I think I've already mentioned this on sourceforge but... There is weirdness going on with how image description pages work. There are two delete links on them; one for the media file and one for the image description page. To properly delete a media file and it's description page ''both'' delete links have to be used. This confused the hell out of me the first time and also just caught Zoe (there are probably other sysops who /thought/ they deleted images but who really just deleted the image description pages). IMO a much better design would treat the actual media file in the same way as text is treated on normal pages: When the page it is on is deleted the content (text and media file and their history) is deleted as well. When the image page is moved then the media file is renamed. Which brings me to; Another thing: there is no way to rename an media file or its corresponding image description page. Using the 'Move this page' feature brings up an error. Also, the time and dates of uploads are not displayed and the different versions are listed in a separate history-like table (minus the dates and times). Since the media file is content on the page it would make sense for changes in that content to be properly logged. IMO the whole thing is a bit confusing and may need to be redesigned. Conceptually the media files can simply be thought of as another piece of content on a page and therefore treated accordingly (with one history, one delete link, and the ability to move the page). For this to work the different media file versions would have to be somehow represented by different wiki text (a new magic link that only works on image description pages could be in the form [[media version:Foo.jpg(n)]] where "n" is the version number). Then uploading a new version of the a media file automatically edits the image description page ([[media version:Foo.jpg(1)]] becomes [[media version:Foo.jpg(2)]] in the wiki text). Sure a vandal could copy the wiki text representing the image of one thing and replace it with something else but the vandal can already do that with the article text. IMO these pages should work more like other pages on Wikipedia. Aside: "Image" is not the best namespace title for these pages since we allow non-image filetypes. "Media" would be better but that is already taken.... Thoughts? -- mav