Wikipedia talk:File mover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I'm already a filemover here-what do you call someone who can move files _from_ en:wp _to_ Commons?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Move_to_the_Commons#How_to_transfer_files_to_Commons. I don't think there is really a title or anything, but the link explains what you would need to do it. Monty845 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
So the answer to your question, what do you call someone who does that, the answer is "helpful". Anyone can do it, but it is technically complicated. Apteva (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposing making this a guideline[edit]

Because files should not be moved willy-nilly, I suggest making this page (specifically its "What files should be renamed?" section, but obviously the whole page must be nominated) a guideline. Commons:Commons:File renaming (whence the section in question was copied) is a guideline over there, and I see no reason that it should not likewise be treated here. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the past discussions on upgrading it to a guideline have met with some opposition, see Wikipedia talk:File mover/Archive 1#RfC to adopt Wikipedia:File mover as an official guideline, to move forward you would want to start an RFC on the question. Monty845 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked but found no past attempts to make it a guideline. Given what you found, I'll withdraw this and will plan later to submit a modified proposal. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Guideline status for the What files should be renamed section[edit]

Refer to rationale below. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the entire "What files should be renamed?" section be moved to Wikipedia:File names, which is presently a guideline? I've placed the RFC over here because there's already an RFC running at that page, and having two RFCs running at the same page might be confusing. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support This is already treated like policy and enforced like policy. At the very least it should be moved up to guideline status. A noticeable amount of wikilawyering comes about because File names is a guideline and this isn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note. If the above proposal is successful, I propose that the section be copied, not moved. The version on FN should be the official one (we can even use transclusion to make sure they're always the same). This page won't function without that section, and this page really should be kept, even if the heart of the page is moving elsewhere. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No objection to that, but couldn't we just have a summary here? Something like "Don't move files without good reason; see WP:FN for appropriate criteria for file renaming"? Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with both notes, Sven has a good point not to remove it from here, but I don't see why we cannot have a "See here" type message section as Nyttend implies. Mlpearc (powwow) 11:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely should be moved. I been reverted per that section, it's policy to me Face-tongue.svg Mlpearc (powwow) 03:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - First sentence of this Wikipedia page says "The file mover user right allows users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy." -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 03:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you want a guideline on file naming conventions, you have WP:IFN. This How-to should be in support of that page. However from my recent experience, editors are taking the 8 most widely supported reasons to rename a file as if they are the only reasons to rename a file, thus ignoring all other rationales that may justify a rename (such as ambiguous file names like File:CRC-cover.jpg). —Farix (t | c) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you; I'm proposing expanding the IFN guideline to which you refer. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Then why not have this discussion over at WP:IFN? No, your original proposal was to promote this page to guideline states. I oppose it because editors are already interpreting this page very narrowly. It's one thing to state the most widely accepted reasons to move a file. But editors should not interpret them as the only acceptable reasons. If an file moving is going to deny a request, they should present a good reason (trivial, large number of links, ongoing naming dispute, etc.). So instead of focusing on the most widely accepted reasons for a file move, you should instead focus on cases when a file move would not be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't need a strict guideline about specifically which types of file moves are acceptable. Presumably if someone is granted the privilege in the first place it's because they're responsible to use their better judgement and not move a file for arbitrary reasons. —JmaJeremy 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why is it good for Commons to have a strict guideline but bad for us? And if they do move a file for arbitrary reasons, why should someone complain if we don't have something telling them not to be arbitrary? Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Because a file move at Commons affects multiple Wikis which are not easy fixed. However, unlike on Commons, there are very few images on the English Wikipedia with a lot of incoming links to them. Thus cleaning up after a file move on the English Wikipedia is a trivial matter. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but also because moving files is a rather fragile thing, compared to moving pages or... well... doing just about anything else. Unless things have changed since when I spoke to the devs about it when I was first seeking to get File Mover broken off from adminship over here, I am under the belief that while still negligible, moving files entails a risk of irreversible data loss. It's one of the more broken parts of the system. This is why trivial moves are looked down upon. This is also Sven Manguard 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Hopefully this will reduce the trivial renaming, and particularly the deleting of redirects that break attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Hopefully, this will reduce unnecessary renaming. I would prefer some adjustments to the current rules, but maybe it is better to have a separate discussion about these issues:
At Commons:COM:FR, it says that you shouldn't move files which have been nominated for deletion. Apart from the problem mentioned on Commons, it also breaks the link in {{fdw}} and similar templates. I'd like to copy this rule over to Wikipedia. I sometimes see files being moved after I've nominated them for deletion.
At the Commons page, it says that you should move Wikipedia files instead of Commons files in the event of a filename conflict, but the Wikipedia guideline doesn't specify whether it is permissible to move a file in the event of a conflict or not (unless one of the 8 standard cases applies). I think that we need to add a rule explaining what to do in order to avoid stupid situations like File:S-STP-cable.png / File:S-STP-cable English.png which has been shadowed and unshadowed several times. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Being able to move files is relatively new, but it is better to have the detailed instructions here than at WP:IFN. 99.99% of files are not moved, probably more than that. See the essay Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. I think the link at the bottom to "rename" is adequate. Add a sentence that if an error is made in file naming it can either be re-uploaded using the correct name and a delete request added to the first file or a rename tag can be added. File:S-STP-cable.png may seem stupid, but the file is misnamed - there is a misleading extra S. The S means shielded, the TP means twisted pair. The twisted pairs in that file are not shielded, only the cable, so that file should have been named S-UTP-cable.png for shielded unshielded twisted pairs. See the four Italian variations (Cavo means cable). (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Twisted pair cables
Cavo S-STP.png
Two shields 
Cavo S-UTP.png
Outer shield 
Cavo STP.png
Inner shield 
Cavo UTP.png
S-STP-cable English.png
Two shields 
Outer shield only (file is misnamed) 
Outer shield only (file is correctly named) 
    • "99.99% of files are not moved." I highly disagree with that "fact", for all the files I have moved (150 or so), I have only denied 4 requests. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Unless what he means is that 99.99% of the total files uploaded to Wikipedia are not ever renamed. Considering that there's something around 700,000 files on Wikipedia, that'd mean only 7000 files have been moved thus far. To small a number, although 99% never being moved is plausible. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: documenting current practices is a Good Thing, and making them formally enforceable is makes both their fine-tuning and enforcement easier, which is needed for stability of process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per Farix: That this page lists some common reasons to move a file does not mean that these are the only reasons to do so. Don't confuse a how-to with policy. I do agree with the underlying basic rationale of the proposal (which should be at IFN, since it would modify IFN, not buried here where no one will notice), which is that we need to clean up site-wide advice/policy on filenames, but this isn't the way to do it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The argument for "upgrading" the list of valid reasons for renaming files to guideline status has near-consensus, with two primary objections:

