Commons talk:File renaming: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:47, 18 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:File renaming.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Participate in the vote & discussion on the proposed File naming guideline

Participation has been relatively low and it's becoming stale despite of it not being clear whether or not the draft will be adopted. This relates to file renaming in that this would be required less often since people have a guideline on how they and others should name files.

Commons:File naming – discussion and vote on this is here at VillagePump/Proposals. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate. Thanks, Prototyperspective (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice in criterion 3

Normally I wouldn't be super-picky about a single word, but given that it appears in the templates and is a major policy and is put in bold, figured it'd be better to talk it over first. Currently criterion 3 reads:

3. To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms

Now, I think this works in practice. But... why the word "obvious"? Shouldn't it be "major" errors, or perhaps "noncontroversial" errors? If, hypothetically, a picture saying it's one obscure species of beetle is in fact a similar-looking but different species of beetle, this kind of error may be deeply non-obvious. But it should still get fixed, right? Or, in the event of a credible dispute between good-faith editors, moved to a more general term (maybe kicking it up to the genus or family level, say). I brought the issue up in the Wikimedia Discord, and the feedback I got was that it was closer to "noncontroversial" in practice, i.e. undisputed. I'm not sure if that's perfect either - you could imagine a good faith but misguided editor kicking up "controversies" and thus blocking moves - but that would probably be fine 99% of the time.

(This came up because I requested a move that required quite a bit of research to realize that the source was indisputably wrong, but it involved text in Coptic, a language few people read. So a misidentification just stood for a decade+. Now, the image moved after all, so it clearly worked out, but I would not have called the error "obvious".)

Given the above, I'd like to recommend a new wording of:

3. To correct noncontroversial errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms.

SnowFire (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:obvious covers what we are trying to explain. I don't see that your change improves the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually advocating that only obvious in the sense of "Easily discovered, seen, or understood; self-explanatory" files should be moved, or are you invoking that page in some other way? Because the case of there being a major error that is self-evidently not easily discovered (i.e. it takes 10 years to notice) absolutely comes up. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way that I've always handled this as a filemover is that it's the requestor's job to make the error obvious to me. If the error isn't obvious from the file then that will usually require providing extra evidence. For the beetle, that might be a link to an authoritative explanation of the differences between the species, or a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page, or a tweet by an eminent entomologist saying we've got it wrong. Once I've seen the evidence, I can decide whether that's enough to make the error obvious and hence justify the renaming.

"Noncontroversial" is much harder for the filemover because it means that they have to somehow work out whether anyone disagrees with the request. I'm not sure how you'd determine that. Maybe by announcing every criterion-3 rename in advance and having a period for objections? That would certainly make the process more cumbersome. Without an objection period almost every request would appear to be noncontroversial, even those where a small amount of research would demonstrate that the current name is correct.

"Obvious" is probably not quite the right word, since it doesn't really capture the "given the information at hand" part, but I can't currently think of a better one. --bjh21 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed.

