Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Any news about when the functionnality will be available? --Eusebius (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It is being tested on, and developers have clearly put this on their agenda for the beginning of 2009. You can help testing the functionality by going on test.wikipedia, importing and renaming images, and trying weird things with them, and then report any bugs :-) le Korrigan bla 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone that has used this function please describe where it's found? I've combed through everything I can find on this and no where is it mentioned how you actually start to use it. After enabling the variable in LocalSettings.php nothing new shows up in my SpecialPages. Thanks. --Tlosk (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Renames for templates

Good rewrite job from MU. I think that renaming for facilitating use in wikipedia templates is not realistic anymore for a server that has to serve hundreds of different clients. What will be good for one wikipedia will be bad for another, while creating hundreds of unneeded moves. --Foroa (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Renaming for template usage (filenames where only one part differs) might be of less interest at the moment. Several bigger projects like the railway description icons or all these book scans for Wikisource are already harmonized. But it's still very useful every now and then afaik. -- \mu/ 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem I see with this is that it clashes with the "do not rename because filename is not in English". Looking at the Move Log I already se a lot of CoAs which have been moved from local names to English. Althoug this is great for say National arms/flags I'm less sure it should be done automatically for subnational ones. Also to a certain extent I'm of the opinion that a template which requires a specific style of filename should be fixed rather then fixing the filenames. /Lokal_Profil 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above, especially when in each country and corresponding wikipedia, they use different templates and naming rules. So I would like to see the rule much more restrictive (forbidden unless there is an agreement for a specific case). --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the formulation, better now?
I know, that there are many at length discussions about CoA namings all over the projects, but the whole CoA issue has only little to do with "template usage" afaik. It's more a language issue, or an issue with users who want to "strictly sort whatever seems sortable" ;) But the point with renames for templates is that in some special cases (where files are actually embedded on numerous pages through templates, not only on one town article each) you really want file names to differ in only one part. As an easy and basic example, Template:BookNaviBar wouldn't work that way if the files were not named in a serial way (File:Book_name,_page_001.png, File:Book_name,_page_002.png, […] File:Book_name,_page_145.png). Another good example are these Route diagram templates, where hundreds of file names like File:BSicon_xxx.svg allow the (still highly complex but) much easier creation of diagrams by only typing |xxx| for a specific icon in templates (instead of |[[File:BSicon_xxx.svg|20px]]| or such).
Anyway, further suggestions are welcome. I don't cling to my wording at all. It's just a suggestion, and the point "harmonize file names of a set of images" was already present on the page before I rewrote it :) -- \mu/ 08:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
What we are then talking about are sets of files which are namewise brought into harmony. For the case of pages in a book I can see the point but I have problem seeing very many other templates which cannot be designed to take variable image names. The difference between writing |xxx| and |BSicon_xxx.svg| is not big enough to warrent potentially breaking templates on wikis using other languages or creating problems when two wikis disagree about which version of an image should be used and both require "a specific filename" for it to work on their wiki. I've spent ages mopping up and reparing templates which couldn't deal with renamed images or images which got upgraded to svgs etc.
Ideally for the Route diagram templates you should just write |xxx| and then the template would compare xxx to an internal list and pic out the right image independently if it's called BSicon_xxx.svg or BSicon_xxx.png or BZikon_xyz.svg. This is the system which makes the template the most usefull if the images evolve further later on. As an example of a template which suffered and was redesigned see en:Template:Mycomorphbox. /Lokal_Profil 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your objection, and I don't really want to defend something I didn't come up with myself :) Please note that this point is not new at all. It was already part of the overleaf "list of needs" on September 26, 2008 (the day the page was started). So perhaps it's better to discuss it with the ones who created the page. In my opinion the respective formulation is already more restrictive now and personally I don't see that big problem. Perhaps imagine a set of already harmonized images that are used all over the projects, and then someone uploads an additional icon, but with a different naming scheme. Do you want to reorganize all the templates then, or would you support renaming of one file?
Just an idea … would the addition of a sentence like "renamings should only be done on explicit request, and should generally not be done as long as they would break something (e.g. existing templates), or until consent is reached when they are disputed" reduce your concerns? And a precise rewording suggestion for the "harmonization" point would be neat :) -- \mu/ 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

Some more suggestions:

  • Case 2 could be contracted with case 4: correct misleading names into accurate ones --> Correct misleading names and false information (historical dates). Referring to the nouns will be an overall excuse to rename the files in too many cases.
  • "to ease their usage in templates " --> "to ease their usage in Commons templates " --Foroa (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Foroa, you're right, these two cases are related. The general goal for guidelines is "phrase as unambiguous as possible". Seperation of formally related but different points (with a different motivation) often helps users to understand the "rules" better. So I think it's reasonable to distinguish between "misleading" and "false" here, because "misleading" also includes abusive namings ("wilful"), whereas naming "errors" are commonly based on typos ("by mistake"). That was my train of thoughts behind :) but of course it's possible to merge the cases. What do others think?
  • the restriction of renamings "for templates" to Commons-only could be a bit too restrictive. The majority of cases I know of was targeted on usage on other Wikimedia projects, not on Commons itself. So changing this point would be quasi equivalent to completely removing it, or not? (note: I'm not following such template issues on a regular basis; my knowledge is limited here)
-- \mu/ 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Case 1 - older files [former case 1, now 2: meaningless names into suitable names]

