Wikipedia talk:File names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Generic image file names[edit]

Quite accidentally I noted unintended "revert wars" on "Image:Logo.gif". People upload a logo without checking what's already there. I uploaded this, instead: Logo.gif

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.

Would this procedure be a good idea for other generic image file names (suh as Photo.jpg", "Image.gif" etc.)? --Janke | Talk 03:04:37, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

  • 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)
By doing what you just suggested, obviously. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
D'oh! ;-) I thought you had some other idea... --Janke | Talk 17:22:53, 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)

Protected images[edit]

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:

  1. Image:logo.png / Image:logo.jpg (I already uploaded the image to these)
  2. Image:photo.jpg / Image:photo.gif / Image:photo.png
  3. Image:image.jpg / Image:image.gif / Image:image.png
  4. Image:img.jpg / Image:img.gif / Image:img.png

... and probably quite a few more. --Janke | Talk 05:59:40, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

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)
OK, all done here. You'll have to get someone else to do the commons one, I'm not an admin there. Noel (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no experience with Commons. Will leave that to somebody else. --Janke | Talk 07:32:21, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

I listed Image:Image.gif for deletion on Commons. It will take a while to process. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:46, 10 September 2005 (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)
Nope. Tried it. If it's on Commons, you can't use the same name on Wikipedia. --Janke | Talk 18:41:27, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Oh, and while I think of it: did anybody check whether any of those older versions might actually be usable under a better name? —Phil | Talk 15:39, 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)

Still more[edit]

I found this thing: Image:picture.jpg

Uploading "please don't" image now. Ashibaka (tock) 03:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, all three: Image:Picture.jpg / Image:Picture.gif / Image:Picture.png How could I forget those? I'll ask Noel to protect them. --Janke | Talk 04:18:50, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

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)
Done. Now we need an admin to protect them... --Janke | Talk 19:31:43, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Image:Untitled.jpg is basketball.. Secretlondon 22:53, 27 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)

Commons:Forbidden filenames[edit]

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)

Some more[edit]

Secretlondon 22:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon

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)

Wrap up[edit]

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)

Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.

However, Wikipedia is not Bureaucracy... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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.[edit]

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.

Regard! Abdul Rafiq from ali pur Muzaffar Garh punjab Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiqbhutta49 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


I am proposing that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Image file names to Wikipedia:File names. Image file names simply isn't as accurate, since the policy also applies to sound (.ogg) and presentation (.pdf) files, not just images. The current name is also pretty awkward. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. mabdul 15:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked filename was one word. So the title should probably be Wikipedia:Filenames. Multichill (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: All files. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Not all files are images but this page affects all files. I might be wrong, but aren't both "filename" and "file name" valid? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Might be wrong, but I always treated "file name" as the regular usage, as in "The file name is Bunnies_with_chainsaws.png", and "filename" as the technical term, as in "|filename=File:Bunnies_with_chainsaws.png". That's why I chose the space over the non-space. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer's comments and the need for consistency in terminology. Acather96 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia also hosts files which are not images. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Periods disallowed in filenames?[edit]

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[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was: business as usual. Option 3 has clearly been rejected since Commons is supposed to be the central Wikimedia file repository for freely licensed media. Local copies are therefore redundant. Option 2 is neither feasible because it has no support on the Commons side. This leaves it "as is", which also being supported by the arguments made in this dicussion. After all it is the depicted content that matters and not exotic filenames. There is also still the possibility of simply copying and pasting a filename from Commons even when your local system does not support the font. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

On Wikimedia Commons, filenames in non-Latin scripts are allowed. How should the English Wikipedia treat them? Using File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg and File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg as an example, the options are:

  1. Use as is: Just put File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg into any article you want to use it in. Simplest solution, though some may consider foreign scripts to be unreadable.
  2. Redirect: Create commons:File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg as a redirect to commons:File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg. Good compromise solution, except for the fact that you can't put anything on the Wikipedia file description page for File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg, which presents a problem for featured pictures, for instance.
  3. Local copy: Upload File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg as a local copy of File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg. Solves all the technical problems, but may contradict the spirit of Commons, which is to serve as a common repository of images that all Wikimedia projects can use without having to have a local copy.

