Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2015

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

Long file names?

What's the renaming policy on extremely long file names? Is there one? Illegitimate Barrister 09:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename tool 'stalling'

I've been having a reoccurring issue with renaming files this evening. While processing a rename request, the file moves, but then the gadget/tool/thingie hangs at the 'Moving file' stage. The only way out I've found is to reload/close the tab, but this ends the process and means the redundant template has to be manually removed. Although not a great issue, I am yet to rename a file in use on Wiki, and an unsure if the file's usage will be fixed with my account, or a request be given to commons delinker (the only file that was used, on Commons, didn't have it's usage updated). Is this an issue isolated to me? And if so what should I do to remedy it? If it is wide spread what should we do in the time being, and how long until the issue gets resolved? ColonialGrid (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes had to wait more than 20 minutes at some stage until the process seemed to be finished, but I don't know of a case where it completely stopped working. --Didym (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The tool works fine for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice from a maintainer: The script is supposed to show an error dialogue in case an error happens; if it doesn't it's presumably broken. Sometimes I experienced long running XHRs, there is nothing to guard against this atm. I was in the middle of rewriting the tool when I suddenly run out of time. The re-write would have had a "stuck watcher" which would have allowed to report technical details in case of such an event.

@ColonialGrid: Does it still happen? Did you delete your browser cache? I recently made some changes to dependencies and someone reported to me that /w/load.php is sometimes not responding. This is what possibly happens: Script is waiting for a dependent module to load but load.php does not respond. How frequently does it happen (how many times out of your total moves)? Are you using WiFi or a mobile or another connection which is somehow broken periodically or randomly for short a short time? Can you tell me which browser you are using and which your geo-location approximately is? I have to ask all this because MediaWiki still has no means to automatically collect such information/ and or I have no access to. And finally, if it frequently happens, can you please open the Network monitoring panel (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+I for most browsers or F12 for IE; then press "network*" (panel or tab) and reload the page, then proceed as normal) on a file description page you want to move and tell me whether there is a resource that is loading forever? -- Rillke(q?) 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I just cancelled this files move after waiting about half an hour; I completed the file usage changes and removed the template manually. It has happened continually from all moves I have made after this one, this edit being the one I noticed the glitch on (note the ten minute wait), it has happened continually from this point. I have tried restarting my browser, and the computer, but not yet cleared my cache (I will do that after this edit and report back). I am connected to a HFC internet service through a DOCSIS3 modem connected by cat5e ethernet cable, my internet service is located in Australia. My browser is the latest Firefox version (35.0.1). Thanks for your help. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tried clearing my cache, but found no difference. Although I only waited 3 minutes, that is still far longer than usual ([1]). I tried opening the 'Network Monitor' tab in the 'Inspect Element' panel, but didn't see any info; what should I be looking for? It must be happening to others, as these two files ([2], [3]) were in Category:Redundant media renaming requests and I cleared another out earlier. @Medium69: you moved those two files, was your experience the same as mine? ColonialGrid (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It was a mistake on my end, apologies and thanks for reporting. This change was important for privacy reasons but caused a bug so that callbacks were not invoked after an edit/move/delete and thus the script was thinking it was still doing the edit/move/delete. Same issue as this. -- Rillke(q?) 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
it sometimes yes; regularly happen to remove the template manually. There, it was an oversight.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd file extension

What is the policy on odd/malformed file extensions? I'm specifically thinking of File:Stark County Court House From roof of Family court..jpg. While I guess it's not technically incorrect, it doesn't seem like it should be encouraged, since it could easily be mistaken for File:Stark County Court House From roof of Family court.jpg. kennethaw88 • talk 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically, that file doesn't have a "malformed extension" -- rather, it has an extra "." character before the extension... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
... ... and therefore? S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And therefore there's no strictly technical reason for renaming, as there would be if the extension did not match the file MIMEtype, or if the extension were malformed. If the file were on a local computer's hard-drive, then the extension usually would not be displayed, and the visible filename would just end in a ".". It's only when the whole filename is seen that the ".." character sequence may seem a little odd. AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The gap between "completely meaningless" and "looks a bit better"

Some recent conflict involving myself has arisen in part, I think, because of the gap between two parts of this page.

  1. Under "Which files should be renamed?" we have "Aim: Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays" with the example "File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg > File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg"
  2. Under "Which files should not be renamed?" we have "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better" with the example "File:TowerBridge'09.jpg" > File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg"

Both of these rules and examples are perfectly reasonable and should clearly stand, but there's a pretty big gap between them that is not addressed anywhere on the page. That is, of course, that plenty of files are not completely meaningless but not particularly helpful either, and this guideline page provides no guidance for those files.

