Commons talk:File renaming

This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 180 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Archive of file renaming proposal and activation: Here

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) $\subset$ 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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)