even with the current wording, far too often requesters give non-obvious, very brief reasons, and assume other users will understand. RZuo (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe proven errors, or provable errors, would be a better choice of words, as, in my experience, it is not rare that some people will not accept something as obvious even if it has been logically or empirically proven. Abderitestatos (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with changing to something like "Clearly explained errors" instead, or some variant, if the goal is to encourage requesters to make their case. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 }}
+== Participate in the vote & discussion on the proposed File naming guideline ==
-== Full width letters ==
+Participation has been relatively low and it's becoming stale despite of it not being clear whether or not the draft will be adopted. This relates to file renaming in that this would be required less often since people have a guideline on how they and others should name files.
-example: [[:File:Ｌｉｆｏｒt Higahsiura store.JPG]]. should it be renamed to using half width letters? [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
+'''[[Commons:File naming]]''' – discussion and vote on this is [[Commons:Village pump/Proposals#New draft of File naming guideline|here at VillagePump/Proposals]]. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
-:This is a tricky one.  It definitely doesn't qualify under criterion 4.  It might just about fall under criterion 3, if you claim that the shop is called "LIFORT" and not "Ｌｉｆｏｒt".  But that's really only a small change and falls within FRNOT #1.  I think the best argument is under criterion 6: the request says that those characters are likely to get mangled and I think that's (a) believable and (b) probably a case of "character handling problems, and other similar technical issues".  It's pretty close to the border-line though, and I may be being influenced by the ugliness of the half-width "t" there. --[[User:Bjh21|bjh21]] ([[User talk:Bjh21|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
-::personally i'm also inclined to rename such files with probably unintentional mix of full and half width chars. even though browsers' find function appears to treat full and half width chars the same, they are not the same in mediawiki. the mix might cause problems.
-::on the other hand, if the entire filename except the extension is full width, i think such a move would be unnecessary. it's like converting allcaps, which is not appropriate. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
+:Please participate. Thanks, [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-== Revisionism ==
+== Word choice in criterion 3 ==
-i've seen quite a lot of rename requests, that seek to change a filename, which is correct as of the time of creation or upload of that file, to a new name that's adopted later. a rather notable example is changing "god save the queen" to "...king".
+Normally I wouldn't be super-picky about a single word, but given that it appears in the templates and is a major policy and is put in bold, figured it'd be better to talk it over first.  Currently criterion 3 reads:
-these file renames should generally be declined. this practice should be mentioned in the guideline.
+: 3. To correct '''obvious errors''' in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms
+Now, I think this works in practice.  But...  why the word "obvious"?  Shouldn't it be "major" errors, or perhaps "noncontroversial" errors?  If, hypothetically, a picture saying it's one obscure species of beetle is in fact a similar-looking but different species of beetle, this kind of error may be deeply non-obvious.  But it should still get fixed, right?  Or, in the event of a credible dispute between good-faith editors, moved to a more general term (maybe kicking it up to the genus or family level, say).  I brought the issue up in the Wikimedia Discord, and the feedback I got was that it was closer to "noncontroversial" in practice, i.e. undisputed.  I'm not sure if that's perfect either - you could imagine a good faith but misguided editor kicking up "controversies" and thus blocking moves - but that would probably be fine 99% of the time.
+(This came up because I requested a move that required quite a bit of research to realize that the source was indisputably wrong, but it involved text in Coptic, a language few people read.  So a misidentification just stood for a decade+.  Now, the image moved after all, so it clearly worked out, but I would not have called the error "obvious".)
-the exception is those files that are meant to be kept up to date. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
+Given the above, I'd like to recommend a new wording of:
-:@[[User:RZuo|RZuo]]: You are welcome to suggest exact changes. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 15:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
+: 3. To correct '''noncontroversial errors''' in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms.
+[[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
-== Alternative romanisation ==
+::[[wikt:obvious]] covers what we are trying to explain. I don't see that your change improves the situation. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::Are you actually advocating that only obvious in the sense of "Easily discovered, seen, or understood; self-explanatory" files should be moved, or are you invoking that page in some other way?  Because the case of there being a major error that is self-evidently ''not'' easily discovered (i.e. it takes 10 years to notice) absolutely comes up.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
-https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wunshan_Hot_Spring_Closed.jpg&action=history
+:The way that I've always handled this as a filemover is that it's the requestor's job to ''make'' the error obvious to me.  If the error isn't obvious from the file then that will usually require providing extra evidence.  For the beetle, that might be a link to an authoritative explanation of the differences between the species, or a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page, or a tweet by an eminent entomologist saying we've got it wrong.  Once I've seen the evidence, I can decide whether that's enough to make the error obvious and hence justify the renaming.
