Wikipedia talk:Upload/Uploadtext/Archive 2

By permission and noncommercial use
I think it would be good if we added language to the effect that it is not acceptable to upload images for which the copyright holder has granted permission for Wikipedia alone, or which are licensed for noncommercial use only. This fact is very confusing and counterinituitive for new users, and it's only discussed very briefly at Image use policy. I'd also like to move "For more information, see our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available" to the top and reword it as "Before you upload an image, make sure you have seen our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available". Thoughts? Angr (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A somewhat similar suggestion was to add permission and noncommercial to the drop down menu so that at least people will tag the image correctly, and it can more quickly be dealt with. This addresses the related problem of people thinking they want only wikipedia to use it, not seeing it in the list, and then selecting a random tag. It's somewhat different philosophically than now, where we have (with the exception of "help me" type tags) only selections that are appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia.


 * To your question though, I wouldn't mind seeing wording like that there, I'm sure at least some people would read it. - cohesion 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * as a replacement for the current "no images from websites" box, a bit longwinded maybe? Hard to condense it down enough without missing important info... Any improvement ideas? --Sherool (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Possibly fixing the spelling? Alex43223T 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images found on websites or on an image search engine should
This message currently says "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.". This appears completely erroneous. As if it is the medium that counts, rather than the licence! —Bromskloss 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People rarely upload no free images from other sources.Geni 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're taking it the other way around. Even if all non free images come from search engines, not all images from search engines are non free. —Bromskloss 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the vast majority however are.Geni 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Do not lie to us. You will be blocked."
''Do not lie to us. You will be blocked.''

A mention of a possible block if you're uploading copyrighted material should be in the uploadbox, but this is IMHO not very friendly towards people who have never before uploaded an image. Husky (talk page) 17:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this wording seems a pretty direct violation of WP:AGF. What was wrong with the old wording? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I restored the old wording. — Mets 501  (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about bolding it though, and torowing in a mention of source too, like:
 * Users who upload content with false license declarations or who repeatedly upload images with no license or source declaration may be blocked.
 * --Sherool (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Runs over two lines and looks like legal text. It's about social engineering. People are happy to lie to machines but by using the word “us” you change that so they are thinking about lying to people. Well that is the theory anyway.Geni 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the whole "Do not lie to us. You will be blocked" phrase is kind of harsh and discouraging. Wikichange 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive
I have archived this page as it is getting a bit long. If anyone has any concerns regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to tell me. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image not found
Since clicking on an image in an article which has apparently gone missing may send you to the Special:Upload page, would it be useful to have language on this page similar to that which appears on the "action=edit" page, such as
 * "If you expected an image to be here, and it is not, the image may not yet be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting to recreate this image."

since, sometimes, the purge function helps for images also. Of course, another way to handle this situation would be to send references to missing images "somewhere else" if that makes sense and can be done. --Big_Iron 10:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Do not lie to us. You will be blocked."
What the hell is this draconian Big Brother-like proclamation? Someone please revert this change. It's very disturbing. Please see Don't bite the newcomers. metaspheres 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording, per the discussion about this several sections above. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we bold the "Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked" text so that people (newbies, I guess) who don't take the time to read all of the warnings may at least see that message. -- P.B. Pilhet  16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Too long, too many fonts, too many colors
OK. IMO, the current version has crept into the ridiculous. We currently have emphasis through the use of
 * 1) bold
 * 2) italic
 * 3) font size
 * 4) bold and color
 * 5) boxes with this color backgroud
 * 6) boxes with another background color and larger font size
 * 7) boxes with yet another background color

Which of these words is most important ? I say it's time to stop the insanity and move to the version proposed a while ago (see MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/Archive 1):

Your file will be deleted in one week unless you provide both:
 * 1) The source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so.  If the file is available online, include a link to the source.
 * 2) The copyright holder and a copyright/license tag with an explanation of why you believe the file is so licensed.

