Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2016

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

File:Greatest Chrisitans.jpg

I am wondering if this is a candidate for renaming because "Greatest Christians" seems a little too much POV to me per Commons:File naming and COM:NPOV. Although those pictured in the montage are very likely Christian, it seems too subjective to label them all "Greatest". Wouldn't a more neutral sounding name be a better choice? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. A better, more neutral name would be File:Infobox Collage of Famous Christians.jpg or File:Famous Christians Mosaic.jpg, reflecting its main use in the primary infobox at en:Christian. I would leave out "of whom we have images". Also note that in the the original filename, "Christians" is misspelled "Chrisitans", another reason for renaming.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

files with bad names

Files with bad names normally shall be renamed and are either renamed at once, deleted because of different other reasons or listed in Category:Media requiring renaming or one of its subcategories. Now there is a new Category:Files with bad names since a few days which contained the Category:Media requiring renaming without the related template and some of its arbitrary sub(sub)categories which I have removed (that didn't make any sense, it has been just redundant). I have added the main category for file renaming Category:Media requiring renaming there and listed the new category on Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Files with bad names. If anyone thinks that the new category could be of any use for the category system (maybe by reorganizing anything), then please comment on the category there. I don't see anything else but a redundant category which could be redirected to Category:Media requiring renaming or deleted. There should be no other pages but files in the Category:Media requiring renaming, and all files with bad names which are not to be deleted should be renamed, not only files of some of its subcategories. But it could be of use to have a category redirect to find the main renaming category better, because there are a lot of subcategories in Category:Media requiring renaming without the related template which have names including "with bad (file) names", so this new category name seems natural also if searching for a category with such files. If anyone has ideas for the category structure, then please comment in the linked discussion. --Bjarlin (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Criteria # 4

Greetings! Is the harmonization of the file names of a set of images still the legitimate reason for the file to be renamed? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The criterion is used often enough, so I don't know, why it shouldn't be. But there are very strict limitations for this criterion as described in the footnote. So it is only for some special cases, but not for all harmonizations in a category. Citation:
  • "Just because images share a category or a subject does not mean that they are part of a set."
Maybe some examples would help to understand the first sentences of the footnote about complex templates and Wikisource better. The second part about "files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction)" is easier to see at once, but who knows the naming conventions of Wikisource or complex templates? It's also unclear which files on Commons are affected by the naming conventions of Wikisource. The examples are only for BSicons, no example for Wikisource naming conventions or other harmonization reasons. There should be also examples for these cases, then it would be easier to understand the criterion, and maybe there would be less mistakes with renaming and with the renaming requests.
The text in the footnote is crucial, but it's necessary to click there, it's not shown at first sight. And the footnote is missing at all at the category description of Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 4 which doesn't help either. It should be copied there, and the same applies to the missing footnotes of the other rationale category descriptions. In the description of the other Category:Media requiring renaming by rationale#cite note-4, there are all these footnotes. --Bjarlin (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, @Bjarlin: and for your attention to this case. For us to understand the particular nuances i have to be specific. I am working on categorization and proper description of Ukrainian Army shoulder sleeve insignia (SSI). So, in this case we are talking about the set of the images (Brigade or Battalion SSI, etc.) and each particular image is a part of a set. Is it all right to harmonize the names of the Ukrainian Army unit and formation SSI in their respective subcategories? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the question is which of the cases for sets of images shall apply to these images, because just "set of images" for any category is not enough, as said. They surely aren't "parts of a whole" like book scans or large, divided images, therefore it has to be the case mentioned in the first sentences of the footnote. And these images aren't either part of the Wikisource reason as far as I've seen by now.
Then nothing else remains than the use in complex templates assuming "that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention". I've seen such Ukrainian images in navigation templates, but those aren't complex but easy and there's no need for a special naming convention, so I don't think that this criterion is intended for those templates. Do there exist other complex templates which use (some of) these images and which have a file naming convention? If not, I don't see a harmonizing reason for those files. Or the criterion would have to be reworded, if there might be another reason that the images should have a special naming convention. Have I missed any reason or what kind of set are you talking about that applies to this criterion? A proper file description can be made on the file page, that is independent of the file name. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Let us use an example. Category:Ukrainian Army Infantry Brigade Shoulder Sleeve Insignia contains files depicting the SSI of a) Ukrainian Army SSI; b) Ukrainian Army Brigade SSI and c) Ukrainian Army Infantry Brigade SSI (therefore the subcategory is named appropriately). Wouldn't we talk about the «set of images» in this case? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Criteria 4 is IMO often misapplied.. a specific example of that would be efforts by several people to rename huge numbers of images of soviet stamps so that the filenames all include their numbers in some catalog, and are sorted that way. The criteria applies, as I understand it, only to images that are specifically needed to fit some certain pattern (page scans for Wikisource, football kits, image tiles, etc) in order to avoid a stupid level of complexity in templates that would otherwise have to allow for 'weird' names on Commons. It should not be used just for something such as making files appear in a 'preferred' order in a category, unless there is a community consensus, and it seems unlikely that the community would override the general rule of keeping filenames consistent (and as preferred by the uploader) as much as possible. Making a Commons category look like you would want a gallery to look (in a preferred order) is not a legitimate reason for renaming files... just make a gallery.I think that, given how many times I've seen this criteria used in such a manner (i.e. 'most' of the members of the cat are named like this, so we should rename the rest) that a referral to a VP, and then a massmessage to all filemovers about the consensus, might be a good idea. Revent (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing of rename criteria