Renames for files as per case 1 ("meaningless names into suitable names") should be limited to recent uploads. Files that have been named say "File:DSC_1342.jpg" for more than 6 months shouldn't be moved. This to avoid breaking too many uses. -- User:Docu at 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming such files is not a problem providing a redirect is left in place. Adambro (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The redirect can be viewed as misleading, as it would lead from a meaningless term to specific one. -- User:Docu at 11:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, in what way would a redirect from a meaningless filename to a useful one have the potential to mislead anyone? Surely any risk of confusion would be very low, not least because redirects are a common feature elsewhere on WMF projects, but also be outweighed by the benefit of the file having a useful name. Adambro (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any redirects from meaningless names to articles (at least in en.wp), so this isn't really a common feature. Generic file names are something people are used to though. -- User:Docu at 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

renaming and replacement across projects (misleading names, obvious errors, meaningless bio-names)

If files are renamed and replaced across projects, the replacement by commons delinker should probably include the reason for renaming, especially if these are done for the reasons 3 (correct misleading names) and 5 (correct obvious errors), possibly 4 (meaningless bio-names) too.

In these cases, the resulting redirects should generally be deleted as well. -- User:Docu at 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought Commons Delinker already included a reason when it did universal replaces? We need to include a reason= parameter in {{universal replace}} calls and I thought it used that in its edit summaries. Sorry if I'm wrong - I'm behind the times on file move functionality... Wknight94 talk 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it already does thanks for pointing that out. Just needs to be used then. I added it to the sample at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Image_replace_requests and made it visible. BTW looks like a cool feature, very useful for removing misleading filenames. Give it a try. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Many projects dont have the reason activated, e.g. w:es:User:CommonsDelinker and some more (or the edit summary is to short), they will not have any use of our efforts. --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see some summaries on es:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker (at least for deletions). I don't think it matters for duplicates, but if there was an error in the name, they should have a away of seeing that. It might not be necessary to do this with a manual CommonsDelinker operation, but the deletion of the redirect with a formatted summary could trigger the replacement. -- User:Docu at 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename all video .ogg files to .ogv

Some video files uploaded years ago have the .ogg extension. This should only be used for audio files. New theora video files should have the .ogv extension.[1] Would it be possible for a bot (or I could do it if given the privilege) to rename those files? I can create a list of those files needing renaming, if needed. mahanga (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File rename permission

Can we have a user group with the file renaming permission? Some software bug(s) hindering us to do so? It would be very useful if this can be assigned to users (without having to give +sysop). Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but the only problem would be that these users wouldn't be able to edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands in order to replace the image. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
They could just make a list of files rename and then an admin could copy paste. But if we got a bunch of admins to work on it it should be possible to cleanup and keep it low. --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support (offering my help). These users can use User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands ("Users who are not administrators can make requests here.") -- Common Good (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just did around 100 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

An other idea: If one/some trusted user(s) make a list of ok renames then it only takes a few seconds to copy to CommonsDelinker and pres move, move, move..... Maybe only 3 seconds per file? That would be a great help. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could look into an admin bot maybe - imagine it would be feasible to make one that accepts commands from only users with the +rename flag.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Another option would be that CommonsDelinker checks the move log (similar to checking the deletion log) and replaces the image if the move hasn't been reverted after 10 minutes. I however have no idea if/how that's possible. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File renaming requests

The other day, I went through Category:Media requiring renaming (there are about 300-400 files in the category, some of my edits): A short summary of what's in there:

  • several images were already renamed, but the template remained on them, see #Complete renames ("_" and " ' ") (I removed several, MGA's bot a few others)
  • a few images that need renaming as the current name is misleading (sample, sample)
  • there are also a few images that shouldn't be renamed as the rename was probably erroneous: creating an anachronism or adding incorrect years (removed)
  • several renames that merely attempted to change the language of the file name (removed)
  • a few requests refer to "naming conventions" that aren't linked in the request, some requests even contradicting others (most probably to be removed)
  • several requests by uploaders (rarely identified as such)
  • a few attempt to add the word "WikiProject" to file names (requests that should probably be removed)
  • many renames that appear purely cosmetic and/or didn't include a rationale (I removed some of these, many still remain)

As files with misleading names should be dealt with in priority, it might be worth to create a separate category for these. -- User:Docu at 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your big efford to clean up. The best would be to empty the category and try to keep it empty every day. Maybe we could add some sort of fix that warns user if no reason for the rename - hopefully that would inspire the user to give a reason. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope someone will help with Category:Media renaming requests needing target :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I can have my bot remove them if everyone is ok with it :)
BTW, there are something else I wanted to mention. There are a few filenames that have names starting with "File". There were one or two requests to remove this. Maybe it's worth removing most of them, they are at Special:PrefixIndex/File:File. Similar duplications happen with extension (e.g. ".jpg.jpg"), a database query would be needed to find them. -- User:Docu at 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I checked all images with "File:File:" and there was 4. They were empty and is now deleted. But there is a lot that starts with "File:File" (without ":"). They could be renamed once we have time. I do not think a {{rename}} is needed for that. Same with ".jpg.jpg". --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add the fix suggested earlier (19:25, 14 Dec). -- User:Docu at 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Maybe it should be with red text or maybe it should go in an other category. Lets see if it works :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea with the category. Makes it easier to review them. -- User:Docu at 12:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

JPG or jpg

The recommendation here is to use the lower case. If an image is "Name.JPG", is it acceptable to rename it to "Name.jpg"? Snowmanradio (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so, or at least I hope so. mahanga (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This guidelines says "As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." And changing "jpg" to "JPG" is makes so little difference that I think they should not be renamed. /Ö 09:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But if file is renamed for a reason it is a good idea to change from JPG to jpg while doing that. Like from Nane.JPG to Name.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)