Wikipedia talk:File names
|The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:File names. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or see the New Contributors' Help Page.|
- 1 Generic image file names
- 2 Protected images
- 3 Still more
- 4 Commons:Forbidden filenames
- 5 Some more
- 6 Wrap up
- 7 Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace
- 8 why the placeholders?
- 9 Explicit/objectively defined naming conventions
- 10 Ali Pur Muzaffar Garh.
- 11 Rename this page
- 12 Periods disallowed in filenames?
- 13 RfC: Filenames in non-Latin scripts
- 14 Transferring content from WP:FMV
- 15 RFC: Criterion 1
- 16 What would you rename it to?
- 17 Proposal for ninth reason
- 18 The scope of FNC#1
Generic image file names
and notified a couple of users that used the image, even re-named one user's image on his behalf. I also checked "Image:Logo.jpg" and "Image:Logo.png", and did the same. No links should have been left hanging, except for one user's user pages, and I've informed him/her on the talk page.
It goes without saying that images with generic names must be protected for this scheme to work. Please check here to see if the above image has been changed since I originally posted this.
- That or protecting the original image at the location, but it does seem like a problem that can be easily avoided. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
- "...can be easily avoided" - How? Please explain, thanks. --Janke | Talk 06:18:25, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. Radiant_>|< 09:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like a good idea. It's a very vague name. Something should be done. Optichan 12:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. Is there any way of having that image (or the same thing as text) pop up whenever somebody tries to upload an image by that name? - ulayiti (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Probably not without some code writing. You already get a warning if you try to load a file with a name that already exists. My proposal would have the simplicity of just protecting files with generic names, with the above image. Then the uploader has to think of another name. If that, too, is already in use, well... then it is no longer so simple. --Janke | Talk 17:28:17, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Thryduulf 21:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Another possibility, since it seems to me that keeping a list of common filenames would be a pain, would be, if an image someone's trying to upload has the same filename as an existing one, to simply throw a warning and show a thumbnail of the old image, and ask the user to rename their image. -- Avocado 01:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, but it requires programming. For now, protecting the "don't use this name" image seemed like an excellent idea, so I did so. Noel (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action! That will surely prevent some surprises... I didn't check if you protected more than one, but here are a few I can think of, that would all need to be protected (with that image above), for the very same reason:
- Image:logo.png / Image:logo.jpg (I already uploaded the image to these)
- Image:photo.jpg / Image:photo.gif / Image:photo.png
- Image:image.jpg / Image:image.gif / Image:image.png
- Image:img.jpg / Image:img.gif / Image:img.png
- I protected the first two; if you upload this to the others, and fix the links, etc, and drop me a line I will protect them. Noel (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- OK, you can protect them now. I uploaded the warning image to all the above (and moved & renamed one user's self-portrait, notified him), except "Image.gif" which resides on Commons. The image there is not used anywhere, but I'll let somebody else fix the Commons image (I've not logged in there - yet.) --Janke | Talk 06:26:39, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
- Surely if you simply upoad your file to Image:image.gif it will over-ride the version available at Commons? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- They were personal stuff, I either renamed/fixed links or notified uploaders of all files that were actually used. None was in use in the main namespace. --Janke | Talk 18:41:27, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
I found this thing: Image:picture.jpg
- Great idea! Perhaps it's worth doing on Image:untitled.jpg, Image:untitled.gif and Image:untitled.png as well? the wub "?/!" 15:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Uploaded four days ago (also a copyrighted image, no source given...) I thought that file name was already protected? --Janke | Talk 06:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently not. I've asked the user who uploaded it to use a different name (and also to provide copyright info). I then uploaded the "don't use this" image, and protected it. Noel (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK this is really confusing. I didn't upload it, merely reverted what was obvious vandalism. Even though it was my suggestion, I figured it would be best to wait for an admin to finish the move and protect properly. User:Basketballer0789 who uploaded the original image didn't provide copyright info and doesn't seem to be around, so unless anyone can find the copyright status might be best to let this one go. the wub "?!" 11:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently not. I've asked the user who uploaded it to use a different name (and also to provide copyright info). I then uploaded the "don't use this" image, and protected it. Noel (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Some people over at commons seems a little peeved that this new forbidden filename "policy" just materialised there out of "thin air". Remember commons is more than just a image repository for this Wikipedia, they are a separate entity with their own procedures and guidelines etc. Also when replacing images on commons keep in mind that just because an image is not used in the English Wikipedia it doesn't automatically mean it's also unused in all the other Wikimedia projects or other language Wikipedias out there. --Sherool 01:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (Spelling later corrected)
- Image:Cover.jpg is another "contested" file name.
