Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2010

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.

Filenames not with Latin alphabet

Hi, I'm ru-wiki user and often see filenames with Russian cyrillic alphabet, sometimes with Chinese or Arabian. And usually I'm adding the requirement of renaming: because Russian encoding is not very comfortable - in some cases (for example if you are working outside Russia) the name of file is converting in things like D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB% or [][][][][] like if it was Chinese or Japanese filename. This is screen shot from my comp - almost all Russian letters are OK, exept some filenames. (If I'm adding it not in wiki-article but in my blog, the code is looking weird). What I think also - if somebody (from Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia) uploaded picture with filename in на кириллице, or some Jew with his אָלֶף-בֵּית עִבְרִי, or with Arabian أبجدية عربية - he is doing it only for people of his culture. If it is done with Latin - it became universal. This is why the names of categories here at commons we do in English. I think for pages-galleries native alphabet it is OK (like Иван IV - for tsar Ivan the Terrible), but nor for filenames. It's like file description - if info is only in minor alphabet you as Admin not always can understand who is author, is the lisence and source OK, etc. (using Google translate can be bored with many files) - and if English description is added - you can check. The English names are not required, but I think the Latin alphabet is. As I'm Russian for me it is nothing related to politics, only usability. So I suggest the recomendation to use Latin letters in filenames. --Shakko (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Sounds reasonable. --Waldir talk 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Regarding "Иван IV", the transscriptions and transliterations are not unique but the original name is. Using the original name is cut-and-paste. Of course an English section in the file description page greatly helps. -- Klaus with K (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename own files

Like others, I sometimes make a mistake in naming a file I've uploaded. It would be nice to have all autoconfirmed users have the right to rename their own files. I don't think there's a high potential of abuse in these cases. p.s. could someone rename File:Isaiah Stanbeck.jpg? :) Thanks, mahanga (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ich bin auch der meinung, dass es sehr viel nützen + viele admins + dateischieber von unnötiger arbeit entlasten würde, wenn jeder seine eigenen files selbst korrigieren könnte ohne dafür jedesmal einen anderen bemühen zu müssen. ob dies jedoch technisch vernünftig umsetzbar ist, weiss ich nicht + bitte daher dazu um äusserungen der programmier-spezialisten! dontworry (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

plural and singular

If a file had the name "Carrots on table.jpg" and the image showed only one carrot on a table, would that be reason enough to change the file name to "Carrot on table.jpg"? Surely, the plural of the file name is grossly misleading. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly grossly. --Swift (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have put a strike through "grossly". Snowmanradio (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this a completely hypothetical example? I can't find this here on Commons. I'd say that the first step would be to contact the author and get his view. Since searching for the singular "carrot" will give both singular and plural forms in file names, this is hardly a problem. If the image is very new and this was just a typo or a similar mistake, I guess a rename wouldn't matter. Oh, and check the image history: Perhaps an earlier version had more carrots. --Swift (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I started this conundrum with "If", and this example is hypothetical. Why would contacting the author help? - everyone would be able to count the number of carrots in an image showing one carrot? Let us suppose that the carrot is the main feature in the image. The search brings both singular and pleural forms, and I think that implies that the file name it even more important, because the reader is totally dependant on the file name to indicate if there is one carrot (singular) or carrots (pleural) shown in the image. Snowmanradio (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)c


Will there ever be a flag for file movers? The backlog is growing and I wish I could help. ZooFari 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing non-admins can do is go through the category and double-check the requests. Click "gallery details" for easy review. Frequently these don't meet our criteria for renames. -- User:Docu at 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Flickr file names

I noticed that a lot of files uploaded from Flickr has meaningless names like this, so I wondering should that media be proposed for renaming or it should preserve its original name (for some reason)? M.K. (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All media files should have a descriptive name, so feel free to stick one of those "rename" templates on there, suggesting a new file name. The fact that it is from Flickr doesn't change that fact. :-) Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks, M.K. (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Files from flickr generally include the flickr id in one way or the other, but they shouldn't be limited to just that. -- User:Docu at 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To do

As testing is successful, we should probably update COM:FAQ#MOVE. -- User:Docu at 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I would remove the part about re-uploading and replace it with a suggestion to use
    {{rename|Uploader request: I'm the uploader of the file and want to fix (an error) in the filename.}}
    -- User:Docu at 10:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. -- User:Docu at 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Category problem

There is a problem with Category:Media requiring renaming. Instead of showing 200 files on every page, it shows files of a random quantity. The total number of files in the category is also wrong; while there are 694 files needed to be renamed, the number is displayed as 542. Can someone fix this problem please? Thanks. Newfraferz17 (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Can we also think of the 1048 files that are waiting to be renamed...

It seems that after some time, when administrators/stewards are just too busy (or something) to do the renamings, we may just have to request for temporary permission to move certain files. Newfraferz17 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't show 200 files on each page, it shows 200 items which include any actual pages it is placed on. So it isn't random. Also, Commons has nothing but backlogs, so please try to understand this. We're very shorthanded on admins all the time. If you have a file that needs attention quickly, you could poke an admin on their talk page about renaming some files. Killiondude (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Phoebastria immutabilis (head)

Starr 080602-5333 Euphorbia pulcherrima.jpg

If an administrator would rename all files in the category that only include the head of a Phoebastria immutabilis and no plant (whose name is in the filename), that would be helpful. -- User:Docu at 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

most of them include the plants named, and some are cross categorised with them can be more specific on which files need you like to see renamed, and to what ? Gnangarra 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I added two images to the left side of this thread. The sample image "File:Starr 080602-5333 Euphorbia pulcherrima.jpg is currently named after Category:Euphorbia pulcherrima. There is no trace of the plant. It should be renamed from:

to one of the following:

The brown ones could have "young", "juvenile" etc. added. A file that probably doesn't need renaming is File:Starr 080612-8604 Paspalum urvillei.jpg as the head doesn't fill most of the image. -- User:Docu at 14:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A simplified solution could be to just remove the name of the plant (e.g. for the sample above, rename it to "File:Starr 080602-5333.jpg"). -- User:Docu at 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There also a very large number of files by the same uploaders/couple with scaevola sp (example = )and nothing related whatsoever to the plants in the pictures - the solution might be to do as docu suggests - remove the scaevola taccade words out - and return them to numbers and the name of the uploader - SatuSuro (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Files are now renamed. I do not think a removal of the "description" so that only numbers are left is a good idea - also see Commons:Bots/Work_requests#User:BotMultichillT_cleanup_(Latin_names_from_Starr_batch_upload). --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. BTW could you also nuke the redirects?  Docu  at 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I only created redirects for the files that was in use. --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note on admin's noticeboard

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Filemover needing attention, we are no longer following the standards on this page. ZooFari 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The current rules regarding when it is ok to rename a file are from the first rev of this page in 2008 [1] when there wasn't yet a file rename available.--DieBuche (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules probably should be updated to reflect current practice and technical changes. I think a good first step would be to document exactly how file renaming currently works and what issues with it remain. Here's a quick attempt at listing such current and former issues, please improve it if you see any mistakes or omissions:

Issue Status Notes
Careless copy-and-delete renames can lose edit history and break attribution. Fixed No longer an issue with real file moves. However, we do still have plenty of files moved the old way, some of which might benefit from a history merge.
Copy-and-delete renames waste storage space on the servers. Fixed No longer an issue with real file moves. Besides, if this was a real issue it could be fairly easily solved by changes to the storage backend.
Renamed files don't show up in the original uploader's contribution history. Mostly fixed No longer an issue with real file moves, although the upload log entries still point to the original title. This is probably how it's supposed to work (and how it works for normal pages), although it can be a bit surprising to see a file with no log entries of any kind.
File redirects on Commons don't work right on other wikis. Mostly fixed Everything seems to work fine across Wikimedia wikis now. InstantCommons still doesn't seem to support file redirects, though.
Renaming widely used files requires updating links on many projects. Mostly fixed Mostly mitigated if a redirect is left behind. CommonsDelinker can update most file links, although this currently still requires a manual command to be issued by an admin. I believe there's been some talk of fully automating this feature.

Are there any other reasons why one might not want to rename a badly named file? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. I wasn't aware of the log issue, but this does seem problematic.
  2. Another problem is that a new file could be uploaded at the old name (also a problem with deleted files).
  3. I doubt that it's a good idea to have one or more redirect for each image.
There seems to be some disagreement what "badly named" means:
  • Some seem to want to do cosmetics on filenames,
  • others want to copy the information template into the filename.
  • One doesn't like the naming convention used by batch uploads,
  • others want to name all files on the topic of their choice in the same way.
  • Some don't understand the image identifiers re-used from the source website,
  • others think that filenames should have only 20 characters,
  • etc.
Currently, the guidelines are fairly clear: these are not reasons to rename.
To make it clear, Maybe we should also include more reasons why files shouldn't be renamed, e.g. "remove the photographer's name" and list elements that shouldn't be added or removed when renaming.
In general, I think it's a good idea to have stable filenames. Probably even more important than descriptive filenames. Maybe we could just opt for some creative chaos and watch how it evolves .. -- User:Docu at 09:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If « InstantCommons still doesn't seem to support file redirects », that is a major issue. Until this is fixed , we should stick to the policy (amended if necessary) and refrain from moving files for trivial reasons.
I understand that InstantCommons is a service we provide, and that 3rd party have to live with whatever might happen here (eg deletions), but we should try not making their life harder unless we have good reasons to (copyvios are, "bad" names are not). Jean-Fred (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Has someone filed a bug report for this? I looked at the source & it shouldn't be to hard to fix. Right now it only queries the api for the given file name, but it could be changed to first check for redirects & query the resulting file.--DieBuche (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The InstantCommons problem has been fixed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Wow, what a timing. I should complain for things to be fixed more often :-p
    No real objection then. By the way, I never know : since a redirect should always be left (unless new upload), should one use the Delinker to universal replace or there is no need ? I usually don't. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion we should keep the redirects as well as delinking them where possible. The redirects are needed by templates & InstantCommons. But if we don't delink them things will more complex on the long run. Global Usage reports will be wrong (because pages don't link to that file but to it's redirect & especially if the files have been renamed from gf6dg66aa.JPG, it is helpful for the editors on the wiki, to be able to identify a file by it's name.--DieBuche (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File redirects

In addition to the discussion above, can someone please clarify for me when a file redirect should be left after a file rename? I moved a bunch of files, and since the default leaves a redirect, I generally left one (e.g. for spelling errors, to preserve a track for external users who have recorded the old filename). The only cases where I suppressed a redirect were cases where the old name was so generic (e.g. "Sample.jpg") or promotional, that I thought it best to sever the link. Anyway, Axpde then deleted a bunch of the redirects, so I'm wondering if there's some clear instruction that I haven't found yet. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

InstantCommons relies on those redirect, because CommonsDelinker can't change them. Thus i think we should keep them for at least half a year.--DieBuche (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If the file was renamed as the title was misleading, I don't think the redirect should be kept. -- User:Docu at 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. This was the kind of title I suppressed redirecting. --99of9 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted many redirects to avoid reusage. Why do we have CD changing all occurances if we keep the wrong name as redirect? Maybe we should think about some guidelines for uploading files to commons, or keep them hidden until some trusted user patrolled the upload? axpdeHello! 11:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We want people to reuse files from Commons, that is the point of free licenses. But we don't want to break links for reusers if they link back to the image description here. Therefor we need redirects when moving files or deleting duplicates. So the general rule should be to leave redirects. There can be exceptions for really badly named files and recently uploaded files (hopefully really bad names are changed soon after upload). But we should not break links uless there are very good reasons. /Ö 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Length of filename

At US Navy 050201-N-6019M-001, there is a request to rename the file due to "File name is excessively long and violates Image use policy on Wikipedia, and possibly Commons.". This is currently not a valid reason to rename the file and the same reason would probably apply to several 10k of images. -- User:Docu at 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • My preference is to make this an allowable rename reason. The length of that name just seems a bit ridiculous (and nobody would ever type it into a URL!). I recall some images being knocked back at Featured Pictures because of excessive filenames. --99of9 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There was a short discussion on this at COM:VP on some of others. If we consider them to be too long, maybe we shouldn't allow them in the first place. -- User:Docu at 11:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd agree to that too. --99of9 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with renaming, see also my post below here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Files containing "wiki" in the filename