As they stand, several of the renaming criteria, and the supporting text, make specific reference to 'images'... since Commons hosts media files of all types, it would probably make things clearer if they were revised to be about 'media' instead. I'm tempted to just 'do it', but I could not figure out a good phrasing that would clearly not change the meaning. Revent (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't we just call them "files"? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Renaming help

I want to rename File:251000 - Wheelchair basketball Danny Morris shoots - 3b - 2000 Sydney match photo.jpg to File:251000 - Wheelchair basketball Nick Morris shoots - 3b - 2000 Sydney match photo.jpg. (To correct the name of the player.) It refuses to move, saying that the name already exists, except that it doesn't. Could someone please move this for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, albeit with a slightly changed name. Hope it's OK. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. I don;t know what the problem was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I know this isn't the right place to bring this question (apologies!), but for the life of me I can't find where the right place would be. How do I find an administrator to move a gallery (from Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus to Caesar Augustus) over a redirect? This should be reasonably non-controversial. I mooted the question on the talk page a few months ago, and nobody's said anything. QuartierLatin1968 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Violation

User Wieralee is violating the rules for moving files for a long time. 1) The rules of Commons say that files can be uploaded in any language, as Commons is an international project. 2) The moved files don't fulfill the criteria on the page Commons:File renaming. Wieralee moves files with titles in German language (obviously no meaningless titles!) into titles in Polish language (Example: 1) for multiple times while using Criterion 2: “To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays.” Which leads also into many changes on Wikipedia pages, which are using these files. I don't think that these German titles are "meaningless" anyway, so this should be stopped. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I do understand. Today I declined a similar renaming request. The Polish name should be placed in the Polish description instead of the file name. I have to admit. I accepted some similar reuests in the past because the new name seemed to be a bit more detailed but actually it's not a valid reason for the renaming. I agree Jonny84 here. -- DerFussi 19:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Wieralee renamed my declined request ([1]) nevertheless ([2]). But the old name was not meaningless. It is a historical name of the town, used in the past. The IP statet there are more than one towns with that name. There are more than one Berlin and London on this World as well. And its not a reason. The historical names are partly still in use. If you look at Google maps, the old German names of a twon are shown in Poland (e.g. Bunzlau instead of Bolesławiec). I prefer the Polish names in my daily life but I am not sure, whether reason #2 covers that case. -- DerFussi 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jonny84: @DerFussi: It happens very often somebody is renaming files I had declined. Well, sometimes a requester improves his proposal, but sometimes the interpretation of Commons:File renaming rules is different. I'm never figthing. Maybe they are right, maybe in those causes I was too restrictive? It's always good practice to talk.
The problem of renaming files with Polish object and villages from German name to bilingual name is very complex and also has the second bottom. In 1945 almost all the cities an villages were renamed. Their proper nouns are quite different. The old photo (before 1945) should have the old, German name. But a contemporary image should contain the proper, contemporary name...
I'm basing on a rule for en:w:Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns for each object. When the object has its proper noun, the name should contain it, I think. German and French users are renaming files and they are moving categories for objects from their countries from English to German or French -- and I have newer saw not a single word of protest. When a woman gets married, she changes her name into a new one, or she is using both. The same is with the cities - they had changed their names into Polish ones, not into bilingual.
Some of Germans can not accept the loss of the cities in the east - and still like to usurp their rights to them. All this "movement" of Polish people from the east to the west was the result of the 1945 English-American-French-German conference at which the Poles were not allowed to speak. Now, over 70 years after these difficult moments for all of us, many Germans still do not want us to give us the right to name our Polish cities with Polish names :(
Instead of that, I approach with respect to the law of developing Commons resources in anybody's own native language, so I try not to remove the German name - and leave it in the file name.
I think there is nothing wrong with using the proper nouns, but if the community decides that I'm wrong, then I will reject such requests - even when they will concern files and categories renaming from English to French or German.
I do not want to figth: I have no problems in adapting to the rules: I only wish the rules to be clear and equal for all.
Thank you very much for raising this subject. Perhaps because of such conversations we'll improve Commons renaming rules -- and the next file removers will have easier work.
Yours, Wieralee (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
First, this is not the place for politics, second, you are violating the rules, as these titles were not meaningless as its written in the criterion and at least files can be uploaded in any language, so also in German. It's the decision of the author and uploader. You are free to write Polish translations into the file description. PS, what would you say if other users would erase Lwów and Wilno? Also not Polish since 1945, same situation ;). --Jonny84 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jonny84: I think it would not be an abuse if someone wants to change the name to "Lviv (Lwów)." It would be easier to find in search engines -- and not misleading younger users. But -- I repeat -- if the community decides that such names are incompatible with the rules, I will not use them. Wieralee (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wieralee: . Hey. I don't want to talk about politics. I absolutely agree Jonny84. So I would kindly ask you not to use historical moments to verify criterions here and leave out any statements about Germans and Polish people. This is not the place. And as i told you, as a German I prefer the Polish names in my daily life. I really like Poland and travel there every year (I even started learning some Polish). There is of course no problem with the proper noun. But I just haven't been sure whether the criterion #2 can be applied here. Because I can not see that the old file name was that meaningless (a better file name can always be used, but its not always a reason to rename the file). And normally we decline renaming requests, if somebody just want to change the language of the file name. Besides that. The Ukraine is about to rename a lot of cities these days. Should we rename the files here as well, if somebody requests it? eg. from Dnepropetrowsk to Dnipro because the town was renamed some days ago? How about the former GDR (Karl-Marx-Stadt and Chemitz)? How about Wrocław? The German Wikipedia article is named Breslau. The German name is still used and common. This is not a discussion about the filenames itself, its a question, whether the request is valid. I dont think the name is incompatible with the rules, I think reason #2 can not be used here. Thats a difference. I agree you, Wieralee. The new file name is a better name, but I think only the uploader can request it, not an IP.
And again. You should not base your points on current or past politics. -- DerFussi 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