To pick a somewhat extreme example, what to do with if this photo of a painting is uploaded with the filename Art12311.jpg or France1393920.jpg or Varese12239811.jpg ? None of these filenames is completely meaningless. Nor are they technically inaccurate. The image is of art, the painting is in France, and the artist was from the Italian province of Varese. But these filenames are particularly helpful either. While browsing large and full categories like Category:Bernardino Luini and Category:Paintings of the nativity of Jesus Christ, seeing a file with the filename "Art12311.jpg" gives you very little information. Is it then inappropriate to move because the name is not completely meaningless, or is it acceptable to move the file to something like its current name because it's a significant change (not just "a bit better")?

Reason #4 for legitimate moves ("Change meaningless bio-names into binomial scientific names " e.g. "File:Unknown_insect_02.jpg > File:Hogna_radiata_02.jpg" would seem to suggest that changing unhelpful names into helpful names is both legitimate and useful, but it isn't spelled out as such on this page. Obviously there will sometimes be some disagreement over what is/isn't a more useful name, and those cases would have to be discussed on a per image basis, but this guideline could state that explicitly as well. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The RFC mentioned below should clarify this.    FDMS  4    15:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2

Update is scheduled to take place *now*. -- Rillke(q?) 14:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the string "yog" meaningful for a title?

What do you think about the "File:12-01-19-yog-*" series? Is this title clear enough? I would like to rename them but they are a lot, so I thuogh it was better to ask for an advice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to rename? You can add categories and file description. For example File:12-01-19-yog-038.jpg could be renamed to File:4 people on ice scates and 3 of them have a funny yellow thingies on the hed.jpg or File:1. Jugendolympiade 2012 Innsbruck. Nicole Martinelli (Italien), Aili Xu (China) und Suk Hee Shim (Korea) von links nach rechts. Teilnehmerinnen am Short Track Speed Skating Wettbewerb.jpg. But someone may not like the first version and some may think the second version is too long. I think we should just fix descriptions and categories and accept file names even if we could tink of something better. --MGA73 (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Special:Search/yog yelds other results about Youth Olympic Games not related with this series. Therefore, it seems to be meaningful and quite often used for this meaning.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the "yog" per se... If you had "yog" with at least some additional information, like in the other files we already have, I would consider it even better than replacing with "Young Olimpic Games". I just think that "File:12-01-19-yog-000" is terrible, how can you seriuosly understand anything from the title in this case? No wonder at least one of them was already succesfully renamed. It is a typical wiki-situation: one once in a while is ok, but if you try to address the problem from a general perspective than there are "issues". We are not here to prove a point, we are here to help people finding what they need. I can put better descriptions, create better categories etc (and I do) but the title is a part of this process, and these titles are, IMHO, not helping anyone.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Renaming files waste of time

We have more than 1.000 users than can move files around. My question is why? We have categories and descriptions and that is all we need!

IMO file names are not important. The only requirement is that the name is unique.

If you want to help Commons then why waste it by moving files around? Why not help work on Category:Media needing categories or one of the other categories in Category:Commons media maintenance? We have 209,083 files in Category:Media lacking a description!!! Why not go fix them instead?