Hello. There are many files containing "wiki" in the filename, although they are unrelated to Wiki. and I believe it is inappropriate. How is it related to "wiki"? Several times, while searching for images related to "Wiki", I found this list of images:

What do you think? Shall those images be renamed under an appropriate name (for example: "Argentina wiki" -> "Argentina_map")? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason is probably, that it should be connected to the bequester's intention that the media is to be used for Wiki purposes, or they named it like that on their computer to identify files easier. Some people include also include "Commons" as part of the file name. For me, it is a matter of taste (same "problem" with file names that include the photographer's name"). As far as "Wiki" in the file names for Commons, I would say it is useless (if truly unrelated to "wiki") and somewhat misleading we should think of another file name and rename such files. --Mattes (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems more like cosmetics to me. If you feel like renaming a large number of files, I'd prefer if you'd remove the plant names from birds and landscapes (some 20,000 files of the Starr batch could be concerned by that). See "Phoebastria" above. -- User:Docu at 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that the above ("Phoebastria") issue is solved, maybe we could fix this one. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There still up 19000 images animals and other named after plants.  Docu  at 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexual content

I think that there is fairly broad agreement at Commons:Sexual content (a proposal under discussion) that some files should be renamed. The current version of the section is, "Descriptions of media files and categories related to sexuality should always be written in an style oriented toward encyclopedic and educational intent. Unless file names and descriptions on Commons are quoting an external source, they should be neutral, academic, impersonal, and without use of slang terminology. New files and categories that are in scope, but do not comply with this requirement, should be renamed on sight, and the descriptions reworded as necessary." For example, I proposed this rename on May 12.

Would there be objection to making something like this the seventh listed reason for a rename?

Also, any specific comments would be helpful - for example, someone worded the proposal above to rename new files on sight. Does it cause a great amount of trouble to rename old ones, like the one I proposed?

Last but not least, the discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content#"Rename on sight" came to discussion of a priority system for renames. I think this might not be a bad idea, but then again, perhaps it might be better to segregate the (to be) seven categories of renames into their own lists, and allow individual admins to set their own priorities/specializations about which categories to work on first? Wnt (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So File:!!!!井口在屋東京大学総合研究博物館小石川分館0054.JPG is ok?

I proposed that File:!!!!井口在屋東京大学総合研究博物館小石川分館0054.JPG is renamed to "Koishikawa Tokyo University Museum Annex.JPG". I also proposed similar renames for few dozen of other files uploaded by the same editor in this format (!!!!kanji|presumablysomeformoftimestampinnumberform.JPG) (see most of them at the top of this special page). I see that many files were renamed, but not all, as on some I was reverted by User:Billinghurst who said that "the language component is not sufficient for a rename". As some of my renames where carried out, it seems that there is a disagreement on whether those files are are aren't sufficiently badly named for a rename.

Presumably, the argument for not renaming them is based on the second point of Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_not_be_renamed.3F: "there's no reason to favor English over other languages". There is however a difference between language and alphabet. Are filenames in non-Latin alphabet ok? The example given is "File:Rathaus_bremen.jpg". The problem is that half of that name is international, and all of it is in Latin alphabet, which can be typed in by almost anybody. The 井口在屋東京大学総合研究博物館小石川分館 is more problematic.

If the consensus is that 井口在屋東京大学総合研究博物館小石川分館 is fine, how about the meaningless !!!! in front and numbers at the end? Some of his files, like File:!!!!聖坂下.JPG or File:!!!!黄梅院0612270119.JPG have more meaningless symbols than useful ones. Unfortunately, our rules don't cover the middle ground: Rule 2 Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F says that completely meaningless names should be renamed, and Rule 1 Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_not_be_renamed.3F says that minor naming changes should not be carried - the example, File:TowerBridge'09.jpg -> File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg, is however not close to the level / number of meaningless symbols found on the files I mentioned. Where do we draw the line? File:White House 075.jpg is ok, File:White House 2352346524364326356363575372357yeyfgfhgfsgfgfdgdsfg.jpg is not.

Rule 6 of renaming says that sets of images should be harmonized. If we do agree that at least some of that users !!!kanjinumbers files need to renamed, because (for example) they contain more junk symbols than useful ones, shouldn't we rename all of them? If so, should we rename them keeping the kanji, or should be translate them?

Please note that a bunch of files from that editor I proposed for renaming HAVE been renamed (File:!!!!円真寺0612270117.JPG] -> File:True Temple in Japan (2006).jpg). What I don't understand is why the unused redrects ([2]) are still kept (and why do they populate the special page I mentioned)?

In summary, I am putting the following questions up for discussions:

That a filemover or admin didn't take issue with your remove doesn't make it a done deal. Pull back to the principle … Commons is a multilingual site, so we should be preserving the language of the original filename, not converting to other languages, especially not the trend to convert to English, call it a courtesy, call it mantra, call it what you like, there has been no evidence presented on how or why we should deviate from that approach. If you are concerned about superfluous characters, then we can deal with them as necessary. Original filenames are kept partly to retain the name assigned by the original contributor (there is something from Brion somewhere on the wiki to this effect), and secondly to allow page histories to work when/if pages are reverted, otherwise one may not know where or what was in a gap when one reverts.
The purpose for a filename is to uniquely identify an image, and preferably to give information about the origins of the image. Harmonisation is not about all the images having the same name, there are cases where images are used in templates, eg, flags, so the rename for harmonisation is to allow that to occur. It is important to not misrepresent the purpose behind the naming protocol. One needs to maintain and understand the principle as the priority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed at language policy here, and I have come to the opinion that names that are fully descriptive should not be renamed because they are not in non-latin scripts. Information should go into the description. Its not something the new intake of renamers would have encountered, but there was a disturbing clique who renamed fully descriptive names for numerical ones.--KTo288 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)fix double negative--KTo288 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the exclamation marks should be removed. It is inappropriate to try to mess with alphabetic order in that way. I have no problem with filenames in other scripts, but I can't read this one to know whether the filename is otherwise good. --99of9 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guideline gives us some hints when to rename and when not to rename. If author request a rename (or agree with it) then renames are normally done. If not then it depends on the arguments used or if it is obvious or not. If the reason to rename is to avoid "funny" symbols then rename should be refused. However, if the reason is something like the description means "House in China" but it is not China but Japan then it would be ok to rename.
Unused redirects can be deleted but someone has to look for them :-)
As for the White House-example I doubt it is possible to make a clear rule. --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Unites States seal ... no rename???