Please note: Most images on the internet are copyrighted under terms intended to prevent them from being freely used on other sites, making it inappropriate and/or illegal to upload them to Wikipedia. Users who upload content with false license declarations, or who repeatedly upload images with no license declaration, may be blocked.

For more information, see our image use policy and our guide to uploading. See the list of image copyright tags for an explanation of compatible licenses.

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this.

Shorter is better. Fewer colors, fonts, and backgrounds is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely looks a hell of a lot more professional and user-friendly! metaspheres 01:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should try to squeeze in something along the lines of "non-free licensed material should only be uploaded if all the criterea outlined at Fair use criteria are fulfilled." somewhere. Most people seem to know that fair use is allowed, but the fact that we don't accept fair use material to simply ilustrate what objects or persons, that is is possible for anyone to photograph (if at the right place at the right time), look like is unknown to most people. --Sherool (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can do shortening it up a bit. — Mets501 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think? — Mets501 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Translating to russian language
I translate this template to russian language. Please move MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/ru to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ru. Thanks. --Kaganer 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for translating, but this is the English Wikipedia. I think your translation might better be better on the Russian wikipedia, or Wikimedia commons. — Mets501 (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interface message languages can be changed in preferences; when I edit the German Wikipedia, for instance, I have the interface messages in English. The Russian upload text will appear to anyone who's set their language to Russian if it's moved as suggested above, so I've put the editprotected tag back up. --ais523 13:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, this message on Commons already translated ;)
 * Please compare en (customized text) and ru (standart text from languageRU.php). I use russian interface => i see uncorrect message, without warnings and useful links.--Kaganer 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved. However, it doesn't seem to have changed the effect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=ru - I wonder if there is a timelag? I also wonder if, instead of fixing something, I broke something very, very important. Eeek. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comes up with the customized Russian message for me now, so it's probably just a timelag. --ais523 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see how it works. Cool. — Mets501 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it works. Thank goodness, I was worried I broke something I didn't understand. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! All OK. Also minor edit: please change "выданных поисковыми машинами" to "выданные поисковыми машинами" (it's my bug). --Kaganer 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to add
There are probably thousands of images that are simply uploaded and because the uploader doesn't know how to use the image link/display of Wiki they reupload an image that is only reduced in size. Could we add some kind of notice to the page that it is not necessary to reupload an identical image just for the smaller size, and Wiki can handle that. Maybe something like: "Do not upload identical images only to reduce in size. See Images for information on how to control image size and other tools." -- MECU ≈ talk 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Along these lines, a note that says changing the extension is also not needed. For example, many images are uploaded with .JPG and then re-uploaded as .jpg. The extension capitals are not relevant as an image call can handle .JPG or .jpg, it's the same. The user must just use the right name of the image. Both of these would reduce the impact (in hopes) of redundant images being uploaded. -- MECU ≈ talk 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, my personal opinion is that anyone doing this would be unlikely to notice the message telling them not to. I could be wrong, but I don't know if it's a pressing need to include on the page. - cohesion 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Resizing
The size of this message is very large. So, it makes the shape of the page not good. Can't it be smaller? --Meno25 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to something much more like the version suggested above. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It does look nicer now, but I think people may not be getting the message anymore as seen from some of the more recent questions. - cohesion 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Information gathering
I'd like to suggest that this page carry an information box source text similar to how Commons:MediaWiki:Uploadtext does, making it easy to cut/paste the box into the description and fill it out when uploading files. Their box looks like this (but is inside table tagging so it only takes up a small amount of the total box size instead of the whole page width:

&#123;&#123;Information &#125;&#125;
 * Description=
 * Source=
 * Date=
 * Author=
 * Permission=
 * other_versions=

What do people think? Having a box like this in the description area tends to result in better descriptions of images and more information about sourcing and provenance. our information template is currently (almost? exactly?) identical to the one on commons. I realise that we want to try to keep the size and garishness of this to reasonable levels, of course. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

Because Wikipedia's content is freely copyable under the terms of the GFDL, your file will be deleted within one week unless you provide both:
 * 1) The source of the file. If you made it yourself, say so.  If the file is available online, include a link to the source.  Please choose a descriptive title for the file before uploading it since uploaded files cannot be moved (renamed) in the same manner as regular pages.
 * 2) The copyright holder and a copyright/license tag with an explanation of why you believe the file is so licensed. If you hold the copyright you must license the image under a free license or release it into the public domain.  If you are uploading a fair use image you must include a fair use rationale.

