Open main menu
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 180 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archive of file renaming proposal and activation: Here


Questionable harmonizationEdit

The reason 4 ("To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs") can oftentimes come into collision with the contraindication No. 1: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." Limits and purposes of the "harmonization" should be described more closely. Also the term "set of images" should be specified a bit better. The reason 4 should not justify needless mass renames nor minor typographical "improvements" as a replace of hyphens with dashes etc. --ŠJů (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we have to emphasize the additional information on this criterion below the table where the set of images is defined. --Didym (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Special noticeboard?Edit

Why don’t file renamers have their noticeboard? I remember how discussed the stuff with one Wikimedian via Facebook which is, generally, not a good practice. Situations where a rename request belongs to some context which can’t comfortably be referenced are rather common. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: This page appears to be enough.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When do file movers leave a redirect?Edit

I noticed that sometimes file movers leave a redirect while other times they do not, when it is common practice to delete the old name? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: For actual file movers, we have no choice but to leave a redirect (the checkbox is grayed out). Admins have a choice. I do not advocate deleting redirects unless they fit a non-maintenance speedy deletion criterion.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Ah, that makes sense that it's admin-only as I saw that several files that I requested renaming for had their redirects deleted (Mobile 📱), which I found odd as I can't remember the redirects ever being deleted before, and as autocorrect was to blame as to why the bad file names existed in the first place I had rather not seen those redirects deleted. Is there a way I can request renaming and then specify that I don't want the redirects deleted? Especially for cases where autocorrect + (plus) human error (mine, specifically) are to blame which could be repeated by searchers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Redirects are very cheap in terms of WMF resources, so there's no major impact in keeping them. For files which have been here a while, they may be referenced on external websites by their original URL, so it's a good idea to keep them. A recently-uploaded file under, e.g. a wrong name, there is probably no need for a redirect to be kept as the file is probably not linked from elsewhere yet. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: that makes sense, I just uploaded them so the probability of me sharing them "off-wiki" is minimal. Thanks for explaining. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
If outside references were directly linked to the image (not the image page), that is broken even if a redirect is left -- one of the ways renaming files can still do some damage. But yes, should not be an issue with recently-uploaded stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Special:MovePage does permit for suppression, of course if the user has the suppressredirect MediaWiki right. You know that I sometimes enjoy it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Here, you would have to be a member of the Administrators or Bots group to get that right per Special:ListGroupRights.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Membership in these two groups is sufficient, but not necessary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: How is it not necessary, under what circumstances?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Under SUL accounts it is not necessary. Welcome to the 2010s, Jeff. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I have an SUL account. I can move files without redirect where I am an Administrator, but not here. I confirmed that today.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I could probably do it if I were a file renamer and I wanted to, but both are improbable. JeffGBot (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t mean—rather obviously!—that having a SUL account is sufficient for suppressredirect, these are global groups which permit an account for any thing not permitted locally. An interesting idea to grant file renamer to a bot – where was it discussed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'How to rename a file' sectionEdit

The 'How to rename a file' section looks to be woefully out of date – it makes no mention of File movers, and suggests using the {{Rename}} template rather than the {{Rename media}} template. Just sayin'... IJBall (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, {{rename media}} is outdated since 2008, when it was renamed to {{rename}}. File movers are mentioned in all language versions. --Didym (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't understand instructionsEdit

"Users can request a file rename by first activating the gadget RenameLink via Preferences/Extensions/Files."

When I click on Preferences I don't see Extensions. Deisenbe (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I patched that to read 'Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets subsection "Interface: Files and categories"'. Thank you for letting us know.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

faulty renamesEdit

File:Volkseinkommen Deutschland vor 1991.pdf has recently been renamed to an obviously wrong name. (The statistic is current and not until 1990). How do I go about to fix this? Agathoclea (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@PerfektesChaos: Why did you ask again for this rename, given the previous denial? @Draceane: Why did you approve it, given the previous denial?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G., Agathoclea: Sorry, I've seen the description there and thought that it is correct to rename it. (The problem was I didn't read the description in German correctly.) Draceane talkcontrib. 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC) (edited — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC))
Sorry, I have taken the description from w:de:Volkseinkommen#Entstehungsrechnung which seems to be originated by uploader. I did not decipher the figures below the chart since they are too small and not rendered in my presentation.
However, it is not a good idea to use as name an unspecified range from −∞ until +∞ and it would be to use the same unspecified file name for any purpose and any time range, even in 19th century.
Therefore the new renaming request would be: from 1970 until 2012 using this particular chart in appropriate context only, and national income of 19th century with another chart.
The amendment before 1991 meant: “data before 1991 for Western Germany only” which is not detailed in file information page, a very slipshod attitude as well.
The original name Volkseinkommen.pdf does not tell any range nor any country (Austria??) and was a bad idea anyway. That is the reason why I asked for a more precise name.
Greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "File renaming".