may want to chat with the WM Commons people about, then. How does Wikipedia tackle this issue? Do they just not use any non-free artwork photos? JamesA  >talk 06:16, 28 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Oh, no, WP has non-free content policies that allow the use photos of artwork (among other things). They don't have one coordinated policy across their (long list of) language versions, but I think that's ideally what we would have. Commons has a goal that is too restrictive for our purposes—all files in the repository must be fully usable by anyone following the CC-by-SA 3.0 requirements without any other considerations.  For us (as with Wikipedia), we need to be able to use some other images that are a bit more complicated for re-use.  --Peter Talk 06:54, 28 September 2012 (CEST)