Please note: Most images on the internet are copyrighted under terms intended to prevent them from being freely used on other sites, making it inappropriate and/or illegal to upload them to Wikipedia. Users who upload content with false license declarations, or who repeatedly upload images with no license declaration, may be blocked. For more information, see our image use policy and our guide to uploading.

If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this. Please Give detailed information with the following code for copy and paste in the summary (fill in the variables):

... perhaps with the background in purple too, and with the info links going to the right places here instead of commons. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends how these things can be parsed by the bots. I wouldn't want to start doing this and lose orphanbot for example. - cohesion 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So ask Carnildo then what his bot needs to see?? What other bots use this info? ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * too long to much text.Geni 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why isn't the template simply preloaded every time? --Steinninn 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Login link is incorrect
Special:Userlogin, not Special:Login.

 If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), we strongly recommend uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons rather than here so that it can be used on all Wikimedia projects in all languages. You must be logged in to Wikimedia Commons to do this.

Chris Cunningham 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done — Mets501 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!
Deletion log link finally works. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yee-haw :-) — Mets501 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Too long, too many fonts, too many colors (again)
Per the thread above, I changed the warning to this version on December 29. Visually comparing the immediately previous version to the current version, I notice they are nearly identical.

Is there some reason we must have so many styles ? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * so it looks nothing like youtube and the other places where you can upload files on the web.Geni 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that we have so many people who obviously can't be bothered to read the instructions off their own bat, we need something to attract their attention and distract them from the almost-orgasmic excitement engendered by uploading which can be the only excuse for the total failure to answer our very reasonable questions with any degree of accuracy or care. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there some evidence anyone can reference that indicates the current version helps? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * none whatsoever but since there is no evidence the other way it doesn't really matter.Geni 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the version you reverted away from infinitely more readable and clear. Nothing stands out on the new one, it all just makes my eyes glaze over. The jumpy font sizes don't make anything stand out because there's so many different ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer minimalism. The simpler version is much more readable. What I don't understand is why Geni removed the parameter $1 in the link to Commons. --Eleassar my talk 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This version seems simple enough to not confuse, yet get the point through. Alex43223T 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

French version
The French version of this message seems very interesting. It leads you through step by step. --Eleassar my talk 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot. You also have to scroll through a load of text before you can do anything (stupid). Suggest someone draws up a version along those lines. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to force users to scroll to get to the upload form (and I realize the current version does for most screen and font sizes), we should have a convenient way to make the verbose warnings go away. Annoying users who upload many images in the hopes that we'll get fewer copyvios from new uploaders by annoying everyone seems like the wrong tradeoff. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't even read the upload text because I know what it says. A new version that makes me scroll down would be very annoying. Perhaps having a [dismiss] link would be useful. Clicking [dismiss] would mean we know the person has seen it too, if we ever wanted to get to the point of someone claiming they didn't know such information and we wanted to prove they had to. Though, being able to force it back open if there was a significant change would be needed too. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who's already read it and needs to get the job done quickly will know to press CTRL + End to jump to the bottom. We're not asking them to do a EULA-esque scroll, check and click. It's really not that much of an inconvenience. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * people presented with large amounts of text will tend not to read it.Genisock2 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, people presented with an obviously usable form will not read what they perceive to be instructions for that form :) - cohesion 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Special:Log
From an unknown reason, the link to special:log does not appear at the upload page. Does anyone know why? Was this perhaps posted to bugzilla already? --Eleassar my talk 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It only shows up when there's an image name specified, so if you go to the sidebar upload link you wouldn't get one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Commons
The link to the upload page at the Wikimedia Commons should be changed to Commons:Upload Kjetil r 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thusly is it so. Splash - tk 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Background color
Would anyone have any heartburn about making the background color less hideous? It is barely readable as is.