+:"Noncontroversial" is much harder for the filemover because it means that they have to somehow work out whether anyone disagrees with the request.  I'm not sure how you'd determine that.  Maybe by announcing every criterion-3 rename in advance and having a period for objections?  That would certainly make the process more cumbersome. Without an objection period almost every request would appear to be noncontroversial, even those where a small amount of research would demonstrate that the current name is correct.
-non-latin languages may have plenty of romanisation schemes. they should not be regarded as "wrong" and therefore renamed. even if someone titles a file of shinzo abe "anbei jinsan" (hanyu pinyin for the kanjis as if they were in the chinese language), a file of beijing "peking" (postal romanisation)... they are still valid names. they are not wrong. they are not meaningless. they are not typos. they are not spelling mistakes. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
+:"Obvious" is probably not quite the right word, since it doesn't really capture the "given the information at hand" part, but I can't currently think of a better one. --[[User:Bjh21|bjh21]] ([[User talk:Bjh21|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
-:There is certainly an underlying principle that romanization schemes should not be categorically prioritized over each other, in the same way that the choice of which language a file is named in should never be preferred under policy. However, unlike the complete deference to the uploader's choice when it comes to the language of a filename, being consistent in the romanization of a particular name is ''ab initio'' a good practice unless given a compelling reason to name a particular file differently than the default romanization from its category and its other files - e.g. the title of an artwork uses "Bombay" while depicting a scene in "Mumbai", or the image is taken from a government report on expats living in "Peking" instead of "Beijing". Having the spelling in filenames consistent with the romanization used for the other files about the subject and the subject category can be important when guiding editors into recognizing that an image actually represents the subject they are writing about when creating wiki content.
+::agreed.
-:For this particular instance, it was certainly in good faith asking for this rename under obvious error, even though it is debatable whether it truly qualifies. The fact that the image itself includes a spelling from a different romanization means this can't be firmly considered wrongly applying correcting an obvious error. It fundamentally was nevertheless harmonizing a filename with others, even though it is out of the technical bounds of criterion #4.
+::even with the current wording, far too often requesters give non-obvious, very brief reasons, and assume other users will understand. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
-*Now whether there should be a larger conversation on harmonizing the romanization when spelling a particular name is definitely one that might yield some additional clarity for this guideline, and I would absolutely welcome a robust conversation on whether that should be explicitly included here. [[User:Vanisaac|Van]][[User talk:Vanisaac|Isaac]] ([[w:en:User talk:Vanisaac|en.wiki]]) 21:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Maybe ''proven errors'', or ''provable errors'', would be a better choice of words, as, in my experience, it is not rare that some people will not accept something as obvious even if it has been logically or empirically proven. [[User:Abderitestatos|Abderitestatos]] ([[User talk:Abderitestatos|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
-*:the initial filename is picked by the uploader.
+::::I would be fine with changing to something like "Clearly explained errors" instead, or some variant, if the goal is to encourage requesters to make their case.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
-*:users often do not have knowledge of all the romanisation schemes in the world. they only know of the ones associated with their language, the ones they use.
-*:suppose a german speaking user uploads a photo of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but the german language has a unique way of latin transliteration of cyrillic: {{w|Wolodymyr Selenskyj||de}}. can other users claim that it's wrong? it should be renamed because it differs from other files in the category?
-*:also, even if they know of the other romanisation schemes, they are still free to choose the ones they prefer.
-*:i dont think filemovers should pick which ones should be preferred over the uploaders' choices, as long as the filename makes sense for some people (not all people. romanisation schemes often only make sense for a specific group of users in a specific language.) [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
-*::Alternative romanizations can go into the description field, and be found there with a search. As a child, I accepted my parents' names for an item from "Bombay" and a dish named "Peking Duck" at a Chinese restaurant in New York City (hey, that's what it said on the menu). &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
-*::That's kind of exactly the question. What is the point of filenames? If it's simply to have an ID for accessing the file, then it doesn't matter what the filename is as long as it's unique. I think we can all agree that the existence of this guideline proves otherwise. So what are the other considerations we should be taking into account? I think that there is an argument that "Wolodymyr Selenskyj" is a less than ideal part of an English language filename whose subject is normally rendered in English language contexts as "Volodymyr Zelenskyy". If the filename is in German, e.g. "Wolodymyr Selenskyj auf einem öffentlichen Platz.png", then you're not just talking about simple romanization of the name, you're talking about the language of the filename, where deference to the uploader is much more important. [[User:Vanisaac|Van]][[User talk:Vanisaac|Isaac]] ([[w:en:User talk:Vanisaac|en.wiki]]) 19:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons talk:File renaming: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:47, 18 June 2024

Participate in the vote & discussion on the proposed File naming guideline

Word choice in criterion 3

Navigation menu

Search