• Technical problems and programming orders: enter a bug for extension UploadWizard (known bugs)
• Strategic community discussion: below. See also: "upload wizard" threads at Commons:Village pump

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.

See also Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements

Merging in some aspects of Commons:Video2commons

We have a 2019/2020 RfC which supports allowing the uploading and automatic conversion of MP4 files to WebM.

We at Wiki Project Med in collaboration with User:Brooke Vibber are looking at updating the Upload Wizard to do this. We have this phab ticket.

If we build it should we initially limit its use to editors with a certain number of edits? Or specific flag? Other thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Doc James, I think the limitations should be discussed more within the community than WMF, I guess we can just apply what the community decides on this matter. Also, thanks for reporting me the ticket, I'll share it with the team so that they know this is happening. Thanks again! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree limiting the tool to certain editors is a community decision. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Great news! Thank you everyone, as the current v2c maintainer I totally support this move :) vip (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this feature should be restricted to some editors, like uploading MP3 is now. Yann (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

How does it work for MP3? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doc James: Autopatrolled only, as controlled by Special:AbuseFilter/192.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): I  Support such limitation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doc James is there a rough timeline of what is being done by when? i dont mean to push you, but if a feature is soon enabled in wizard, then volunteer effort in coding and maintaining that for v2c would not be necessary. RoyZuo (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It will likely be a couple of months. But not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

that's fast enough XD.

here're a couple of things that come to my mind:

1. as restrictive as mp3 upload (autopatrol) should be fine. if too restrictive it can always be easily relaxed afterwards.
2. maybe include https://github.com/toolforge/video2commons/issues/244 av1 codec support if possible.

RoyZuo (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"undefined" appears instead of valid CC-BY license.

Fyi, "undefined" appears instead of valid CC-BY license on multiple Flickr uploads today. Is this a known issue?

Here is one of many examples: -- Ooligan (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Special:Permalink/1045486191 has a more succinct demonstration of the problem. @Sannita (WMF)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. @Ooligan Please report that in a Phabricator ticket, I'll see if someone can take care of it. Being Flickr (again) at it, I'm not sure it falls within the Structured Content team focus. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G.- Can you submit a "phabricator ticket" as suggested by Sannita? I can do it, but I have never done that.

Hello @Sannita (WMF), your page has your title listed as: "Movement Communications Specialist (Product & Tech) Wikimedia Foundation." I mention this because you wrote,

• "Being Flickr (again) at it, I'm not sure it falls within the Structured Content team focus."

So, I researched this Structured Content Team from a link on your User page. That page states that:

"The Structured Content team, in the Wikimedia Product department at the Wikimedia Foundation, focuses on enabling growth and consumption of visual (and other non-textual) knowledge content on Wikipedia. We started our current line of work in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, as part of last year’s Annual Plan, and we will continue to provide support for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 as part of objective and key result WE2.3 (“Guide contributors to add images and references that comply with project guidelines and increase trust in content, for example, by flagging potential issues during their upload/addition”)." (Bold & Underline added)

• There was no "flagging" of "potential issues" when the UploadWizard tool did not add any license, but instead added the word "undefined." A lack of "flag" before uploading files certainly "... falls within the Structured Content team focus?"

When you wrote, "Being Flickr again ..." do you imply that Flickr.com was the cause of this issue? All Flickr file links I checked had Commons compatible licenses.

Or are uploads by UploadWizard from the source Flickr.com treated differently from other sources?

Please, note that this affected over 100+ newly uploaded files. See here: .

Additionally, I received 4 bot generated "file license" tags on my talk page, before I could fix all the "undefined" (no license) files. Here, here, here, here.

Thank you for the phabricator ticket suggestion. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan I see, I probably mis-interpreted the problem. I'll see what I can do, but first I need a Phabricator ticket with the problem identified, so that I can put it on the dev's radar. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): Please see Phab:T397527.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Thanks, I'll immediately forward it to the devs. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for fowarding the Phab ticket to the devs. However, @Sannita (WMF) you did not respond to my two questions about Flickr. They are:

1. "When you wrote, "Being Flickr again ..." do you imply that Flickr.com was the cause of this issue? All Flickr file links I checked had Commons compatible licenses."