Personally, I'm rather partial to D, but I will take anything that substantially lightens the background. It's very much unreadable. --BigDT 01:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great! I like D also. - cohesion 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. It's done.  Feel free to tweak ... but I really think the dark background was hard to read. --BigDT 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons
Please take a look at the Commons upload form: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload Could we redesign the upload form here to follow the style of the Commons one (I'm not trying to imply "the Commons way is best!", I simply think it this is a good idea and better than our current system), whereby the first page you see when you click "upload file" is asking for what kind of file, instead of just taking the image. Thus, we could have links such as: (bolded items would be linked)
 * This is my own work (linked to Commons upload form)
 * This is from a US Federal Government Website (link to Commons version)
 * I have permission from the author (link to Commons version have text about sending permission to permissions-commons email)
 * This is a fair use item (have text that explicitly states our policy, criteria, requirements, information about a good rationale, and what we define as replaceable.)
 * It is a promotional photo (maybe have a link to how these aren't really allowed and all the fair use info?)
 * It is an album cover (fair use info)
 * It is a tv-screenshot (fair use info)
 * I got it from flickr (link to Commons flickr upload form)
 * I don't know the status (see media copyright questions page first)
 * The image is not free, but I don't see a category for it (link to fair use, but provide information about how we don't allow Wikipedia only, non-commercial use, etc)
 * (I know I have missed some categories, it was intentional, I just listed some to give an idea)

Further, the license selections under each option would be restricted to the appropriate licenses (fair use would only have fair use licenses, tv-screenshot only has tv-screenshot, etc). I'll admit, the first time I saw the Commons upload form I was annoyed I had to click an extra button every time, and then the form made me have to scroll down every time. But after using it once or twice, I didn't mind and I don't mind at all.

Further, I'll admit that most of the links should be to Commons (except fair use ones), since it will save us time having to transwiki it later. Flickr is especially important to goto Commons, as Commons is setup to verify the license with a Bot and human review if needed and Wikipedia is not. But all free images should just be on Commons anyways, since then all the projects can use them, and even if it's just Wikipedia (en.wiki), that's still fine too.

I certainly lack the capability (admin editing aside) of pulling this off. Certainly we can grab some of the items from Commons and use them as a start form to modify. I will be glad to help, but definitely need help.

There was some interest a few weeks ago (albeit brief) about reducing the number of orphaned images here, where most should just be moved to Commons. (FYI, there are over 100,000 orphaned images here at Wikipedia.) Taking this first step in redirecting all free content attempted to be uploaded to Wikipedia to Commons will help stem the flow of free images that later end up orphans, and the need to later transwiki/process/delete. Wikipedia can then focus on the fair use images, and Commons can continue on the free images. Ideally, we would just take the free images uploaded here and store them immediately at Commons, but not having global login makes that not very feasible, unless there is some tech guru out there that can figure out how to transfer the image immediately to Commons with a dummy uploader account (like flickrlickr) and still give credit to the uploader here, which would still be awesome.