The day we have cleared all backlogs and deleted all junk and all copyvios then we can start making names more pretty. But until that day comes I think it is a waste of time to move files around unless we need the file names to have specific names to be able to use them in templates. --MGA73 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment File names are important. It is the main criteria used by search engines (here and by Google) for finding a file. So it is essential that the file name described the subject well. If you don't want to rename files yourself, then fine. But you can't object others doing so. We have had the debate already. Reopening it IS a waste of time. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
+1. Agree with Yann. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
File name = h1 heading of of the file description page and thus important when indexed by search engines = reference in wiki article (recognition by editors) = default sort key in a category (files with a lower sort key are more frequently viewed because they are displayed first in categories) URL (thus again indexed by search engines). Double negation: I wouldn't say that all is not important. -- Rillke(q?) 11:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned I'm moving files around if the names are misleading, because those files get used in the wrong articles in Wikipedia. Happens often enough. That doesn't stop me from uploading pictures, creating categories and from categorization. Everybody can contribute the way he likes to contribute. If you want to know what's really a waste of time in my opinion: meta discussions.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I only rename files encountered as a result of ongoing categorisation exercises - typically of the GB 'geograph' bulk uploads. It is frequently the case that misstated words in titles have historically led to incorrect categorisation by well-meaning editors. Changing/improving them will help prevent the same error happening again. Categories and descriptions are no more 'magic' in their accuracy than titles. S a g a C i t y (talk)
The main criteria for finding files here is and should be categories. You can also find files on Google based on file description. So I don't agree to the argument that it is important to rename files.
If someone use the wrong file in Wikipedia I bet it is not because of the file name alone. If someone upload a picture of "Tom Cruise" and use it in an article of Tom Cruise and later it turns out it is not him but "Tim Cruise" then renaming the file would not help.
And what about "Bill Clinton"? His name is not "Bill" but "William". So you may think file should be called "Bill Clinton ..." and I may think it should be called "William Clinton ..." and others may think it should be called "President William Jefferson Clinton ...". What good does it do for Commons if we move the file around?
Yes sometimes files are categorized wrong because of the file name. But when someone finds the error they could just fix the description and the category and then the problem is solved.
Remember that file can only have a name in one language. File description can be in 100 languages. So if someone choose a name in xxx-language that only 10.000 people understand then the file name is meaningfull only to those 10.000 people. And filenames in chinese or other letters different from the letters I use are meaningless for me. It would be much easier for me with a file name like "DCS634278183.jpg" than "بعض اسم جيد.jpg".
And what about names like "Quercus ..." and "Felis silvestris catus ..." To most people file names like makes no sense. They would understand names like "Oak tree in Central Park" or "Cat looking at a dog". So who are we helping if we rename files to latin names?
It is often said that it does not brake things to rename because we have redirects. They help a lot but it is not a guarantee. And sometimes they make things harder to figure out. For example. If file is uploaded to xx.wikipedia with the name "File A" and moved to Commons and deleted localy. Later someone moves it to "File B". If you click the link to "File A" on xx.wikipedia then the redirect sends you to "File B" on xx.wikipedia. So what? So then you can't easily see the deleted file on xx.wikipedia and you may think that it did not come from xx.wikipedia and nominate the file for deletion.
If we want to avoid conflicting names we should do like with the global users. We should have global filenames so that it is impossible to have local files that shadows Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, this file is a perfect example --> the John Berry (singer) article. Lotje (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A perfect example of what?
The file was in Category:Portraits of John, Duke of Berry both before and after you renamed it. :-)
It could be a an example of en:Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons but conflicts like that could also be fixed by renaming the local files on en.wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
According to en:Template:ShadowsCommons it may brake things if file is renamed on Commons. If the problem still excist can we expect users that rename files on Commons to check and fix any problems every single time they rename a file? --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
who are we helping if we rename files to latin names - those guys who write an encyclopaedia called, errr ... Wikipedia in all languages, especially those who write more than "An Oak tree consists of a wooden stem and green leafs." Guess what, if all names would be latin, you could find all photos available of a species through search. So what is the issue in The main criteria for finding files here is and should be categories - oh, surprise it's the should - this is how actual usage and desired usage differ. On every page you have a search box. Is there really someone who cares about our nested category-shunt? -- Rillke(q?) 19:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that most editors on Wikipedia understand latin?