- Image:Photo1.jpg has previously existed.
- Image:Flag.jpg (Turkmenistan apparently)
- Image:Flag.png (was Palmeiras soccer team)
- Cover.jpg had been deleted, so I uploaded the "don't use this" image, and protected it. I did Photo1.jpg too. Noel (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This centralized discussion has been ongoing since August 31. I suggest it's time to summarize the conclusions and wrap it up. Perhaps this should be moved to a Wikipedia policy page, as the conclusions agreed to above seem appropriate for such treatment. Cheers! BD2412 talk 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hearing no comment either way, I'm moving this to closed discussions on the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion template. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace
I created the subcategory Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace to help manage pages using their own uploaded version of Image:Logo.gif. GregManninLB (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Saw your editrequests and found this page. Seems like a good categorisation. So I am adding that category to those image pages.
- --David Göthberg (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
why the placeholders?
Admins, you can simply protect the titles without uploading anything just like you can non-existent articles. The only reason the placeholder thing was done on Commons (starting a couple years ago) was because this form of salting wasn't possible then. Voxii (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Explicit/objectively defined naming conventions
Following some comments on my talk page, I feel here would be an appropriate place to ask if it's time to create a set of objective guidelines on what names to use for specific types of images, such as album covers, book cover and film posters.
Recently in trying to clear a backlog, I've made some IFR requests which where an attempt to define a naming convention in relation album covers, based on what had been generally encountered with existing uploads.
A set of explicit/objective naming guidelines would remove the current ambiguities and assist contributors. It should be noted that naming policies for images exist within MANY other academic indexing/archiving systems.
- I'm not a fan of this proposal, although I'm not a big participant in Filespace on enWP. Basically, all the filename has to do is be descriptive enough to help the average user identify the thing in question. If we were to come up with some kind of explicit, objective naming guideline, you'd have a massive backlog of files to move over to use this. And for what? Would it make files easier to find? Probably not. Would it make them easier to use? No. Would it make them easier to manage? Maybe. But at what cost? At the cost of moving tens or hundreds of thousands of filenames and making the uploading process more bureaucratic. If files have particularly bad file names, stick up a rename request. If there's a huge backlog, nominate yourself to be a File Mover. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Tom. While we might benefit slightly in some ways from having systematic filenames, your proposal would result in tons of work and tons more cost than benefit. Moreover, requiring systematic filenames could be confusing. When I was a new admin three years ago, I was deleting images under F8 and came across one that was somehow automatically transcluded into an infobox: the code assumed that the image would have a certain name, so the fact that it had a different name on Commons meant that I couldn't orphan the local image. Of course, most of the images you mention are nonfree, but we're going to get the occasional exception, such as e.g. pre-1923 books or film posters. Finally, I don't see the significant benefit from having systematic names: unlike articles, people don't know about the images beforehand, so they don't have any preconceived ideas what the filenames will be; as a result, they're not going to go looking for images by name as they would for articles. What's more, the bureaucratic nature of this proposal is troubling to me as well: even if we moved all our present images, we'd either end up having lots of later images uploaded against the conventions, or we'd have lots of frustrated newbies. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Per above, it just seems like a bit of a hassle—we'll have to standardize all future files uploaded by new users/those unfamiliar with the naming conventions and such, and while we do this for articles, files don't really need naming conventions. I think it would be nice to have standardized file names, but I just don't think it's worth the effort at this point. As long as the name is descriptive, then it's good enough. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also a fan of this proposal. Maybe we should create at least a proposal that states if a song is multiple times recorded (doesn't matter if by the same artist), it should be named in a clear way. For example:
- Artist - Title (year).fileextension, or
- Artist - Title (original/rerecorded).fileextension
- Just my 2 cents mabdul 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's worth generally standardising filenames - too much cost for the benefit. For anybody who disagrees, the most plausible to get it off the ground might to be to attach it to an existing topic-specific naming convention, where benefits might be higher or more clearly identified (eg, for Mabdul's example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)). Obviously even this would need substantial discussion via WP:RFC. Rd232 talk 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said , we need at least a proposal for duplicated albums. For example I came a few days across File:Steve Hackett - Time Lapse (1994).jpg and File:Steve Hackett - Time Lapse (1999).jpg. Both files had a variant of timelapse.jpg or so with no ability to differentiate. Another example was (now renamed to) File:Anthony Phillips Band - Invisible Men (UK).jpg and File:Anthony Phillips Band - Invisible Men.jpg. mabdul 08:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think both sides are going about this wrong. You don't need to have requirements that are retroactive, or that even require renaming when there is no confusion. All you need is a guideline on how to name images going forward. A simple request to include the year in the filename when uploading album art due to possible ambiguity would cover a lot. The rest could be handled by encouraging people to look at the filenames on the article page, and to choose a distinct name.