I disagree with the rationale for not renaming a misspelling in a heavily used file (example 3 of "don't rename"). Since delinker fixes all the links for us, surely it's worthwhile to have errors corrected in heavily used file names? --99of9 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess, can't see what harm is done as long as the redirect is left behind. ZooFari 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I stumbled across this as well. I guess this rule comes from pre-Delinker times. the rule should probably removed--DieBuche (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I also think that improper capitalization (of names, cities or states) can be grounds for renaming. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Renaming is a tedious task (quite unquick) even with the CommonsDelinker doing its part, so there has to be reasonable value in undertaking the process. Some of the heavily used filenames are due to the image as something iconic rather than as informational, so in that regard it becomes unnecessary, examples are some of the colours swatches and some of the icons, simply not necessary to rename. Plus the other issue is that these other sites may not want 1000 or 2000 rename tasks occurring on their wikis, it is a broader issue than just here. If you have a look at the reality, we have >1000 files in for a rename, and that number has been slowly incrementing due to the nature of the task. There is no ability to prioritise beyond someone being noisy and so fussing over a capital 'S' seems to be a level of triviality compared with the high number of poorly named and poorly described files. If it really bothers you that much, then perform a redirect the other way, and maybe can we get to tasks that make a difference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just to be clear, the problem with the example is not the capitalization of the S, it's the misspelling of "United" with "Unites". I'm not talking about really minor errors, I'm talking about errors that make our project look amateurish on hundreds of derivative projects (and of course to the users). I accept your admin/renamer load issues argument, but if as an admin I'm willing to do it, it seems that it shouldn't be prohibited by the guidelines... Regarding the server load on the other wikis, is that a big issue? I was under the impression that we could ignore the technical side of things. If wiki* need to buy more computers, they will? --99of9 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, with that logic, you can find sufficient reasons to rename millions of files here. With the effort of one rename, one can correct descriptions of 20 other files. Part of the redirects tend to be deleted and reused and don't solve the problems of images that are linked to by all the Commons "clients". --Foroa (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I understand (earlier in the talk page) the redirects should not be deleted in this circumstance. That is an issue we need to enforce, but it is a separate issue. About your other point, all users are able to correct descriptions, so those will get fixed no matter what I do as an administrator. We have two roadblocks to fixing errors in filenames, one that it requires privileges, and two that it is against the rules according to this guideline. I just want to remove the latter roadblock, and allow administrators to work on this if they want to. --99of9 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no control of people reusing a redirected file name for another picture. Maybe try to keep Category:Duplicate (almost) empty for a couple of weeks. You might change your mind. --Foroa (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mass renaming of files to English names

I don't feel that mass renaming of files ([3], [4]) to detailed names in English is something culturally neutral. Is there any other option? Amikeco (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not rename from "non English names" to English names just because we prefer English. But IF the current name is not ok (wrong, misleading or nonsense) then it is ok to rename to a English name. English is the most Common name so if if the person who suggest a rename chooses an English name it is ok. --MGA73 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Renaming nonsence names you are doing great job, really, I am only concerned about cultural neutrality. The idea that „English is the most Commons“ is non-neutral too by the way; the fact that most discussions at commons and meta are in English might be the effect of other reasons — Wikipedia came from the U.S. and that could be a reason for English to be its most common meta-language (in its turn that causes that people from non-English backgrounds just do not participate). Sometimes, renaming files, it could be a healthy policy to check if there are other suggestions, when the object of the photo is not from an English-speaking country. Sincerely, Amikeco (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the first rename is problematic (unless "Gfdfgd" has some meaning), but given the current language policy for filenames, I don't see how the second renaming (from "Tiflis" to "Tbilisi") is acceptable. Besides that, the reason given by the user renaming the file is not one of the accepted ones listed on this page. -- User:Docu at 09:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess one could rename them from nonsense to non-English - that would be fine, too. But we certainly have no bias against English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The guidance that I use is "When the filename is non-descript, if description is in English, then to English, otherwise name it to the first language used." This keeps to the principle that we have established.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry: the table states that renames are only for meaningless and misleading names. File renames for "better descriptions" are not acceptable. --Foroa (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Foroa, how about you stop and think before you open your mouth. Take this comment in the context of the discussion, it was clearly in the context of the language decision. Otherwise, we can all start quibbling over whether you are "sorry".  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear if your comment about non-descript filenames was just about renames according to (2.) or not. "DSC" could be considered English, but I don't think it is in the logic of the language policy.  Docu  at 07:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"moved File:Las vegas mgm grande.jpg to File:MGM Grand Las Vegas 2009.jpg: Consistency with other Vegas pics"

Should we attempt to do such renamings? -- User:Docu at 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a need for such kind of "consistency". Raymond 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's not "grande" not even in Spanish, and it was a recent file so I thought might as well. I don't go about renaming Las Vegas files for consistency without a backup reason, but if it's controversial then I'll cease. ZooFari 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

move request from "talk:commons delinker" to "commons delinker"

It's possible for one of the admins to move the already moved files from "talk:commons delinker" to "commons delinker", so the bot can do its work? I spend a lot of time for checking pics in the cat for rename requests, but if there will no progress in shifting it to feed the bot, I'll wait. NobbiP talk 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

cleaned out--DieBuche (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose a "Guide" page

I never thought renaming files would involve so much controversy. I think file renaming can be very ambiguous. For this reason, I would like to propose a guide page that includes several scenarios from different topics. These topics can include biology, places, maps, etc. Below as an example I wrote regarding species.