If file names could replace categories we could stop using categories and stop adding the "Commonscat" templates Wikipedia. But they can't and file names is a bad replacement for good categories.
If you, I or anyone else add a category then problem is fixed. And we do not need delinker or anything else to change all pages that uses the file. We could add 20 categories if we think they are relevant. But what would happen to a file name if someone try to find a file name that include all those categories? Personally I think it would be insane to add the names of people to the file name of images like File:G20 - Cumbre de Cannes - 20011103.jpg.
I agree that it IS a very good idea to add a good file name when you upload files but if someone choose a bad name then it IMO not something we should spend time on trying to fix. Especially not if it is an old file because that file can be used many places on the Internet or in books etc. Remember that Commons is not a photo gallery for Wikipedia. It is a photo gallery for the whole world! So in 50 years someone might be confused because the file have a different name.
When I think of it we should generally not be allowed to upload files on top of a deleted file or to move a file to a location where a deleted file once were. Because unlike on Wikipedia it is in most cases not important that a file has a specific name. You could normally change the name a bit (perhaps adding 1, 2, 3 etc. to the file name).
And yes there is a search box on Commons. Try searching for "Bill Clinton" and see what happens. Do you get a long list of files that have "Bill Clinton" in the file name? I get Bill Clinton and if i click Category:Bill Clinton i can choose 16 subcategories sorted nicely.
If you look at https://www.flickr.com/photos/yahqqligan/320240944 you will notice that Flickr does not use fancy file names. They use numbers. Does that mean that Flickr is not usable? And what about Facebook? Does everything on Facebook have nice names?
If you check https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4813683 you will notice that wikidata also uses numbers to keep everything sorted. What do you think would happen if users started to say "Oh we should rename that because numbers are bad!"? --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
MGA73, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Commons is not a social media, so comparaison with Flickr or worse, Facebook, is irrelevant. You would make a better point to compare with archives like IA, the Library of Congress, the National Library of France, etc., just to name those I use regularly. Indeed, the URLs there are different than the name of the content. So you should propose to change MediaWiki so that URLs and file names are separate. And that would be a great improvement to Commons. But until then, you are crying in the void... Yann (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I use Google site search to search the Commons. For example; Bill Clinton:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+site:commons.wikimedia.org
Also, Google site search of images only (Google image search):
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+site:commons.wikimedia.org&tbm=isch
File names are very important. Making an image visible to more search engines via file renaming is probably more productive than categorizing (Category:Media needing categories), or describing (Category:Media lacking a description).--Timeshifter (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
MGA73; I agree with you. I'm shocked to learn that more than 1000 editors have file mover rights. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I think present criteria to rename files are too broad, and that sometimes some file movers are too bold and even disturbing (just as other editors in other places in Commons), but sometimes renaming a file is helpful. If the name has an obvious error, it's good to fix it.
And the problem of wasting time is not a problem. Here anyone can waste his time as he prefers. And having rights doesn't mean using them often or spending a lot of time using them.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
MAG73, I generally agree with you when you say Renaming files waste of time. But as long as we use names instead of numbers in the file name we always face a reasons to change them. For example: misleading names, offensive names etc. And yes, sticking to the old rule of enforcement our rename policy is better rather than allowing renames just for prettier name. -- Geagea (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wsiegmund: Visiting COM:RfR more frequently could be a good precautionary measure against being shocked next time this debate comes up. -- Rillke(q?) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@MGA73: Do you really think that most editors on Wikipedia understand latin? I don't. Just nitpicking: scientific names for creatures are Latin-like names; they follow Latin grammar but even if you are the best Latin reader, you don't have a chance to decipher most of the scientific species names. The point is that those who write the "Oak article" know the Latin name of the species they are writing about.
So in 50 years someone might be confused because the file have a different name. This issue is made by design of MediaWiki. URLs, especially file URLs should be stable, no matter what. EOD -- Rillke(q?) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway. Lets just asume for a moment that file names are important. Then why do we not create a file name convension and rename all files to match that?