In general, file renames do cause some issues (to the point they were disallowed for a long long time, though enough issues were fixed to allow renames). In general, the uploader picks the filename, and unless there is a significant problem with it, the filename should stay as-is. Filenames are generally not visible in Wikipedia articles and as such renaming does not involve any sort of Wikipedia naming policy. If you want the image available under a different name for whatever reason, add a redirect with your preferred name to the existing file name. The listed reasons at Commons:File renaming are mostly technical in nature -- usually at most to correct inaccuracies. Using German vs. Polish names (or vice versa) is not an inaccuracy or misspelling. Yes, these rules do get abused, and if you keep putting up a rename template, you are liable to find a renamer who just wants to clear the queue (or does not understand the language) and does not look into the reasoning in-depth. I've had a bunch of my own files renamed which I would have preferred be left alone. But, that type of rename really should not happen. en:Wikipedia:Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns is *not* a Commons policy that is not an allowable reason for file renames -- file renames are much more damaging, so those concerns rule. If you can find a Commons policy which a filename manages to violate, OK. Wikipedia policies do not apply in this situation (or rarely do on Commons, though they can be a guideline if Commons does not have one yet). Filenames have very different issues than article naming in Wikipedia, thus a different set of policies -- ones which are more focused on technical aspects, and ignore political issues entirely -- in those situations, the uploader picks the name (though adding redirects is OK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It happened not so good, that you'd noticed the political aspect only :( I understand that adding a literal translation in a second language can sometimes make no sense. But it is not so simple... The problem is more complicated.
For example: Uploader uploads to Commons 20 files "Hoff-Kirche 01.jpg", "Hoff-Kirche 02.jpg", "Hoff 01.jpg", "Hoff 02.jpg", "Hoff 03.jpg", etc.
The village since 1945 is called Trzęsacz. The old German name was "Hoff an der Ostsee". In Trzęsacz there are two churches: the old one, very famous, partly taken away by the sea - and the new one. Do you think that the original names are not misleading and that they should not be specified? Wieralee (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Update the description field in the text to be more specific in those cases. That is a more appropriate place to use the current, local name (though mentioning the German name too can help). That would be fine to change the description to "XXX church in Trzęsacz (German Hoff an der Ostsee)" or something like that. I'm sure the German description would use the "Hoff an der Ostsee" if that is typically how Germans still refer to it, and obviously the Polish description would use Trzęsacz (all of which can be in the description field). Commons needs to serve all language Wikipedias (and non-Wikipedia projects); when there are different names for things in different languages any of the names is fine for the files. We don't rename files which say "Florence" to "Firenze" (or vice versa) -- that will typically just depend on the nationality of the uploader, and neither are wrong. When it comes to the *category* names, which need to be in English, that would be more appropriate to use the current Polish name (if there was no separate English name for the town -- category names would use "Warsaw" not "Warszawa"). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree Clindberg here. That's why I recommended to use the description instead to save the Polish information when I declined the request. Reasons for renaming should stay technical only because more issues can be caused (access from outside the Wikimedia wikis and I am not sure whether the replacement tool works in modules as well). -- DerFussi 06:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Wieralee if you want put in history, territorial affiliations and politics into the commons rules, files and routine, then you should erase all Polish names in the files from the time 1795-1918, as there did not exist any Polish State. ;) And please don't forget about all the files with the names Lipsk, Kolonia, Kilonia, Drezno, Wiedeń, Lubeka, etc. German and Austrian cities have their own names... If this is the work you are looking for, this would be consequently. If you feel annoyed by the multilingualism of Wikimedia Commons, then you are maybe wrong here. --Jonny84 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jonny84: I wrote: "It happened not so good, that you'd noticed the political aspect only :(".
This is a problem that I am still getting conflicting guidelines...