Nutshell: good file name (binominal, scientific, following convention) is better, but renaming generating credit/license difficulties, we rename only when the new name is comparatively clearly better.
  • Scientific names
  1. File:Homo Sapiens.jpg should not be renamed to File:Homo sapiens.jpg. Even though the naming conventions of binomial nomenclature state that the second name should be lowercase, it is not critical.
  2. File:Homosapiens.jpg should be renamed to File:Homo sapiens.jpg, simply on the basis that it is misleading.
  3. File:Homo-sapiens.jpg should not be renamed to File:Homo sapiens.jpg. A dash is not a big deal.
  4. File:P0007320.jpg should be renamed to File:Homo sapiens male.jpg. Suppose File:Homo sapiens.jpg is already taken. Adding whether it's a male or female makes good unambiguity for the title.
  5. File:Homo sapiens.jpg should not be renamed to File:Homo sapiens male.jpg. Even though the "male" part contributes to the title's unambiguity, Homo sapiens alone is perfect.
  6. File:Homo sapiens with blue eyes and black hair.jpg should not be renamed to File:Homo sapiens.jpg. Internationalisation is not as important as a well descriptive title in this case.
  • Common names

Scientific names are always preferred, and should be used at the time of upload. Common names, however, are not critical and should be changed to its scientific name only when there's a backup reason.

  1. File:House Sparrow.jpg should not be renamed to File:Passer domesticus.jpg unless the author requests. It is not critical using the common name.
  2. File:House sparow.jpg should be renamed to File:Passer domesticus.jpg because it is misleading. Since you are renaming a typo, you might as well switch to the scientific name while you're at it.
  3. File:House sparrow.jpg should not be renamed to File:Passer domesticus.jpg. Again, common names aren't a big deal. And don't worry about capitalisation.

If we can arrange a guide page that includes something like the above, file movers and administrators may get a better idea of what and what not to rename. The advice in general can be discussed, of course. Thoughts? ZooFari 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If we follow your logic, half of the images in Category:Homo sapiens, in Category:Passer domesticus (male) and consequentently in Commons are to be renamed. --Foroa (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see that; give an example. ZooFari 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally I see no reason for a guide like that but if other users are in doubt it is ok with me to make one in the areas that are most difficult to handle. --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In 2 of the 3 series of ZooFari's renames (1, 2), a different edit summary would have avoided part of the questions. -- User:Docu at 05:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - seems useful, but regarding #2 why doesn't this rename has the "male" in it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We know that the common name for plants are not common, and that often there are regional common names that relate to different species. Also in this situation I think that it avoids language variations for the same animals. So I think that we clearly enunciate the principle, example with the nutshell and not get too fussed on too many examples, and leave it to admins and movers to sort it. Rejecting a move is a simple process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the rules are to reduce the work load of renaming. Everyone would want good file names and the renaming rules exist to prioritise. I think that a Featured Picture or a Featured Picture Candidate should be renamed to a name that closely follows all the guidelines if request is made. In the long run, I think that this could reduce the number of files to rename, because properly named FPs would set a good example for file names. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

example on policy page

"File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg" did get renamed; didn't know that it was singled out here before mentioning it on the "Village pump" page... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more and more exceptions granted to the rename rules, rename requests pile more and more up, references are made to all sorts of precedents "besides" the rules, and finally the requests will block up for ever because no one will have the courage to do continuously serve them or waste his time with such futilities. --Foroa (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
To the contrary. Before we introduced the filemover group the rename queue had about 1100 files. Afterwords it has been steadily declining to currently 400. It is just a matter of time until it only contains very recent ones.--DieBuche (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont believe that for a second: a big list just refrains people from using it. I bet that you will never manage to keep that list nearly empty for 4 weeks. Especially since nobody seems to respect nor inforce the rules. With the current attitude, the list will contain in a couple of weeks thousands items again, and nobody will be prepared to waste most of his time to such futile work (in the sense that it does not really improves Commons, you will not translate the Chinese, Arab, Russian ... file names neither). --Foroa (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of mentioning it here as a file not to be moved, since it's been moved for this very reason? If you believe that it shouldn't have been moved, mentioning it seems to be counterproductive because it shows that others disagree with you, and if you believe that it should have been moved, mentioning it seems to be un-useful because it's not serving the purpose that it was meant to serve. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a point. I noticed that many file renames are requested even if the request is not justified by our rules. But there is always a precedent (as one of the thousands above) or an administrator that allows for it or does it for them. If one removes rename requests for unjustified renames, very quickly, it gets reverted for all sorts of side-reasons, of course never for the commons moving rules. No wonder that nobody manages to work on those renames for more than a couple of weeks: it is just hopeless, while wasting significant energy for cosmetic changes. --Foroa (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't remove rename requests when there's a very specific and reasonable motivation for renaming, such as File:Orthodox Jews protest against Israel.jpg‎.. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care about this whole issue; I simply don't see the point of saying "This is an image that shouldn't be moved" when the image has. Foroa, what's the point of including a statement that's now been proven factually incorrect? It's like saying "We don't have any images named 'Image.jpg'" even after someone uploads an image under that name. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I would never have posted to Village Pump if I hadn't happened to upload File:Korean flag 1944 United States stamp detail.jpg‎ under its original name "File:Korean flag 1944 Unites States stamp detail.jpg‎" (the fatal typo)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
@Nyttend: we decline tens of remove requests for stupid typo's, spacings, order of words, clarifications, better names, ... When we decline such moves, people get obset and are saying this and this and this one have been moved, so you are out of your mind. I checked, and an experienced user can handle 20 to 30 renames an hour, so we need a person that has one or 2 hours time per day to keep up with the so called need. So the more move examples that you give that are against the rules, the more requests we will have to handle/decline/discuss. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find a new sample on Special:MostLinkedFiles or en:Special:MostLinkedFiles even if they tend to get filled by templates. How about File:IxyD200-0030.jpg that shouldn't be renamed to File:IXY D200-0030.jpg  Docu  at 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Here's a quick usernote template which outlines some of the process. I'd propose adding it to all new filemovers. --DieBuche (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Anyone have an objection to me adding Miszabot archiving to the page? I was thinking of giving it a 180 day hold-period.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Wangari Maathai potrait by Martin Rowe.jpg