For example we could decide that all photos of a location should be named something like:

  • DK; Odense; House; Author ; Andersen, Hans Christian; 00001.jpg to illustrate that this is a photo of the house of Hans Christian Andersen.
  • Homo sapiens; [some latin name for eye]; blue; 00001.jpg to illustrate a photo of a human eye that is blue
  • USA; President; Obama, Barack; USA; Washington, D.C.; White House; 00001.jpg to illustrate a photo of Barack Obama in the White House
  • Etc.

Some names may be generated by a bot. For example all (?) the monumuments in WLM. They could be named based on the identifyer (all or most momuments have an unique id.:

  • USA; NRHP 02000711; Chittenden County, Vermont; Burlington Breakwater; 00001.jpg to illustrate a photo of Burlington Breakwater that is a monument in Vermont, USA, with the unique id (I hope) 02000711.

If we name files based on categories we could just have users add the relevant categories and then a bot will calculate the proper file name and rename the file.

If we let bots rename it will not matter if we rename millions of files because bots do not need to sleep. --MGA73 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Names are a great identifier for files for much the same reason that URLs aren't just www.wikipedia.org/b0e0dcd6-7903-48b2-9b1d-69faf1aadca7.html. This discussion is a waste of time and clearly hasn't been thought out. Take the WLM ID. Well, who's ID do you use? There are sometimes more than one organisation giving them out, or they change the IDs themselves. And what if the building is covered by multiple IDs for different parts. Or if the photograph has two buildings in it. Or is a landscape that happens to also have the building in it. Or a city scape with hundreds of buildings in it. The above categorisation suggestion assumes there is one perfect categorisation for any given image. There isn't. And since our categories change fluidly, what will happen to the name then?
As long as anyone can create an account and generate a name, we just have to hope they pick something moderately useful. Some don't and that really hurts the file's chances of being used. Too many people, when they see a problem, seek to impose restrictions in order to limit the problem, rather than trying to fix the problem. And too many want black and white solutions to complex problems. Keeping a bad name is a problem. Changing a name for a file that is in use is a problem. We balance the pro's and con's of each using the brains God gave us. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not all agree on how the balance should be :-)
Wikipedia and Commons are as you know not the same just like Wikipedia and Wikidata are not the same. On Wikipedia the goal is to have one and just one article about a topic. On Commons we can have 100 files of the same topic. And as you have probably heard a picture can tell more than 1.000 words. Alone for that reason it is not always possible to have a title that descripes the picture fully. For that we have description and categories and they can be changes 100 times without problems. That was what I was trying to tell but some still thought that the name of the file is so important that it is worth renaming thousands of files.
I have long said that we should reduce the use of renaming files to an absolute minimum but as time goes it has been allow to rename more and more files. We now have more than 1.000 users renaming files. We even have users that rename against the rename criterias because they think the criterias are stupid.
So IF we think that the name is an important way to find files then I think that it is wrong not to rename all files with a bad name. You mention Wikipedia and there all articles with a bad name can/should/will be renamed. And IF the name is important then as a result the name should be updated everytime categories change. Could be 2 times or 20 times.
I'm not saying that it will be easy to find a good naming convension. But at the moment we have 1.000 users with probably 1.000 different ways to (re)name files. (And many of the files are in use.) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to find a naming rule. We have guidelines for both naming and renaming. People seem to think that absolute rules make life simple, but that is naive. Please just accept that names are useful and names will be chosen in an ad hoc fashion that is hopefully generally useful. If the name is felt to be unhelpful and this badness overrides the other concerns about disruption then it may on balance be worth doing. Just because people don't always agree doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. People don't always agree on what files we can or should host and for that we have discussions and make a decision. I don't know why you think "all articles with a bad name can/should/will be renamed" on Wikipedia. It's is ad hoc there too. And I'm fairly sure there are more links to Wikipedia URLs than there are to 99% of Commons files. We fret about disruption that is a small problem in reality. In reality, most of our files are not used, let alone linked to. Your logic that if name is "important" then we must be radical about renaming every name that isn't optimal or no longer aligns with the category, is taking things too far. That's a "slippery slope" argument, and logical fallacy. On a multi-lingual project like this, expecting a consensus on naming is impossible. It's hard enough getting professionals to agree on names for things like drugs or varieties of plants, never mind photographs of landscapes, people and cities. The name "helps". It helps me known my (wiki) link to a beech tree is probably a beech tree rather than a telephone or a penis. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I have a question related to this file. What is correct: descriping an anotomical figure or describing an anatomical figure? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would use the second one if I was going to upload the file. But I do not think the current name is a big problem. What matters most is the categories and the description. --MGA73 (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Outdated translations

It seems that some translations are outdated. For example, the French, Italian and Korean translations use the old renaming criteria, and without a statement that files with copyright problems shouldn't be renamed. The Japanese translation also uses the old renaming criteria, but with a statement that files with copyright problems shouldn't be renamed. This may result in confusion. I discovered this when I was about to decline the renaming of File:Place Cornavin -Vue aérienne.jpg and wanted to link to the French page and discovered that the French renaming criteria were different to the English renaming criteria. In the meanwhile, the file was renamed by Thibaut120094 (talk · contribs), possibly after having consulted the French renaming criteria. What could be done to solve this problem? Maybe switch to Special:Translate? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I always consult the English version of the guidelines. I renamed the file before I add the {{Npd}} template. I just renamed a second time here because I missed a typo, I thought it would not be a problem. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Using the translation extension should be the best way to avoid confusion. If there are some users willing to help with the migration of the current translations, I can do all the necessary tagging. --Didym (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

English

"there's no reason to favor English over other languages" ~ !!?? I don't get it. Has this been thought through and documented by people who actually want Commons to be as useful as possible to as many people as possible? Seems like an idea which rathrr sorely defeats our purpose. The use of a major international language, which hundreds of millions more people will understand and be able to refer to - "no reason to favor" ??? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reason file names should be only in English. Quite often, the best language is the one used where the image was taken. Of course, English description is very important to allow a large number of people to use a file. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
So we don't care about search engines such as Google to help people find our images, named in a language most people grasp? And we feel all the people who travel and take photos should know what the local language says something is called? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It's whatever the uploader prefers. If they can name it better in their native language, then great. Ideally, we have translations of the image descriptions in multiple languages, including English. Google should be able to find those descriptions as well as the title. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And nowadays Google can translate a lot and it finds images and pages described in any language.
Anyway, if you want to find some kind of image in Commons, categories should be the primary way. Furthermore, Wikidata might eventually add multinilgual labels to images in a way that Google take them as titles.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Empty renaming categories

