Wikipedia talk:File names

Hello!

c:COM:FNC#6 is already pretty much a de facto criterion but can it be made a de jure one? — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia talk:File mover (diff) by Jonteemil (talk⋅contribs) 23:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. Things like double extensions (example.jpeg.jpg) can be quite confusing. — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia talk:File mover (diff) by Alexis Jazz (talk⋅contribs) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from Wikipedia talk:File mover. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the commons criterion (including its footnote) is:

Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues.^[1]

1. [1]

   This is not a catch-all for anything that doesn't fit one of the above. This is for specific technical problems, generally which have a Phabricator task and have been the subject of community discussion.

DMacks (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @CptViraj, DannyS712, Davey2010, Emperork, Swarm There is nothing in this policy about double extensions. On the Commons policy, c:Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed? this is clearly covered by #6 "Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues". We don't have this rationale, and that's a bit of an issue as User:Jonteemil has just requested (JUST as I was approved as a file mover!) over 100 moves for double extensions like File:Green Crystal Ties, Volume 1.Garage Band Rebels.JPEG.jpg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I also noticed that enwiki lacked an equivalent to #6 at Commons. I therefore requested it be added at Wikipedia talk:File mover#Addition of criterion.Jonteemil (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I moved the discussion to this page, because this is where the criteria are. (Wikipedia:File names is transcluded on Wikipedia:File mover) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: We are now stuck with 139 files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. I'm not currently comfortable renaming them without a rationale in policy, and writing policy probably takes about.. long? How do you propose we resolve this? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds sound. If the proposal goes through the files will be renamed and if not, my edits will be reverted. I don't think a conclusion will take that much time.Jonteemil (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I think accepting proposals takes long, and in the meantime the category is difficult to navigate. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The closest that I can associate this is to WP:FNC#5 for the meantime until there is any explicit mention about double extensions. The commons policy seems to treat it like that. — Emperork (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would say double extensions are uncontentiously covered by WP:FNC#3 and WP:FNC#5, as well as WP:FMNN (which contains the caveat that "situations that could cause confusion are to be avoided", and double extensions can certainly cause confusion). It's true that we don't explicitly list double extensions as a reason for moving, and indeed we don't have Commons' "general fixes" criterion, but I would be comfortable fixing double extensions while citing both FNC 3 & 5. We're not a bureaucracy, if something is realistically covered by the "spirit of the law" and there's no plausible downside or controversy in doing it, be bold. I think realistically you could just update the policy wording to include double extensions as an example of one of the aforementioned criteria, probably 5 would be the most accurate. I do not think it needs to be formally proposed as a new criterion because it's already implied. I appreciate your willingness to hit the brakes on this as a brand new File mover and seriously assess the situation. That's definitely the right thing to do in any "mass edit" situation, especially one where the policy mandate is unclear to you. Definitely a scary situation to run into right after you get File mover. However, in this case I think Jonteemil is well within the bounds of policy and if you were to initiate the moves, I would vouch for that as a 100% appropriate use of the tool. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you. I wanted to help maintain the category and right away run into this, rather scary. I actually did move a few of them, specifically those of the "svg.png" variety. Those can clearly be confusing. But .JPG.jpg? It's really odd and ugly, but it's clear that it's a JPEG file. And what about "BitBucket SVG Logo.svg"? It's straight from the DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment, but is it confusing? On AN, Wugapodes said I think the ".JPEG.jpg" may be worth renaming especially if they're recent uploads but most of the files in the category were uploaded years ago. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment was less "don't do it" and more "beware the unseen risks". Moving files can break links, which is why we shouldn't move files freely and why we should be more careful moving older files. That's not to say we should never do so, but those are the harms you need to weigh against the benefits of a sane file name. Like Swarm, I seriously doubt anyone would have a problem with you fulfilling these requests under F5, but you should be aware that some may be judgment calls and shouldn't be rubber stamped. As long as you mitigate the harms by cleaning up after yourself and fixing back links, this seems like an unambiguous improvement even if minor. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Isn't there a bot that takes care of updating articles which contain moved images? If not, I'll have to figure out how to make the Commons gadget work here. Also, while redirects are left, hotlinked images on external sites still break. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

See also VPM. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I just dealt with a few requests by User:McVahl. I found excuses to grant all but one. One I very nearly declined was File:Ust civil law logo.svg to File:Coat of arms of the UST Faculty of Civil Law.svg. (I moved it to File:Coat of arms of the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law.svg instead) I'd argue that in this context "Ust" could be considered an obvious error (should be UST when going with the initialism) and as a whole the name was fairly ambiguous.

But I don't think it's wrong to call the image a logo. (which was the original motivation for the rename request) I think coats of arms are a subtype of logos, especially when used in the modern day. Am I right? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, if you'll see the article University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, there are two "logos" appearing in the infobox (coat of arms, and square version). I think it would be more appropriate use the term "logo" in naming the files for square versions. All other UST faculties and colleges actually have two types of logos. – McVahl (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@McVahl: See Wikipedia:File names#What files should not be renamed?. As a matter of principle, it is best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)