That file should be renamed, having a typo in the filename of an widely used file is not a decoration for this project but a shame and does not reflect our quality standards. An admin who orders the rename will make sure that all usage in all projects is replaced, if not by delinker then by hand. Revoking rename just with the argument that the file is "widely used" is an lazy argument. --Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • As an ordinary user with the rename flag I have denied the rename not on laziness, but on guideline. The guideline says single letter typos in widely used images should not be renamed. Admittedly the example given in the guidelines is for an image with thousands of uses, and this image is not used that many times. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There is an conflict between the examples "Yes5" and "No3". No matter this individual file: The example "No3" does not sound ok. Do not rename the typo in "File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg"....? Hell, rename it and create an redirect, thats an typo in an videly used, highly visible file, thats not appropriate for no project. --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That file was even renamed, but Foroa insisted on keeping it as an example. All Wikipedias get about 10mio edits monthly, 500 more or less done by the Delinker won't change anything--DieBuche (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File rename or re-upload

Is file re-naming always preferred to re-uploading and tagging the earlier upload for deletion?

My question is about the general case, but in particular about the meaningless name of File:Media.ogv which is only used on one page and is easily renamed, but any user could re-upload it to a useful name.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because this keeps the history around. The title could be protected afterwards. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker work

After rename of file, there is no need to give a work to CD?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Filename blacklist affecting legitimate rename

I need an admin to rename this file as it's running into the Hagger filter. File:Daniel Haggrty USMC.jpg needs to be moved to File:Daniel A. Haggerty USMC.jpg. Thanks! ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done MBisanz talk 04:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New reason for renaming? (e.g. "Selfportrait.jpg" --> "Painter's Name - Selfportrait.jpg")

I suggested renaming one of the files, but one of the admins refused saying that such case is not included as a justified cause for renaming. So I would like to start a discussion on this matter. It regards paintings, but I think it is in fact far more general and may include any works of art. I found a picture of Monet's painting named "5. La casa entre las rosas.jpg‎". I thought such a name is highly ambiguous, despite being the actual title of the painting, so I suggested changing it into "Claude Monet - The House among the Roses.jpg" (a change of language is a different issue not to be discussed here). I know the renaming rules on this page don't include such a reason, but here are my arguments:
The guidelines say: "change meaningless bio-names into binomial scientific names" and "File:TowerBridge'09.jpg should not be renamed to File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg only because the latter looks a bit better." I think changing "title.jpg" into "painter - title.jpg" is analogous to the above case of scientific names. Because the painter's name is as important in painting's filename as a proper spieces name in a picture of animal. IMHO it would not look "a bit better", but "whole lotta better". I think that it would be very useful on Commons if a search for "Monet" would return all the files with his paintings. Just like with pictures of animals named with a proper scientific name... "La casa entre las rosas.jpg" is completely meaningless from the "art" point of view. It's not a unique name like "Mona Lisa" or "Venus de Milo".
In fact, in my opinion such case as this described above could be easily classified as:
a) a change of a meaningless name, or
b) a change on the basis of analogy to the scientific names issue,
without changing the renaming guidelines at all. But since one of the admins decided otherwise, I ask for the opinion of the community:
1. Is a change of "generic title.jpg" into "painter - generic title.jpg" allowed under current renaming guidelines?
And if not,
2. Would it be justified to add a fresh rule to the guidelines to include possibility of renaming meaningless titles of works of art by adding the artist's name?
Marac (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about filenames. Try to make sure that the description uses {{artwork}}. Descriptions are meant to be given in this template, not in the filename.  Docu  at 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Like I wrote in a thread below, I just want the rules to be clear and consistent... If nobody searches by filenames and they are meaningless, OK - I can live with such assumption (even if I don't agree with it), but then no filenames should be changed at all, even "image30.jpg" and the likes. We may update their descriptions as well, or may we not? Maybe the uploader prefers his gallery to have "imageXX.jpg" names? But if filenames are (more or less) important and we decide to change ambiguous filenames, then "Edinburgh bus", "scary spider" and "house.jpg" are as ambiguous as "unknown spider.jpg". I started this discussion just because I saw there is a possibility to rename a file and my candidate qualified as ambiguous according to the current rules. If the community is against renaming, let's remove such possibility and use descriptions, as suggested above. And like Ultra7 pointed out, descriptive filenames are enormously useful not only for searching, but also for browsing through a category. You don't see a file description there, just a filename. Marac (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If it was my choice, we renamed no file names or only the really misleading ones. Much more than half of the file name renames are useless, use plenty of system and human resources and create all sorts of problems with the Commons clients. As you showed clearly, you can argue till more than 4 to 5 million of files get a "proper" name. --Foroa (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't forget about changing the upload form then, too. Now it encourages to give meaningful names stating that people search by filenames. It should state "Don't bother with filenames, nobody searches this way. Just remember to write a description and give a proper category." Marac (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Double extension

I think we can add files which have double extensions to COM:FR#What files should be renamed?; such as File:Poststraße Freiburg 1908-1912 9 C. A. Meckel.jpg.jpg. Your input is appreciated. Thank you. – Kwj2772 (msg) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The amount of those files is minimal, I think. ZooFari 02:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Only if they are the same. Something like "File:Example.svg.png" indicates it's likely a PNG thumbnail of a SVG. In most cases these should be deleted and renaming would hide that fact. Rocket000 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Rocket. .jpg.jpg is annoying.  Docu  at 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to loooong name