I have worked through some media requiring renaming without the related template and emptied two categories - Atsushio Station and Cambodia. Should we have the empty categories deleted? -- DerFussi 06:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Empty categories should be deleted, unless it is a general maintenance category such as Category:Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities. You can add {{speedy|empty category}} to such categories. There used to be a template called {{Emptypage}} which was meant for this situation, but the template has since been changed so that it only seems to deal with matters completely unrelated to empty categories. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Ahem … On Commons, pages get deleted because they meet one of our criteria for speedy deletion. G1 is the criterion covering empty categories.    FDMS  4    17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Long standing cats should not be deleted, one should use {{Category redirect}} instead. Some wikis may link to these long standing cats and just get a deleted page otherwise. --Denniss (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
User:FDMS4: That may so be, but it is not a reason for having a speedy deletion template which gives a rationale which looks seemingly unrelated to the deletion reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Um, those two categories are not empty. I'm not familiar with Atsushio Station, but why would we have an empty category for Cambodia anyway? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Auntof6: This is specifically about 'Category:Files of X with bad file names', which are filled up with files which should be renamed per reason #2. Once filemovers have renamed all files in the categories, they become empty and should be deleted. The main task is to identify the subject of the photos so that the photos can be given useful names. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

new critera for file renaming

Hi

I see Commons:Renommer_un_fichier, the translation of Commons:File_renaming is no more valide. In particular the old #4 is totaly different of the new #4. My question is then what is the new criter for change meaningless bio-names into binomial scientific names ?? nothing is tell about this on the File renaming page ! --The Titou (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that is now noted as part of rule #3 (and note #3 at the bottom): If an object or organism was incorrectly identified in the file name (such as calling a Sylvilagus floridanus by the name "File:Sylvilagus audubonii.jpg"), this criterion covers renaming the image. If the file name includes words like "unidentified" or "unknown" when describing an object or organism, and that object or organism has been identified, this criterion also covers the change. This criterion does not, however, cover moving a file from its common usage name to its scientific or technical name. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks--The Titou (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No preference for English?

I constantly see page moves such as [4]. There is no reason for moves such as these and they are very annoying to people who speak a different language than English. Especially if it is a regional based file. It makes perfect sense to me that the image title about the COA of Turkey may be in Turkish... --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Did you ask these users before complaining here? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The people doing these moves maybe thinking of the preference that category names be in English. There is no such preference for file names. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: correct, Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages. Lotje (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

criterion=1 (uploader's request)

From our today's discussion [5]:

It has always been my interpretation of COM:FR#cite_note-1 that COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? #1-3 do not apply when the uploader requests renaming himself (renaming criterion #1). --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember -- when an uploader is not pleased, can cut an image and upload it again with the name he wished. It's better to rename, I think. Wieralee (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, OK. But to avoid misunderstanding, we should know what rule is override when conflict. For example, should renamers approve renames from one language to other if it is uploader request?--Anatoliy (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to discuss this, likely at Commons talk:File renaming so we can clarify this in the rename criterion and prevent such misunderstandings. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about this rule, please. I've always thought Criterion #1 is most important. There's told "Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored."
As a compelling reason I respected Criterion #4 of section:not rename (Files with copyright issues should NOT be renamed until copyright issues are resolved. There is no reason to rename a file if it is going to be deleted on copyright grounds) and Criterion #5 of section:rename (To change a file name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines if it appeared elsewhere on the project as text. This includes gratuitous vulgarity, personal attacks/harassment, blatant advertising, and cases where revision deletion would be authorized.) only.
Criterions 1-3 in section Which files should not be renamed? are not compelling reasons for me...
Is it right? Which rule is more important? Wieralee (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Uploader's wishes should always be honored "unless there is a compelling reason not to." It's a very ethical rule. Image donors should always be noticeably respected in every way that coincides with the best interests of Commons, and renaming any and all files as they wish coincides, as it inspires people without whom there would be no Commons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree Wieralee -- DerFussi 04:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I make at least the following considerations when dealing with #1 requests:
  • The new name should be useful and not in violation of Commons policies. For example '<some good and descriptive name>.jpg' should not be renamed into DSC 1234.JPG, and '<the name of a person>.jpg' should not be renamed into 'Evil idiot.jpg'.
  • Renaming the file shouldn't disrupt Commons or cause extra problems for other users. For example, if there is a deletion request for a file, the admin closing the request might accidentally keep or delete the redirect instead of the file if the file is moved while the request is open. Therefore, I decline all #1 requests when there is a deletion template of any kind on the file information page. Also, it would be disruptive to undo reason #4 harmonisation.
  • If the uploader requests renaming under a criterion other than #1, then I treat it as a criterion #1 request if the request doesn't meet the criterion specified by the uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

