Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2013

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Too general names

There are listed "misleading names" and "completely meaningless names" as admissible reason. However, in some cases, some file names are too general (Portrait.jpg, House.jpg, Paris_2767.JPG) and almost hollow but not "completely meaningless" nor "misleading". Shouldn't we formulate and delimit this reason as legitimate too? --ŠJů (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is up to the user, I only wanted to inform him about the meaning of his username. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As I can see, Flemish is very devout language. Almost every sacral word is used as swearword. It is very uplifting for me to be compared with Holy God and saints. :-) --ŠJů (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We just closed a discussion about short filenames above. Why start a new discussion allready (5 days after #Conclusion)? As said abowe we use description and categories to make it possible to find and use files. We do NOT use file names.
All that renaming is not usefull and waste of time and it may even be harmfull because files can be used outside Wikipedia (other websites and books) and redirects are deleted all the time as unneeded etc. If any of you think you have to little to do there are thousands of files to categorize and check etc. Just check the backlogs. --MGA73 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
For this reason redirects should not be deleted. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion of the previous discussion was that a file shouldn't be renamed "only because the name is very short" and I utterly support such conclusion. The disscusion was badly based. The reason should be lack of meaning, not shortness of the name. --ŠJů (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MGA73 and the discussion #Conclusion, above. Also note that this would almost certainly lead to needing to decide where on the slippery slope a filename stopped being "almost hollow." --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per above. Anyway, file names will always be too general as similar images are joined. Another opening for endless debates. --Foroa (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, should be like article renaming. When the file Paris_2045.jpg show a given, identified building or item, it should --or COULD-- be rename in a more meaningful way "Paris 13th area, Italy Place Lion.jpg". So the file name still make sense when downloaded. Yug (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment until the 2 bugs at Commons:Bugs#File_naming are fixed, file renaming should only be done when necessary, not just for small-to-medium improvements in naming. Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the greater the complexity the rationales for renaming become the greater the ability we give for the creation of drama. Add to that the definition of too general is too expansive to be reasonable, we only need to see how frequently images get recategorised as categories get expanded to see that what was once sufficiently specific ok is no longer;
    • a horse becomes
      • a bay horse which becomes
        • dun horses which becomes
          • Equus przewalskii‎ which becomes
            • Equus przewalskii anatomy‎ which then becomes
              • Przewalski horse heads‎
  • potentially over time what was ok became to general one image could over time have multiple names changes just following this example that is absolutely crazy making it too complex for anyone to follow an images history, and ensure providence of the licensing. While the image log may show each of those changes for that image it each rename creates a places where providence can be broken reusers cant be reasonably assured that when they use an image and give credit that they'll be compliant with the licensing. Renaming needs compelling reasons I see nothing compelling with this proposal. Gnangarra 07:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Renaming something just to get a slightly better name has long been undesirable. I see no reason why that should change. Also per the discussion above. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment To avoid misunderstanding: I don't support a thesis that a file name should be a complete and unambiguous description of the file. I prefer brief and practical names. However, extremely general names (almost meaningless) should be treated similarly as completely meaningless names. Btw., the current #4 count File:Unknown_insect_02.jpg or File:Unidentified_flowers_HFJ.jpg as "meaningless bio-names" although they are neither misleading nor meaningless. I'm not sure – is File:Insect.jpg or File:Flowers.jpg more "meaningless" than these examples? I hope, nobody judicious will oppose renaming of such files. In my view, we should enable such renames. I think, #4 should be not limited to bionames and should be a bit generalized. The main problem is to avoid overuse and misuse of such reason. --ŠJů (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed?

Why is wording in "an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons" struck through as if inapplicable or disputed? Shouldn't it simply be removed? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The policy is mostly the result of the buggy behaviour of MediaWiki which may be fixed in a few months or years. I thought that more people would possibly watch the bugzilla discussion and I am not sure whether the statement was ever true. -- Rillke(q?) 10:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Help - sanity check, please - MY FIRST USEs OF COMMONS DELINKER.

The edit I'm planning to do that would be MY FIRST USE OF COMMONS DELINKER is described here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report_by_Elvey and I'd like someone to sanity check that the edit is appropriate in that the renaming I'm trying to do is 1)appropriate, and 2) something that the edit I'm trying to do will cause CommonsDelinker to do. Thanks. (Oh, and it would be appropriate to use CommonsDelinker to make a global edit like this, right?) --Elvey (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See my reply at Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report_by_Elvey. Rd232 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. What about the parenthetical, above? That seems more clearly appropriate - simple replacement of an image on many wikis with an obviously better drop-in replacement.--Elvey (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that (I thought it was the same issue and didn't click the link.). Yes, that should be fine. You need to be very careful with image replacements (you never know who might object), but that one seems a small and uncontroversial improvement. Rd232 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh well. While I was taking a long break, the ability to make a global edit like this got way more complicated, because the improved version of the image (Delagoa Bay00.jpg) was moved, twice, by Adrignola and Lotje, and it seems that somehow the improved version (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ADelagoa+Bay00.jpg uploaded by Rotational has been submerged and I don't know how to get it back. I'm not going to revert a move to try to do so and risk controversy over this. I think I'll drop the idea. Same as with the template move prompted by your edit. :)--Elvey (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