Hello, just found one of my photos File:Edinburgh guided bus01 2005-01-30.jpg moved to File:Lothian Buses guided bus 129G Volvo B7RLE Wright Eclipse Urban SN04 NJE Harlequin livery Route 22 roof branding.jpg and while I certainly can ask the file-mover "why?" I want to ask here what benefits outweigh the use of 114 characters, introduction of non-alphanumeric characters and removing the date in the file name. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Methinks it is a clear case of Commons:File_renaming#What files should not be renamed?--Klaus with K (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think that a long file name is a problem if the name is meaningful. I do not think that you should look in "what should not be renamed" but in "what should be renamed". The rule is that we do not move files unless we have a valid reason to move. So unless the file meets one of the criterias it should not have been renamed. I do not know which reason was used to justify this move because I do not think that any of them were obvious. --MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It was me who renamed it. I was previously unaware that I needed to ask permission to rename other people's files (although I understood nobody owned their images here?), or that FR was so restrictive and that as long as a filename was not incorrect, it can be as vague as anything. Having been working on it, there are now around 180 images of Edinburgh buses here, all with different aspects to the images, all explained in the filename, so in my opinion, filenames like 'Edinburgh guided bus01' are not exactly helpful for this project. I understand the technical reasons for not renaming unnecessarily, but I think if that aspect alone is what is long term holding up filenames from being improved, it really should be rethought. Ultra7 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Ultra7. This is exactly the same problem that I describe above with regard to paintings. 'Edinburgh guided bus01' is not formally incorrect, but it is useless. By the way, I'm wondering how come the biologists managed to force inclusion of scientific names in renaming guideline... Because it is again the same issue... "Scary spider on my ceiling 03.jpg" is not incorrect. So for the guideline to be consistent, it shouldn't be changed into "Hogna_radiata_03.jpg" just because it would be more precise. Just like we are not allowed to change a generic Edinburgh bus into a specific Edinbough bus or a generic house into a specific house as the object of a painting by a famous artist. Marac (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That biology rule is about names like "Unknown insect.jpg" that get identified after upload. It says nothing about names like "Scary spider on my ceiling 03.jpg". If there's a file called "Unidentified bus 01.jpg" it's perfectly ok to rename it if someone can identify it. Rocket000 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"That biology rule is about names like "Unknown insect.jpg""
Is it, really? Then the rule is redundant, because it duplicates the rule "change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays"
But OK, let's assume you're right. Then... May I ask someone with renaming privileges for a favour? I just identified the file "5. La casa entre las rosas.jpg‎" to be a painting by a famous painter. May we rename it to "Claude Monet - The House among the Roses.jpg", in accordance with the identification rule?
By the way... Why are you so focused on the word unknown? "Edinburgh bus" is as ambiguous as "Unknown bus" and "scary spider" is as useful on Commons as "unknown spider". They are meaningless. Who would search Commons for "Edinburgh bus" (any Edinburgh bus will do? then why it has to be from Edinburgh?) or a "scary spider"? Nobody. The files will just sink into the abyss of eternally unused pictures clogging the servers and will lie there beside image030.jpg, DSC_1342.jpg and bus.jpg (the last one identified as showing a bus, so cannot be changed according to the current interpretation of the policy). Marac (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think searching is done mainly by filenames. It is mostly done either by Special:Search that searches the whole content of the file description, or by looking at images in categories where only the first 20-25 characteres are displayed. So as long as the files have good descriptions and are categorised in relevant categories I don't think the filename matters that much. Some people prefer long descriptive names and will not like it if their file is renamed to a short name. And some prefer short names and will not like it if their file is renamed to copy much information from the file description. So unless the name is really bad we may as well leave files with the name choosen by the uploader and add missing information to the file description to make it searchable. /Ö 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want some consistency... If nobody searches by filenames and they are meaningless, OK - I can live with such assumption (even if I don't agree with it), but then no filenames should be changed at all, even "image30.jpg" and the likes. We may update their descriptions as well, or may we not? Maybe the uploader prefers his gallery to have "imageXX.jpg" names? But if filenames are (more or less) important and we decide to change ambiguous filenames, then "Edinburgh bus", "scary spider" and "house.jpg" are as ambiguous as "unknown spider.jpg". I started this discussion just because I saw there is a possibility to rename a file and my candidate qualified as ambiguous according to the current rules. If the community is against renaming, let's remove such possibility and use descriptions, as suggested above. Marac (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Commenting on the rename that started this thread: (pro-in general) meaningful is better than meaningless; generic or out-of-camera names carry a high risk of not being unique; file names are not protected by -BY- licence element (contra-in general) long file name not necessary for search (contra-in this specific case) information loss-datum discarded; file name too long to be useful-cropped in several display modes, awkwardly long when editing, too long for even fairly recent file systems. My personal recommendation: if the file name does exceed one line in the title of the file description page, then it is too long. -- Klaus with K (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
One more argument for renaming meaningless filenames. People that are against argue that a proper category will do. And what if someone removes a category and nobody notices? Then "house.jpg" carelessly removed from "Category:Paintings by Claude Monet" is lost forever. It's like it was never uploaded. Anyone can remove categories, edit descriptions, but filenames are protected, so it will be always possible to find "Claude Monet - house (1884).jpg" no matter what people will do with its placement in the Commons' structure. Marac (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Klaus, you can just ask for the files to be renamed back to their original filename. Ultra7 was already reminded to keep in mind Commons policy when renaming files.  Docu  at 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
First I'll watch the discussion for a few more days. -- Klaus with K (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Where did this idea come about that people own 'their' files, that's what I want to know. It is quite ridiculous frankly. As for the various arguments against long filenames, these filenames are used for searching, and several other navigation and recognition functions, just because some people personally don't do it, don't assume others don't. And any argument that pits slight inconvenience versus loss of actual functionality and meaning, is not a valid argument at all in my mind. Ultra7 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the file is named "unknown xxx.jpg" then the name would be misleading if subject has been identified. Therefore those files can be renamed. It is very used when plants and animals are uploaded to upload them as "Unknown xxx".
Users do not "own" their files but it is a long practice not to rename files without a really good reason. If we gave everyone the rights to move files I'm sure we would have thousands of files moved every day messing up Wikipedia and other sites around the world. Most users only move their file once so I think it is a good exception to the rule not to move unless name is wrong etc.
As for "Claude Monet...(name of work)" I'm sure that some users would think that the name should be "Monet, Claude ..." and some would probably think that the file should be named "(Name of work) by Claude Monet" etc. so I think we would get a log of moving without any extra benefits.
Besides we just can't say "I think it is a silly rule we have not to rename xxx so I do it anyway!" --MGA73 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You are not seriously comparing gain from changing
"house.jpg" into "Claude Monet - house.jpg"
with gain from changing
"Claude Monet - house.jpg" into "Monet, Claude - house.jpg",
are you?
Who says such changes should be allowed under (hopefully) updated policy? Who says we should just let anybody mess with names? Who used arguments that can be described as "I think it is a silly rule we have not to rename xxx so I do it anyway!"? I think we gave many arguments above and summing them up with "I think it is a silly rule we have not to rename xxx so I do it anyway!" is pretty unfair of you... If somebody could say the other side of the dispute behave like "I think it is a silly suggestion so we won't do it!" without almost any reasoning, it would be us... And I don't say only about your absurd comparison. What other arguments against have we heard?
  • "People don't search by filenames" - simply not true.
  • "File owners (whoever they are...) may not like it" - Ultra7 already commented on this absurdity above.
  • "Category and description will do" - what if they are removed?
  • "Unknown house is meaningless, while house is not" - I still don't see any difference in a degree of meaningfulness from the "usefullness of Commons" point of view.
  • "There are far too many renames" (in the Village Pump thread) - this is a reason? really?
  • "Half of the file renames are useless" - well.. isn't it a problem with people renaming, not with a renaming feature itself???
  • "Renaming use resources" - Messing up with categories also use resources - should we stop moving files like "house.jpg" from "Category:Pictures of houses" into "Category:Paintings by Claude Monet"?
  • Did I miss something? I don't think so... So who looks silly now? Marac (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
First I suggest that you avoid commenting the persons you are discussing with. That tends to remove the focus from the real subject.
I felt you had started this first. Please excuse me, if I'm overreacting.
Two things made me comment as I did above. First I told that a rename to "Claude Monet xxx" did not live up to the excisting criteria but you tried to persuade others to move it anyway. Second Ultra7 made some comments that rules were ridiculous. So I just wanted to leave a reminder that rules should be respected even if you do not agree.
I didn't start this discussion to move a single file(!), but to try to change the inconsistent renaming policy. The more so, the file is already gone anyhow.
Are you talking about a real problem with "House.jpg" or is it just an example of what someone might do? If someone does bad edits on purpose we block them. --MGA73 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No, this is just an example. I never noticed anyone removing useful categories on purpose, but it can happen. And not only as an act of vandalism, but simply because he may mistakenly believe the category is wrong/unnecessary.
Let me give you an example from this thread. There is a file "File:Edinburgh guided bus01 2005-01-30.jpg". Let's assume Ultra7 put some categories on it, instead of changing the filename. He knows everything about buses and he placed it in, among others, "Wright Eclipse Urban" category (it is a part of the current filename, but not the part of the old one). The next person visiting the file "Edinburgh guided bus01 2005-01-30.jpg" knows nothing about buses or automotive industry, sees the category and thinks it is some kind of vandalism, 'cause it does not look like a category for buses at the first sight. So he removes the category. Bye bye Edinburgh guided bus01 2005-01-30.jpg... People looking for photos of "Wright Eclipse Urban" won't find you anymore. Marac (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently even files get renamed for random reasons, so placing all that information in the file name isn't really a solution either. Maybe we should place it into exif instead?  Docu  at 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately you just failed badly at ridiculing the issue. How easy is to change a filename and how easy is to change a category? "I think it is a silly suggestion so we won't do it!", right?
It's funny the defenders of status quo don't see their argumentation can be easily turned around (with the same pitiful result): It is easy to change categories, people constantly mess them up, it uses up the resources, so let's block category adding/removing feature. Files can be searched by description. Nobody browses these clogged categories anyhow. This is as true as your arguments regarding filenames. No, wait, in fact I'm pretty sure the last sentence is closer to reality than your "nobody searches by filenames" statement. Marac (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Ultra7 just clicks "move" and types in a new name.  Docu  at 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, really? I didn't know it's so easy. So where is this button, because I cannot find it? Marac (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, as for browsing categories, I just checked:
  • Category:Buses in the United Kingdom - 188 files
  • Category:Guided buses in the United Kingdom - 26 files
  • Category:Lothian Buses - 193 files
  • Category:Volvo B7RLE - 102 files
I wish you luck with searching for "Lothian Buses guided bus 129G Volvo B7RLE Wright Eclipse Urban SN04 NJE Harlequin livery Route 22 roof branding" by browsing categories. Marac (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a new reason: "make filename 'more descriptive' "?