rename of the page of a book

This morning I refused the renaming of a file . The user asked me to reconsider. My first intention was that the stated reason (meaningless name) was not valid here. Besides I can imagine that more pages of that book will be uploaded here. So I thought, keeping the names harmonised could be usefull. What do you think? -- DerFussi 07:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • We have thousands of such book illustrations uploaded by User:Fae. I don't know what to do with them... We should remember, that the browser is searching words in descriptions, too. But the descriptions of Fae uploads are very rich... Till now we were putting categories -- and have not renamed the files. Maybe it is time to change it? I don't know. Wieralee (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Keeping them harmonised like for example: File:Iris versicolor - American Medicinal Plants, 1887.jpg ? Lotje (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

images or files

I was renaming an ogg file and inserting the File renaming criterion 2 I have noticed that it uses the word "images" instead of a more generic "flies" or similar. that's not a big deal but maybe we should/could change this expression (here and also in another criterion) according to the title of this page (Commons: File renaming). What do you think?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Page" namespace on Wikisource

When someone requests the renaming of a PDF or DJVU file, the file is sometimes used in the "Page" namespace on Wikisource, and the page title on Wikisource contains the file name. There is also the "Index" namespace whose page titles also contain the file name on Commons. Do I risk breaking something on Wikisource if I rename a file which is used in the "Page" namespace? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Stefan4: I'm a Wikisource admin. From my practice: CommonsDelinker changes links at all Wikisources, so there's no problem. In case when CommonsDelinker will not work -- it is no problem, too, because redirects are working at Wikisources, too. But do not rename one page from .jpg book - it can break the pages in mainspace. Wieralee (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. @Stefan4: I saw yesterday a request to change name of a book from the name of content f.e. William Shakespeare - Hamlet.djvu => William Shakespeare - Complete Works Volume 5.djvu with a reason like that "does not inform what is inside the file". I think we should not make such renames.
I always look who is asking for renaming of a Wikisource book. When it is an uploader or one from Wikisource staff - he usually knows what to do. Wieralee (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Typos

In reason #3, it says that files may be renamed because of typos in proper nouns. A user has added a renaming request for File:Star od David Table (5178318878).jpg, but the typo is not in a proper noun but in a preposition. Does reason #3 only cover typos in proper nouns but not obvious misspellings in other words? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I would apply the rule to all type of words. Besides, just renaming it is faster than denying it including a possible following discussion with the contributer about the reason why we refused the moving. I think pragmatic here. -- DerFussi 09:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with DerFussi. All kinds of typos in all words, but except capitalization. I hesitate sometimes at national signs: changes in the name, in this case seem to me rather useless ... but I accept such requests, because I respect national differences. Maybe it is important for the requester... Wieralee (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Bug report

Starting from today, if I change the target name in {{Rename}} template (requested by another user), the script does not remove the template after the file move, so I have to remove it manually, which is annoying. Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a whitespace character between {{Rename}} and its parameters. This change will take them into account in future. -- Rillke(q?) 17:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Screen shot YYYY-MM-DD at hh.mm.ss"

We get lots of files which are named like this. What is causing these uploads? There are also versions of this file name structure in other languages. Are the pictures screenshots of pictures on the Internet? Should we assume that the files typically are not own work by the uploader? I use quarry:query/3716 + MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js to quickly add newly uploaded files to Category:Media requiring renaming without the related template, but the category seems to be filling up faster than anyone can rename the files. Also, if anyone is aware of other file name structures in other languages, please tell me so that I can also implement those in the database query. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