The guideline does not state what should be done about the redirects that are misleading. For meaningless names (criteria 2) and meaningless bio-names (criteria 4) i am redirecting the old name to File:Name.jpg. But what do we do with files moved under misleading names (criteria 3)? For examples, if an image is called "Apple" and it actually is a "Banana", is there some speedy delete option? If yes, that should be mentioned in the guidelines. If no, what should be done with such wrong redirects? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously misleading redirects can be deleted with common-sense-justification. {{speedydelete|was a misleading redirect}}. This is not mentioned at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Rillke(q?) 11:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Would it be harmful to put that in the guideline then? I clearly did not have that common sense. There might be others like me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that someone finds this would be a loophole but simply try it. Suggestion
“ Misleading redirects: Obviously misleading redirects can be deleted when they are not in use. ”
-- Rillke(q?) 12:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason for redirecting after file moves is to not break links to the file. Redirecting to some other file, such as Image:Name.jpg, breaks links just as much as deleting the redirect. If a file name really is meaningless there is no harm in redirecting to the new filename since noone will expect it to mean something else either.
If a file name means something completely different than the content of the file, I think deleting the redirect can be considered. /Ö 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"Not in use?". Well that is the problem. You can only see usage in wiki projects but what about the rest of the Web? And printed books magazines? You do not have a chance to check those. That is why our renaming policy is that you DO NOT move files just to make it look a bit nicer. Moving files is an exception that is only done in a few limited cases. --MGA73 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Undo a renaming?

Where is the place to ask for making the renaming of one of my files undone? File:Morton 05.2009d.jpg was renamed to File:Die österreichische Band "Morton".jpg and I can see no reason for that. The original file name shows the name of the band, when it was taken (May 2009) and that it is the fourth (a, b, c, d) of a series of pictures; see Category:Morton (band) for the others. The new name only keeps the name of the band, the rest (in English: The Austrian band "Morton") is rather a file description than a file name, while eliminating the original info on date and chronology. Also it is to general. Any picture of this band can be named like that (if one wanted to give it such a name). --Tsui (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File has been moved back again. I agree that the move does not follow our guideline for file renaming. --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Tsui (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A faster way to rename

I have been slowly chipping away at moving the files in Category:Diagrams of Minnesota county route markers to a new name per criterion 4 (removing the word Route from all of the filenames) and the tedium of moving each file individually has prevented me from finishing the moves already. Is there a faster way to perform file renames that I don't know about? –Fredddie™ 04:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File renaming adds heavy load to the servers (due to its poor implementation in MediaWiki) and has other disadvantages like breaking hotlinked image inclusions. That's why I don't write a batch tool (also because Multichill would kill me :-) If you are familiar with JavaScript, you can use the API to iterate over all category members. I hate this kind of reply but I am sorry that I can't help here. -- Rillke(q?) 09:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You could use Pywikipediabot, as:
import pywikibot
from pywikibot import catlib
commons=pywikibot.Site('commons','commons')
for page in pywikibot.Category(commons, u'Category:Diagrams of Minnesota county route markers').articles():
	page.move(newtitle, reason, movetalkpage, sysop, deleteAndMove, safe)

--Ricordisamoa 11:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this care about replacing file usage in the WMF cluster and updating existing redirects (for this type of operation it is perhaps not required, though)? Also, I would like to draw your attention at COM:VP#File moves and inactive Commons Delinker. -- Rillke(q?) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't exactly a high priority, so I can wait until CD comes back. –Fredddie™ 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects II

Following from above, is there a proceedure to deliberately break links to renamed images? Suppose from the above example, a photo of a banana named File:Apple.jpg has been placed in 100 apple articles in 100 different languages. Obviously one does not want all those apple articles to be illustrated with a banana labelled as an apple. But going in to edit 100 articles, mostly in languages one isn't familiar with, isn't really a viable option. In such cases, is it legitimate to delete the redirect so the misidentified image is removed from all those articles? - MPF (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think common sense says "yes" :-) But one should be absolutely sure that it is wrongly used. -- Rillke(q?) 22:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was this page discouraged and removed from translation?

Is there a particular reason or is it just because the translationadmin did not properly prepare the page or did not paste everything into the new system? -- Rillke(q?) 19:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The translation was not merged in the New System and the History was not merged.--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

missing rename criteria

unless i'm not seeing it, there is no criteria for

"rename to resolve filename conflict with another wikiproject" (in my case wp/en)

if it's not there somewhere, then that reason really needs to be added to the list...