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 9#File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg for a discussion about this file as well as links to earlier discussions. -- King of ♠ 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose 3 The idea with Commons is to keep images at only one place. If some users can't stand file names in other scripts, redirects is an option, although not necessary in my opinion. I don't see an issue with the featured picture template; it could easily go under the han'gŭl name. I assume that you would still see the featured picture template if you type in the non-han'gŭl name. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Policy doesn't talk about redirects for alternate language names, and Help:File redirect actually prohibits what you've suggested in option 2; see the "Unwanted use of file redirects" section. Option 3 is even worse, because it duplicates resources and pages. Languages with other scripts use images uploaded with Latin-alphabet names; why can't we do the opposite? Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: This isn't a policy discussion, it's a proposal for how to address an a readability/editability problem. What "policy doesn't talk about" isnt' really relevant here. If this actually does conflict with Help:File redirect (which is not a policy or guideline, but a how-to page subject to very little but technical oversight - very, very few editors pay any attention to "Help:"-space pages), then what that page advises may well need to be revised. Further, your comparison is a bit fallacious: If what is proposed in Option 2 became the norm, then it could also be used in other languages to provide local-language support for files that are presently named in the Latin alphabet. I.e., the point you raise is actually a point in favor, not against, the proposal (Option 2, anyway; I don't think anyone supports #3). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As it is, these files are subject to speedy deletion — if they're uploaded, they're subject to F8 as copies of Commons images, and if you create a redirect, they're subject to G8 as redirects to pages that don't exist on Wikipedia. So yes, this is a policy discussion, because you're seeking to have them legitimised. Meanwhile, Commons has already discussed the question; if you disagree with it, you'll need to propose a revision at the village pump, because we have no authority over anything at Commons when we discuss something here. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 Only Option 3 is not only a waste of time, but also means that updates will not appear on Wikipedia pages if the origional file is on Commons and someone isn't explicitly watching for updates. Also, while "don't worry about the servers" is a mantra at this point, this would be an epic waste of resources. Option 2 is slightly more palatable, save for that it's prone to breaking. Yes, some people don't have foreign language support. It is becoming increasingly hard not to have that though, anyone who got a computer made in the last five years probably has the major Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and East Asian typesets. Yes, you might not have Burmese (a commonly missing one) but you'll have just about everything else that I've ever seen a file name in. Just copy paste, or if you can't read it or work with it at all, ask someone else for help. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Option 2: The problems possibly raised seem trivial. The benefit is that editors can be more certain that an image added to an article is what it purports to be, not some off-topic thing added as a joke or by mistake. One should not have to be able to read entirely different language families just to figure out whether something is appropriate on en-wiki. Images are one of the most obviously places that sneaky people can get away with original research, nonsense and other WP:V problems. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said above, Commons has already rejected the proposed Opion 2, so you'll first need to get consensus for overturning this if you want to have Option 2. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transferring content from WP:FMV[edit]

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[edit]

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
  • If:
    1. The request is for a non-free media file or,
    2. The request is for a file used in more than 5 articles or,
    3. The request consists of purely cosmetic changes or,
    4. The request substantially changes the name of the file differing from what it actually depicts or,
    5. 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.

I'd like to hear which of those receive support. They are not presented as a complete package, and all, only several, or none of them can be accepted. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
Note to close: I can't close this for several reasons, but it is clear consensus against the inclusion of the caveats. Several users have expressed their support to caveats 4 and 5, but this is not enough to be considered as a consensus to add them too. — ΛΧΣ21 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Support all As proposer. — ΛΧΣ21 20:57, 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)
    I support 4 and 5. I oppose 1, 2, and 3. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:11, 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)
    Indeed. Thanks for the clarification. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 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)
    I think they should not be renamed under criterion 1. Under any of the other criteria, it's fine to rename them if necessary. — ΛΧΣ21 03:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose all but 4 & 5, and they need work [the issues I had with them were resolved 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)]. 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⇒ ɖכþ 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)
    Thank you. I still support 4 and 5, or something closely similar to them, but don't find the rest to be very useful. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 03:00, 3 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. — This, that, and the other (talk) 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?[edit]

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)

Proposal for ninth reason[edit]

(non-admin closure) Clear consensus in favour of adding an extra criterion. TDL (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2015 (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.