No extra work would be required by anyone. — trlkly 12:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ali Pur Muzaffar Garh.
Ali pur is the City of Punjab province and is located between two main cities Bahawal Pur and Multan and is the district of Muzaffar Garh. Muzaffar garh is a District and have four tehsil's and ALi pur is the part of this Tehsil. in this ali pur people has more educated and businessman but most of the people doing work their agriculture crops and interest in agriculture in which 40% people's are Poor,30% educated with unemployment and remaining people are neutral not more rich not more poor. here the people are most hard worker's. but Government not give their proper right.
- It appears that you are looking to create an article about the subject. See the instructions at WP:AFC on how to submit an article. mabdul 11:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Rename this page
Periods disallowed in filenames?
The guideline currently states that "image file names must have exactly one dot in the name; other names will be rejected as invalid."
This does not seem to be currently in force; cf. File:Just a test.gif.jpg, File:Bad.bad.filename.jpg and File:Bad.filename.with.periods.jpg. (Tested with both the traditional Special:Upload and with the upload API.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed that statement and instead added a brief paragraph about other technical restrictions regarding disallowed characters that actually do exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- There really should be a guideline against both periods, but more importantly against dashes of any kind. Unfortunately there are a number of users that have in the past and may still be running scripts that automatically change the length of dashes... even in file names. When that happens, it breaks the file. A combination of careless dash length adjustment and careless NFCC 7 enforcement leads to all sorts of issues. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Filenames in non-Latin scripts
Transferring content from WP:FMV
Right now, Commons' filemover guideline include a "what to move and what not to move" section. Some time back, this section was copied into WP:FMV, which is a help page rather than a guideline or a policy. I'd like to see that section become part of a guideline, so I'm proposing that we remove the entire "What files should be renamed?" section from WP:FMV and add it here. Since we already have one RFC going, I'm going to attempt to make an RFC at WP:VP/P; if I can figure that out, I'll post a link here. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind the above. I've created the RFC at WT:FMV to avoid having two RFCs running here at the same time. Please go there to offer your input. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
RFC: Criterion 1
Right now, criterion 1 of "What files should be renamed?" reads: "Uploader requested". I consider that this is too broad and unespecific and, after quite a while working on the File namespace (uploading, moving and answering rename requests), I have reached the assumption that this may get into conflict with the other seven criteria listed in the table. That said, I'd like to propose several caveats or considerations to be added for criterion 1:
- Proposal 1
- The request is for a non-free media file or,
- The request is for a file used in more than 5 articles or,
- The request consists of purely cosmetic changes or,
- The request substantially changes the name of the file differing from what it actually depicts or,
- The request violates any of criteria 2–8,
- The file should not be renamed, and the request rejected. The user is recommended to request renaming under another criterion.