2. "Or are uploads by UploadWizard from the source Flickr.com treated differently from other sources?" -- Ooligan (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: with Flickr having suddenly changed what licenses they are offering, and (presumably) changing their API correspondingly in an area that had been stable since before any of our built-in upload capabilities, it is no surprise that this would lead to a failure. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Re 2, they may be using Flickr's exclusive API.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel & @Jeff G.- Could you please provide me some links to more detail about what is probably happening here. I would like to learn more in depth about this potential or probable cause. Thanks to you both for responding. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a link, but as a Flickr user I can tell you that they've almost completely changed what licenses they are offering for new uploads (for example, from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to CC-BY-SA 4.0), and also changed some of the selection UI (really annoying: "All rights reserved" used to come first, and now it's last). I'm sure there was a corresponding change in the API. I don't know for sure if the API has changed for old files, but new files would give some value that previously would not have been a possibility, and that you couldn't reasonably expect existing software to account for. There was probably advance notice somewhere if people were paying attention, but it doesn't surprise me if they weren't. We've had bigger recent problems about their UI (like them cutting off access too the API from the toolserver for several days). - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not know about loss of access. I found this at Flickr.com, which states that there was only a problem on the 16th of this month here:

I appreciate the additional information @Jmabel. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeff G. for submitting a Phabricator ticket. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you indeed @Jeff G.: for filing the ticket and for linking this discussion from there − that’s how I found it :) Hopefully we soon get input from the dev team cc @Sannita (WMF) Jean-Fred (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: You're welcome. Until this is fixed, perhaps AntiCompositeNumber can configure AntiCompositeBot to add {{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{Flickrreview}} when encountering a file with "undefined" license that was uploaded from Flickr, rather than tagging the file with {{No license since}} and notifying the uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and @Jean-Frédéric, Yes, the suggestion by Jeff G. to the bot owner would be great. I just found out here User talk:Ooligan#Copyright status: File:Lone Fir Cemetery, Portland, Oregon on July 17, 2008 - 2.jpg that UploadWizard is also placing the word "undefined" instead of the correct CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I thought it was just PD licenses. I fixed other similar files by replacing the error with the CC license from the source, before the bot found them. @AntiCompositeNumber, Maybe that license could be added to the bot, if you decide it is possible. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's happening for non-free licenses as well. I don't really want to be appending fake licenses in that case. WMF must maintain their software. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply @AntiCompositeNumber.

• Perhaps, @Sannita (WMF) can provide an update on the status of any corrective action(s) by the "devs." Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: If there is a license on Flickr, can it get that license from Flickr and write enough information to either get the flickr review bot enough for continuation or tag as a copyvio?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. If I was going to put significant development effort into this issue, I would just fix the UploadWizard. That is the easiest and best thing to do. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@ all: there is a patch incoming, if everything goes right, it should be up with the next deployment train, i.e. next week. Sorry for keeping you wait. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Sannita (WMF), could you please have the "dev team" check the UploadWizard tool's current performance in uploading various licenses not allowed on Commons?

Photos with the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license on Flickr are now allowed to be uploaded by the UploadWizard tool. I believe that the UploadWizard tool previously prohibited uploads of Flickr photos that had licenses not allowed on Commons.

• Could there be other licenses not allowed on Commons that this tool may currently allow to be uploaded to Commons?

Normally, the UploadWizard tool's first step after Flickr photos are submitted for uploading to Commons is a license check before uploading, which displays the result by either:

1. a green-colored circle icon containing a check mark for Commons compatible licenses - (OK to upload).

Additionally, in order to advance to the second step, the tool displays at the bottom of the page, "All uploads were successful!" and has a "continue" button on the right.

or

2. a red-colored octagon (stop sign) containing a exclaimation point - (Not OK to upload).

Normally, if UploadWizard's first step has one or more red-colored octagons (stop signs) with exclaimation points, the tool will not allow the user to advance to the second step and not allow uploading. (Also note, in this situation the tool does not show the words "All uploads were successful!" and does not display the "continue" button.)

I believe UploadWizard has not previously allowed uploading of Flickr photos with licenses not allowed on Commons.

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• I seem to be having same or similar problems, image on Flickr with CC BY 2.0 licence, the same uploaded here but the licence wasn't transferred: FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

THis is now fixed, isn't it (task is closed)? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this page still relevant or in need of updating?

Commons:Upload Wizard/defaultConfig. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Placement of {{Permission pending}}

Upload wizard is currently placing the permission pending template under the license header. I think it should be placed inside the |permission= parameter from the {{Information}} template instead. See an example. It's moon (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Upload Wizard is doing exactly what I've seen from the majority of people who place this by hand. Of course, they may just be following what they've seen the Upload Wizard do.

@It's moon: you could file a phabricator ticket on this, but given that WMF has allocated inadequate resources to maintain the Upload Wizard, I can think of several issues that would deserve attention with a lot higher priority than this one. In fact, just in the issue of third-party uploads with pending permission, the Upload Wizard is not prompting for what license is forthcoming, and the resulting omissions cause enormous frustration for uploaders and a corresponding waste of administrator time. - Jmabel ! talk 06:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. Opened phab:T411334. It's moon (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Annoying refresh while doing upload and publish

I have had this happen on all my MacOS and iOS that have Chrome installed, I don’t use Safari or FireFox. It results in me having to reupload! Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please create a bug report about it on phabricator (if none such exists; if it does, please link it here). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)