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
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