Last days I had a question on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems => Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#File:14-05-06-budapest-RalfR-11.jpg.
It is told on Commons:File renaming cite, that a names like "File:Paris 319.jpg" should be renamed into names like "File:Paris 75018 Rue Norvins no 018 Le Consulat z.jpg"
I was told:
Globetrotter19 and Wieralee are right in the interpretation of COM:MOVE.
This discussion is about such renamings, like: "File:Kirche-Eichberg-2.jpg" => File:Dąbrowica, wnętrze kościoła MB Częstochowskiej (Kirche-Eichberg-2).jpg.
- Geman don't like such renamings and they argue that it is a violation.
- On Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems in similar situation I've got information it is right.
- and here in this discussion everyone says something different :(
What are the rules indeed? Wieralee (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
But AFBorchert made a good point. And meanwhile we should consider not to rename such files like RalfR ones. "Paris 0123" ist difficult, I have to admit. "Paris, Louvre": I would not rename meanwhile. -- DerFussi 11:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Wieralee, are you kidding? So Church in German (Kirche) makes the File name meaningless, but writing it in Polish give it a meaning? This must be a joke, cause this can't be serious.. And at least this is project mainly in English, there is no rule that anything have to be renamed into Polish... --Jonny84 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • en.wiki shows two other cities/villages called "Eichberg" and is not showing this one "Eichberg" in Poland. It means that such a name is ambiguous, so it should be renamed due to Commons:File renaming Criterion#2: "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name". We may remove Criterion #2 of the Commons:File renaming rules, but - for this moment - this rule still applies :( Wieralee (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wieralee: : London and Berlin is ambiguous as well and we would not rename files because of these town names. Criterion 2 is specified here: Commons:File renaming#cite_note-2 . Steinsplitter just gave it to me in the other discussion. One of the stated reason is only the location in the filename. But you should go back to the initial contribution here. Jonny84 gave an example when he started the discussion. The original name of the file that you renamed was "Bethaus-Kirche-Giersdorf.jpg" - it includes name of the town and name of the building. Sorry, in my opinion, thats not ambiguous enough. And if I read some of the requesting IP's comments to my decline (i dont want to repeat this) I think his/her intention is just political or personal (look: [3]). Just read the IPs comment in my declined request. His intention was not because its ambiguous. -- DerFussi 16:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wieralee: : I can not follow you. I do not say something different here compared to the other discussion. I think both renamings don't follow the rules. -- DerFussi 19:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are going to rename an overbroad location, keep to the same language as the uploader's filename choice. Respect their wishes as to filename. Simply add the country or locality to make it more specific, since that is all you are supposed to be trying to do. If you want the file to be available with a completely different name, add a redirect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: I don't manage such renaming by myself. Personally I do not care how these files are named. Although I hope that in the future the files will have only a signature, such as items in Wikidata, and the names in many languages would be added in the same way...
I'm a filemover, I have a request, which I should accept or decline. In both cases, I have an attack: why have you renamed? why haven't you renamed? Both parties refer to the same criterion - and both are screaming that they are right. Of course, I can not withstand the pressure and leave the Commons, as many users before, but the problem will still exist. We (all filemovers) need more clear rules with many examples, that's all. Wieralee (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, understood. It's not easy. The generic place name one can lead to some places where judgement needs to be used. For the church example, it may have been OK as-is, but I can see renaming it -- but I think any such renames should retain the language of the uploader. The only goal is to make it more specific; any part of the existing title which was meaningful should be retained. If anything looks like an edit war being carried over here from an language wikipedia, I would decline the request. Renames which change the language being used in the filename should probably be rejected, unless it is the uploader themselves making the request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Over-long file-names