Is anyone willing to help with this major project? Anyone have any ideas, comments, objections? MECU ≈ talk 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support, I'd be glad to help if there are no objections. This should probably be discussed on commons also as it's hard to estimate the influx of new images this would cause. Our uploaders aren't as versed in policy and free-content ideology :) - cohesion 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, here you go Upload. Most of the enwiki language pages are not complete, although I would imaging we would make a lot of links that really just link to the same page (uselang=nonfree). Feel free to edit it, add things etc. - cohesion 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "This is my own work (linked to Commons upload form)" is not an option until SUL kicks in and commons gains the rescources to deal with en's scale of copyvios. leading option should be wikipedia only and NC as in the current system.Geni 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain SUL and NC? Thanks. MECU ≈ talk 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * single user login and non commercial.Geni 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a tree structure would be neat, personally... sort of like Uncyclopedia's Zork :) Grace notes T § 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'm unsure, however, how much it will help; I mean, if the upload text already says "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted.", how will more pages deter that? Also, will we be able to change the link in the sidebar to whichever page this new tree structure is at? --Iamunknown 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it is posible to edit the sidebar if required.Geni 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was not possible, though, to edit the links in the "toolbox". --Iamunknown 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support change- I think this would help to reduce copyvio problems, make categorisation easier and make the process more understandable (not having to choose from a long list of license options) and help put more images on Commons rather than in WP (except FU, of course) GDonato (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, just spotted a problem, this would mean that it would be harder for people without Commons accounts (how would they upload free images, another category?) GDonato (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be more difficult (until we get Single login specifications]). Also, will someone add a link to commons:Commons:Bad sources in meantime?  --Iamunknown 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That proposal sounds good (esp. if they done it BEFORE it became an admin nightmare with 4,000,000 accounts on enwp alone) GDonato (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had put together a few prototypes for something along these lines a few weeks ago based on fromowner. See User:BigDT/upload. The most important thing to do is to make sure that the user has context-appropriate information.  Sure, there are always going to be people who ignore whatever the screen says, assume that we only give lipservice to copyrights, and upload whatever the heck they feel like.  Nothing will stop that ... but by giving clear instructions that are meaningful to what the user wants to upload, we should be able to reduce some of these backlogs. --BigDT 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. BTW, can we start requiring that Creative Commons-licensed works be dual-licensed under the GFDL for "own work" uploads?  It was a mistake to begin using content that is illegal to license under the GFDL; then, if a print version of Wikipedia is produced, we cannot include the work.  (I may be simplifying some complex issue; if so, please correct me.)  --Iamunknown 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a completely different issue, but I think that we .really. need to re-examine what we consider to be acceptable. For example, Attribution says nothing of perpetuity of the license and some of the custom license like Image:Scott Stadium.jpg add conditions that I really don't think we should have (eg, having to have a full page describing the image). --BigDT 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That version at Upload is very much a first draft, feel free to make it better of course, I don't have strong feelings about any of it really. The only thing I really think is a good idea is forcing people to read some information before they get to the upload form. Special:Upload will always exist, people that want to skip it can go there directly. Geni is probably right about commons not being ready though for the main influx anyway. - cohesion 00:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I used some of your pages BigDT :) I don't know about having a permission upload page though, that might get really messy. I think we should have a permission page instead that is static without an upload form. Some of the choices definitely should lead you to a page explaining why you aren't going to upload (with no form available) I think. - cohesion 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also support this change (whether Commons is included or not; until SUL, aiming it locally is probably acceptable); not only would it help reduce the problems with mislicenced images, it would help reduce the WP:BITE potential. (By the way, how advertised is this? I suspect it may be a major enough change for cent to be a good place to advertise it.) From a technical level, all that's needed is to use CSS to remove 'Upload file' from the toolbox, and add a link to Upload in the sidebar. --ais523 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this, definitely. I've made similar proposals over at WP:VPR than went unnoticed.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CSS is unnecessary. One can simply use the MediaWiki mechanism for extending the sidebar, as is already employed for this purpose at Wikinews.  I've improved Project:Upload, adding the screens that were missing.  Please review it and the concomitant upload screens.  