Today, I discovered that Commons:File:Country Store.jpg would fit into the article about the town where the picture was taken, so I added it to an article, only to discover that the article now had an image of a cereal box: a local file was masking the one from Commons. Accordingly, I employed IAR, moved the cereal box to File:Country Store cereal.jpg, updated the link at the cereal article, and everything's now working fine.

With this in mind, what if we implemented a ninth reason for renaming? Something like the below:

No. Aim Examples (old name) Examples (new name) Shortcut
9 Fix Commons filename masking.<ref>An image from Commons cannot be used here if a locally uploaded image has the same filename, and the [[:Commons:COM:RENAME|Commons guidelines]] strongly discourage renaming a Commons image for this reason alone.</ref> Unlike the other criteria, this criterion is valid for use with non-free images. WP:FNC#9

Moving a Commons file is pretty much always a bad idea when masking is the only problem; COM:RENAME says If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one. We should remind local filemovers of the Commons standards and discourage them from going against them. And finally, since it's purely a technical issue, it should apply regardless of whether the file's free or not. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This already seems to be covered by WP:FNC#7 (but should maybe be stated more clearly): if there is a local File:Country Store.jpg and another File:Country Store.jpg on Commons, then the files have very similar names. Also, all renaming criteria apply to both free and unfree files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe Stefan2 is technically correct, but I think it deserves its own attention. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I was completely unaware that someone would consider #7 to cover this situation; as I read #7, it's for when you have two local images, either of which could be moved in accordance with the criterion. That's why I think it deserves its own attention, since moving the cereal box was much better than moving the store. Also, the file section of WP:MOVE says "Ensure the file isn't non-free", making me assume that this page restricted moves to free images only, so I figured we ought to make an exception here. It seems a silly idea to prohibit moving nonfree images, so we might do well to add something to this page saying basically "Images with filenames qualifying for moving may be moved without regard to their copyright status". Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I do more filemoving at Commons and rarely do it here, so I wasn't as familiar with the standards, so when I saw the thing at WP:MOVE, I assumed that it was based on a statement here. You're right, so I've removed it from WP:MOVE; after all, it's a help page, not a policy or guideline. That part of the page is supposed to be a summary of this page: silly to have it say something this page doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I know that I've moved hundreds of files in this situation. Usually I used the summary "File Shadowed Commons File." Additionally, I've probably completed 50-75 rename requests for this exact purpose. Like Stefan says, this is already allowed. I can, however, see that it may need to be spelled out better. I would change the wording to something like Rename file that shadows Commons file. We should parallel what we already have. See {{ShadowsCommons}} which shows that this situation is valid. See also Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons which is filled by that template. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously valid justification which belongs in the list, and is already applied in practice. Alsee (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously sound proposal, the spelling out would make it clear this is valid and possible.Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clarification by adding an extra reason #9, but I think that it already is covered by #7. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course, I wouldn't mind expanding #7 by saying "This also covers files that are masking Commons images" or something to the effect; the important thing is getting the clarification added, one way or another. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say add it. Make it clear. If you want to number it 7a and stick it in under #7, so that it appears more like a specific example of #7 than a brand-new rule, go ahead. But it deserves its own clarification, at least. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The explanation of #7 may become too messy if there are too many examples, so listing this special situation as #9 may be good for clarity. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This is an obvious case where file moving needs to happen.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems like a good reason; #7 the way it's written implies that the disambiguation needs to happen between existing files, not masked ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2015 (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.