I renamed:

If there is an policy or not, it is embarrassing to see the whole file-description needless in the name (this is not a single case). This is not a practice which should be endorsed. ↔ User: Perhelion 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of our pictures come from other archives that don't provide a file description separate from the filename. They use a long name to carry a heavy burden. Whether this is such a case, I don't know. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There have been batch uploads which have a choice of using a meaningless filename from the source, or using a sometimes long-winded description as the filename. Those can end up being pretty long -- some of the US Navy and NARA uploads have very long usernames. Sometimes people may accidentally paste the image description into the filename field, too. I'm not sure that outlawing them is really the answer -- better to have 100000 images available with longer names first, rather than requiring a manual filename choice for all of them before upload. Obviously, if there is any way to trim excessive detail (like just using the first sentence, which would have been better above) that should be done, as well as removing some punctuation characters which can be more annoying in filenames. But, no problem with allowing renames to a shorter version -- as mentioned in an earlier discussion though, keep with the existing language of the uploader and use the parts of the existing filename which are enough to describe it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We have hundreds of filenames from NARA, no it must be thousands, like File:YOUNG LATIN MALE IN PATERSON, NEW JERSEY'S, INNER CITY. THE INNER CITY TODAY IS AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION TO THE MAIN... - NARA - 555904.jpg using the mostly same lyrical paragraph as a filename now somewhat truncated in favor of a serial number. I'm pretty sure there are many where the lyrical paragraph/filename is entirely identical except for the number. Do something about it? For the few pictures that are found useful in WP or other part of the Wikimedia empire, yes. Otherwise, who cares? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How to get?

How to get filemover? --Frze > talk 01:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Frze: Please see the first paragraph of the page. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:File_renaming/Archive/2016&oldid=246549578"