- An additional note: The table, which was copied from Commons, was originally designed for free files, and with a more open criteria which may not be completely suitable for en-wiki, which contains a high quantity of non-free media that cannot be renamed at will. That's why I am proposing several caveats for criterion 1. Originally, I was planning to propose the removal of criterion 1 as an option, but as we still have free files locally stored, uploaders of those files should have the possibility to request a rename. — ΛΧΣ21 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Your proposed limit of 5 articles seems arbitrary. Why 5? Those with more time and/or frequently use editing tools and scripts could clean up the links to more than 5 pages easily. And isn't "substantially changes the name of the file differing of its visual meaning" basically another way of saying criterion 2 in regards to "according to what the image displays"? Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It was an arbitrary number. In regards to "substantially changes the name of the file differing of its visual meaning", I meant if the uploader requests a rename against criterion 2, e.g. if the requested name substantially changes the name of the file in a way that it damages the relation between the name and what can be appreciated for its visual meaning. — ΛΧΣ21 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support some 1, 2, and 3 I do not like as there is no problem with moving a non-free file if the links are fixed, 5 articles is irrelevant and arbitrary number, and I oppose 3 as cosmetic changes are okay. They should be discouraged but not disallowed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey! Can you please explain which you support and which not? it isn't clear to me :( Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, just a note: Cosmetic changes are not allowed. Only uploaders can request a cosmetic change; otherwise, they should be denied per the guideline: "it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." But that's just what I think... — ΛΧΣ21 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, aren't we talking about changing criterion 1 of the renaming policy? I tried to say that uploaders can request a cosmetic change to the title of an image, but it should be discouraged. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see why this needs a change. If someone asks to rename File:Tower Bridge 2009.jpg into File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg, this should obviously be declined even if the request was made by the original uploader. Read the lead of the policy page: "Wikipedia file names should be clear and descriptive, without being excessively long." Why do you think that non-free files shouldn't be renamed? I don't see any problem with that (except that User:Hazard-Bot doesn't seem to tag the file for deletion per WP:CSD#F5 if there are redirects to the file). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose all but 4 & 5,
and they need work. Generally oppose per Stefan2. This is mostly a solution in search of a problem. People who have and use the filemover bit generally understand that these criteria and other requirements of file name policy interoperate. We all know that criterion 1 doesn't magically trump all other concerns. Also, there is nothing wrong with edits that you may consider "purely cosmetic" like adding a comma or whatever, other than they take someone's time. If you don't want to do those kinds of moves yourself, don't do them; there's no need to close such a request just because it's not interesting to you. I have no objection to language clarifying that criterion 1 doesn't trump the others, e.g. the "the uploader requests a rename against criterion 2" type of case, but your point #5 is poorly worded (see below). There are grammatical and parseability problems with the language you've proposed: 1) "differing of" doesn't make sense in English, and should instead read "differing from"; 2) "violates criterion 2-8" means violates 6 criteria, and should instead read "violates any of criteria 2–8" (note use of en-dash, not hyphen, too); 3) "its visual meaning" does not convey what you seem to think it does, and would be better as something like "what it actually depicts"; 4) "cosmetical", even if it is a real word (I'm skeptical it is) should be the more normal word "cosmetic" (it's unfortunate that English is inconsistent on -ic and -ical – my own comment here used "skeptical", as "skeptic" is a noun only – but it is). Even if these were all fixed, I can't support any of these options but something like your points #4 and #5. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey. Thanks for the big comment and the wording comments. I have reworder them following your instructions. This does not mean that I expect you to change your mind, but it avoids further confusion. — ΛΧΣ21 04:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. In my view this is instruction creep... I understand that it is well-meaning, and trying to fix a problem, but I don't think any extra rules are going to be useful. I would support a simple change that leaves the change up to the filemover (e.g. requiring that the request is "reasonable"), but not extra rules. — , and 06:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per This, that and the other. I too feel that this is unneeded instruction creep. Filemovers should be using common sense when changing file names. If they move an unfree file then they should know that they need to correct all usages of the file before tagging the redirect for deletion. The proposed criteria 3, 4, and 5 is already within policy. A good filemover isn't going to rename a file to a title that would create grounds for a second rename. I think the proposer has good intentions, but I don't think the extra criteria are needed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This seems to be an unnecessary change that would not really be useful. File movers should use common sense probably, when a request is made to rename a file. There are obviously intentions, but currently file moving is based around personally judgement in this case. TBrandley (what's up) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alpha Quadrant. I see that Template:Rename media refers to these as "rename criteria", but they are not referred to as criteria here. The eight items under 'What files should be renamed?' are referred to as "widely undisputed uses". Filemovers performing requested moves should still be adhering to the whole guideline. Gobōnobō + c 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't see a problem here. I have no idea why fair use images shouldn't be renamable under #1; the limit of 5 is arbitrary; and common sense should indicate to admins that certain requests, even if made by the uploader, should be declined (note that these are "widely undisputed uses", not "completely undisputed uses"). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
What would you rename it to?
File:№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪.png Has cropped up as a file needing renaming and I'm unsure what to do with it. Technical restrictions only list a few characters that aren't allowed, we have no guide as to what to do with text decoration like this. File:User logo - Notorious4life.png was one I pondered, but lacking clear guidance I'm not sure if I can strip the decoration or have to keep it the same. The addition of a commons version also complicates things. - X201 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)