Can we revisit the subject of file uploading? I'm currently seeing a lot of irrelevant, poorly named, and/or copyright-infringing files uploaded (and frequently not even in optimal formats!) Tracking down who uploaded what, when, is difficult, and finding where it's linked from and why it's relevant is nearly impossible. A few examples:

test.svg == what is this? how do you use it? why do we need it? thumbs.db == db file for thumbs on someone else's computer. It's probably irrelevant, but I'm not sure and I can't see where it's linked to so I've left it. eschera02lg.jpg == copyright violation, removed squids.jpg == an image of kites shaped like squids. who would have guessed? accidental overwrite in the future? probably. 1k-1_1k.wav == ok, this is a small one, but usually some compression is to be desired. as an ogg it would be even smaller.

I like the uploads page as it is (e.g. On 2002-06-08 15:45:15, Koyaanis Qatsi uploaded file moebius_strip.jpg [smaller .jpg of .png already up]), but it would be even better if the page showed what articles use the files uploaded, and indicated which files aren't being used anywhere. That would make it easier to go through and delete unused files in good conscience after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

I'd like to propose also that we limit which file types we allow to be uploaded. I know we've discussed this before but I can't remember what conclusion we reached. I don't think it's useful to have .bmps uploaded, or .wavs, or *.exe and usually not .gifs or .mp3s either (even of uncopyrighted files, because of patent difficulties). The most commonly useful files will be *.png, *.jpg, and *.ogg. What do you think?

Thanks,

KQ 0