All I found was tw:Mozilla:Chrome-browser-devtools-gclicommands-java-screenshotGeneratedFilename/en - so I suspect they come from some browser extension. Firefox offers to take screenshots (which are named like this after they've been created) but AFAIK only in the "test screen resolution" menu. -- Rillke(q?) 01:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that you meant to link to Translatewiki instead of Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I was able to find all of the strings you mention in your query in Apple's system screen capture mechanism for MacOS. Not sure if iPhones would have the same format, but it's quite possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. I'll amend the database query. There are two variants of the English file names, "Screen Shot" and "Screen shot", so it is possible that different versions of the software use slightly different names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, quite possible. I was running 10.10 I think for that list. I'm not sure the Turkish and Ukrainian parts of your updated query are correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Running a script to show the ones Apple has, here are the results. Each line starts with the name of the locale, then the translation of "Screen shot" (which is the start of the filename), then the filename format, with the "%@" portions representing the translated name, the date, and the time respectively.
  • Dutch "Screen Shot" : "Schermafbeelding", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ om %@",
  • English "Screen Shot" : "Screen Shot", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ at %@",
  • French "Screen Shot" : "Capture d’écran", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ à %@",
  • German "Screen Shot" : "Bildschirmfoto", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ um %@",
  • Italian "Screen Shot" : "Schermata", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ alle %@",
  • Japanese "Screen Shot" : "スクリーンショット", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ %@",
  • Spanish "Screen Shot" : "Captura de pantalla", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ a las %@",
  • ar "Screen Shot" : "لقطة الشاشة", "%@ %@ at %@" : "‏%@ %@ في %@",
  • ca "Screen Shot" : "Captura de pantalla", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ a les %@",
  • cs "Screen Shot" : "Snímek obrazovky", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ v %@",
  • da "Screen Shot" : "Skærmbillede", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ kl. %@",
  • el "Screen Shot" : "Στιγμιότυπο", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@, %@",
  • es_MX "Screen Shot" : "Captura de pantalla", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ a la(s) %@",
  • fi "Screen Shot" : "Näyttökuva", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ kello %@",
  • he "Screen Shot" : "צילום מסך", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ ב-%@",
  • hr "Screen Shot" : "Slika zaslona", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ u %@",
  • hu "Screen Shot" : "Képernyőfotó", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ - %@",
  • id "Screen Shot" : "Jepretan Layar", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ pada %@",
  • ko "Screen Shot" : "스크린샷", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ %@",
  • ms "Screen Shot" : "Petikan Skrin", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ pada %@",
  • no "Screen Shot" : "Skjermbilde", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ kl. %@",
  • pl "Screen Shot" : "Zrzut ekranu", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ o %@",
  • pt "Screen Shot" : "Captura de Tela", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ às %@",
  • pt_PT "Screen Shot" : "Captura de ecrã", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@, às %@",
  • ro "Screen Shot" : "Captură de ecran", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ din %@ la %@",
  • ru "Screen Shot" : "Снимок экрана", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ в %@",
  • sk "Screen Shot" : "Snímka obrazovky", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ o %@",
  • sv "Screen Shot" : "Skärmavbild", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ kl. %@",
  • th "Screen Shot" : "จับภาพหน้าจอ", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ เวลา %@",
  • tr "Screen Shot" : "Ekran Resmi", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ %@",
  • uk "Screen Shot" : "Знімок екрана", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ о %@",
  • vi "Screen Shot" : "Ảnh chụp Màn hình", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ lúc %@",
  • zh_CN "Screen Shot" : "屏幕快照", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ %@",
  • zh_TW "Screen Shot" : "螢幕快照", "%@ %@ at %@" : "%@ %@ %@",
Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall the time stay in the file name, when renaming? In this example with the Japanese word for this kind of lemon cake it's with date and time. Would it be better to remove the time when renaming and just take the date into the new file name? Because it's not easy to understand later that this is the timestamp and people just wonder about these numbers. They also are no good information. What is normal there? --Bjarlin (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Or would it be better, if those files aren't renamed at all, but shall all get deletion requests because of wrong licenses? Then someone has to tag all those files and none should be placed into a file rename category anymore. --Bjarlin (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the date and time is very meaningful. But yes, "own work" claims on these files are very problematic. They are a screen grab of content displayed in some application (likely a web browser). It's possible they are making a crop of one of their own photos, but it's an odd way to do it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this filename structure should be sufficient reason to simply nominate files for deletion over copyright reasons. The filenames suggest that someone has taken screenshots of computer software or a page in a web browser. I've renamed some which were clearly PD-old and tagged some which are clearly copyvios for speedy deletion and nominated some which seem to be out of scope for deletion.
I note that User:Magog the Ogre changed the title blacklist so that it is no longer possible to upload screen shots, but it is still possible to upload capturas de pantalla and skærmbilleder. While this prevents users from uploading some files with bad names, it possibly also suggests to users that they should disguise their copyright violations by choosing a different file name, so I'm not sure if it is appropriate to block these files in the title blacklist. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, a surprisingly high number of users will think twice before renaming and upload if they hit a filter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2, Clindberg: is that it? Should I take your silence as agreement that you are in agreement? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, a lot of new users simply click on random buttons until the file is uploaded. If the file is a copyvio, such users would probably just change the filename into something but still upload the picture. Compare with the mess caused by the cross-wiki upload tool: COM:AN#Cross-wiki uploads / phab:T120867. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:File_renaming/Archive/2015&oldid=198787762"