  • That this discussion belongs in WP:IFN because it proposes a change there; and
  • that there is no demonstrated need for strict guidelines about when to rename files.

The former objection does not seem particularily compelling given that the set of participants in both fora seems overlap greatly and that this discussion was announced there more than two months ago, giving plenty of opportunity for other editors to have chimed in.

The latter objection is not addressed by the supporters (except, arguably, implicitly in that they do support the proposal) and resounds strongly with Wikipedia's reluctance to engage in needless rulemaking; but finds no additional support beyond the participant who raised it. In conclusion, I beleive there is consensus to copy the "What files should be renamed?" to Wikipedia:File names (making it part of the guideline) and keep a copy (possibly by transclusion) here. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a bot fix backlinks to moved files[edit]

Now that I am a file mover, I was reviewing the instructions, and saw: After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one. I didn't see anything in the user-script that did this, meaning that it is done manually. I believe that using a bot that checks the move log every hour (or some other length of time), and automatically updates backlinks to reflect the new location, would be more thorough (bots don't forget to do things), and reduce the load on editors/file movers.

Additionally, if such a solution is implemented, what links should not be updated? Are there any? Legoktm (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What should not be updated are pages which contain specific log entries, or user talk page warnings. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, there needs to be a userscript. No opinion on it being automatic though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that automating this task is a very good move. I am all for it and don't see any bad fallout. --Mareklug talk 17:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Request on village pump to add 'move-subpages' to this[edit]

Take a look: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Add_.27move-subpages.27_permission_to_the_filemover_group. Klortho (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)