Some users seem to think that many current file names aren't sufficiently descriptive. As the current guideline doesn't include this a reason for renames, I think we should try to sort out if we want to add this. Please advise if you want this to be added. --  Docu  at 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DisagreeYou continue your efforts to ridicule the suggestion. You made the new reason so broad, to be sure everyone would be against it. Thank you. You could just wrote **** you. Would be shorter. Marac (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't see any justification for your attack on Docu.
So you apparently didn't follow the preceding discussion. If you did, you would understand my bitterness, I think.
Please strike your comment using <s></s>. That said, I don't think we are quite ready for a poll. When and if that time comes, perhaps you can work with Docu to formulate a proposal that you can both agree upon. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I won't strike anything, 'cause I don't feel I did something inappropriate. If you think I did, feel free to strike whatever you like. I'm outta this thread anyhow. Have fun with your useful, consistent and logical rules. Marac (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Docu genraly. Maybe with limites like: simple, not too much descriptive ect. Geagea (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think 'descriptive' is vague and unclear for a reason of renames. We need to define the mean of "descriptive" clearly before adding this. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

mass renames?

I just found this image File:Naked Pictures of Bea Arthur 0001.jpg here, one from a series of many with that name Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by Naked Pictures of Bea Arthur. Too be honest I don't find that so amusing, because first of all the name of the image is very misleading, second of all it's very disrespectful to the late Bea Arthur. While I understand that Wikis Take Manhattan teams have funny names, this particular one should have never been allowed in the first place. Is there a way to request mass changes of a particular series? Gryffindor (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on file renaming relating to this guideline

There is a discussion at "File talk:Szent Anna templom, Bácsújlak (Saint Anne Roman Catholic Church, Bačko Novo Selo, Vojvodina, Serbia) - 20070501.jpg" that concerns the application of this guideline. Please join the discussion and share your thoughts there. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)