Lx 121 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Which files should not be renamed #3: If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one. --Didym (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
...& you really, honestly cannot conceive of any situations where this rule might not apply? where it might be a problem, or a bad idea? not even when the file @ a wikipedia predates the commons file, or the commons file is brand new, or the commons file shares a name with an in-use file @ say wp/en, & that file is inelligible for transfer to commons, & the commons file is also needed for use on wp/en? or when an in-use wp/en file is likely to be copied over to commons eventually, possibly overwriting the commons file?
because, if that's our policy, then somebody needs to explain that over @ ALL the other wiki-projects. since they do not all seem to be in agreement with commons over this particular issue.
Lx 121 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If you start moving files for en.wp, I will oppose for de.wp, meta etc. (I will certainly find reasons) and move the file back to the location where it was. As for transferring a file; this should be no issue as long as the bot/user instructing the bot is intelligent enough not to choose the same name and if Wikipediae admins type the correct summary when deleting the file and replace their usage before. There is no "real" move to Commons. The file is actually copied over and then deleted by a wp admin or bot manually. Regarding shadows, wp must either move their file or they request a feature in MediaWiki that allows specifying the image-repo (local/commons).
A general rule: As long as you do not give people reasons for complaints, you can move using common sense. -- Rillke(q?) 15:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Lx 121's filemover rights--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we reword criteria #6?

Criteria #6 starts with the word harmonize, and I think that's where most users who request a move per #6 stop reading. I get lots (in fact almost all) requests for a #6 rename to be not compatible, I therefore request we reword the criteria from:

Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)

To:

Alter file names (so that only one part of all names differs in a set of images) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)

This highlights the template part of the rename, and completely removes the word harmonize, I feel this would greatly reduce the amount of #6 requests and increase understand of what it is designed for. I would also request that the drop down for the RenameLink script be changed to Template usage (I unfortunately can't see what it says now, but if it says Harmonize I would at the very least request that that be changed). I await the responses of others. Liamdavies (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather say, the problem is that people are asking to harmonize image names on basis of their personal feelings without a compulsing argument why the naming scheme they propose should be used and not another one. The result might be even more messy or POV or at least not convincing enough to justify the work induced by moving the individual files.
To improve the situation, I wouldn't completely take out the word "harmonize", nor would I further restrict the validity of this criterium. Actually, clarifying scope and procedures would lead to less arbitrary move requests, even if in the end the scope was slightly extended.
Finally, if correctly applied, the use of senseful naming standards is/would be a major improvement to Commons just as it is in Wikipedia. So my proposal is:
Harmonize file names of a set of images:
  • to ease their usage in existing templates, so that only one part of all names differs (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps),
  • or if in a Commons project there is a explicit and clear agreement on a specific naming scheme.
  • or if only a clear minority of images with names deviating from a de-facto convention.
This would have the additional advantage that people are referred to discuss naming conventions in the respective Commons project.
My two cents, --PanchoS (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would think that if an individual project has a need for a certain naming convention, for a template then creating a derivative set of smaller files would be more appropriate alternative and less demanding on servers. Uploaded under that set to the project they could also then enjoy the benefits of cascading protection where they are on highuse templates. Then #6 name changes would be for true harmonization as per the example. Gnangarra 16:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • PanchoS, what you're suggesting is completely different to what I am, and has the potential to greatly increase the number of rename requests and in turn the workload on file movers. I don't wish to change the guidelines, just alter the wording to make it clearer that it is for harmonisation for template usage (and no other). We do not currently harmonise for any other reason (which is why I denied those coat of arms rename requests), as pointed out above renaming takes up time (it just took me an hour and ten minutes to rename 32 files, that's about two minutes per file) and puts strain on the servers. It should only be done when needed, not because an individual wants all the images in a cat to look a certain way. And it is the latter usage that people most request a criteria #6 rename, and then they get annoyed when I - due to policy - deny it. I want it made much clearer than it isn't for harmonisation, but for template usage (which requires incredibly similar file names, BSicons for example). Yes Gnangarra, that would be completely ok, but it doesn't matter how the wording goes that would be ok. Just to clarify, I do not seek to change rename policy, just reword it so that there are less mistaken requests - I want to stop the requests from people who want all the images in a cat to be harmonised, but solely for aesthetics, not for template usage on a wiki. Liamdavies (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Categorization and labelling of works depicting Chelsea Manning

Please comment at Commons:Village_pump#Categorization_and_labelling_of_works_depicting_Chelsea_Manning. Please don't comment here, to avoid fragmenting discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Empire/Iberian Union

User:LTblb has created a new file File:Spanish Empire in 1581.png by reuploading an old one File:Iberian Union Empires.png. There are a couple of problems with this. First he has claimed it as his own work; even though this is a public domain image I do not believe that is permissible. Secondly his new upload has stripped the file of its metadata such as an associated talk page which very interestingly disputes the accuracy of the information herein. I would suggest that this user submit a formal request to move the file except his ultra-nationalistic POV demonstrated on the English Wikipedia lead me to believe that there is perhaps a bias against Portugal here that needs to be addressed first, however my limited knowledge of Iberian history does not permit me to comment on whether the old name or the new name is more accurate. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:File_renaming/Archive/2013&oldid=125839605"