If they are satisfactory, I or another administrator can add it to the sidebar. Uncle G 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Upload looks pretty good to me, as do each of the linked pages. The only change I'd suggest would be adding a title or some text above the box to help break up the page (other than "Wikipedia:Upload", which isn't that intelligible to new users), but that's purely cosmetic. I think CSS is necessary; of course the MediaWiki mechanism would be used to extend the sidebar to place the link to the upload in the editable portion of the sidebar, but the direct link to Special:Upload in the toolbox would need to be disabled somehow. --ais523 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it would not. There will be editors who will want not to have to go through the extra step.  Those editors will want the link in the toolbox retained.  So we do as Wikinews does and adjust MediaWiki:Upload to say something like "Upload file (bypassing wizard)" or some such, and have "Upload file" on the sidebar. Uncle G 10:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There should probably be just one upload link. It looked confusing to me to have two.  Any experienced Wikipedian knows the Special:Upload link and doesn't to find it in the left menu.  The "bypass wizard" text is not needed in my opinion. --Aude (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My prediction is that there will be complaints if the link that does not go through the wizard is removed. Two links is not confusing if one is marked as not going through the wizard, and that is exactly why the text that you think isn't needed is needed.  And as pointed out above (and on MediaWiki talk:Sidebar and several related discussions), it is not possible to directly change the contents of the toolbox. Uncle G 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Commons has one "Upload file" link, and it's in their "participation" section of the nav bar. There is no second "Upload file" link in the toolbox.  No complaints that I'm aware of on commons about there not being the direct link in the menu.  It's possible here to have just one link, to the upload wizard.  I think the second "no wizard" link - link, text and all is not needed and confusing to have duplicate links (even with the text noting the difference). --Aude (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also much prefer a single link. Redundancy and bulk are problematic. I agree with Aude's suggestion to remove the 2nd link.
 * If the link is going to stay in the "Interaction" box, could it be moved to above * Make a donation? Part of the sidebar redesign was an effort to order things, and to give prominence to the last 2 links:
 * Make a donation
 * Help
 * Much thanks. --Quiddity 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think people would be that mad if there was no link to Special:Upload. There is a link to it from Upload, and it could be made more prominent if required. If people really need two links though, ehh. I think the next step is definitely working on the dropdown menus so that they are specific to the selection. - cohesion 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I pretty much find the new wizard to be a disgusting and juvenile approach. Among its faults it adds serious road bumps for people who know what the license should be (which ought to be most regular contributors). Also, the messages displayed after making a selection are poorly formulated. For nonfree images, it should be something like "You selected X. Such images are not free, and Wikipedia only accepts this kind of image when it satisfies our policies on the use of non-free images.  This requires clearly indentifying the source of the image, providing a rationale for fair use, and justifying why no free image could be created that shows the same features." The current text is awkward and verbose. If it discourages bad uploads, I can think it only does so by intimidation. And what is worse, the licensing field isn't even filled in after making a selection. Personally, I think that for most users the new link is much worse than the old format and would prefer to see it removed. Dragons flight 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I've asked a question related to this on MediaWiki talk:Upload. --ais523 11:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it may seem simplistic to long time editors, but we really do have an image upload problem. Hundreds of images are incorrectly uploaded and deleted every day. From a random selection of 10 recent uploads 5 are tagged incorrectly. 2 have a tag, but it's wrong, and 3 are not tagged at all. Assuming that most people understand our licensing requirements is unrealistically optimistic. As to your specific criticisms, I agree the wording is a little long, but I don't think anyone is saying that the current wording is set in stone. Also, the dropdowns can be customized, and like I said above I think that should be the next priority. You won't have one selected for you, because there are still going to be choices, but they should be limited to the context of what you clicked on. - cohesion 01:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the choices are not limited to context of your choice. Here I choose Federal government, and get the whole range of choices (comic book cover, television screenshot, my own work, etc.).  On commons, you would get choices like "work of NASA", "work of USGS", etc.  The form on commons has that all worked out and is more newbie-friendly, which is a good thing.  This all brings up another question, that if people choose "Federal government", shouldn't these types of images (preferably) go on commons?  We should probably do something to steer people in that direction when they are uploading something with a free license (e.g. not fair use). --Aude (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We already do something. The free content upload forms have prominent notices suggesting that editors upload to Commons instead.  Of course, we could do more than that and have Upload actually send people directly to Commons, which I for one support doing.  I suggest that you take that idea up at Wikipedia talk:Upload (q.v.). Uncle G 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)