Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Questionable harmonization

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?

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. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When do file movers leave a redirect?

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. ツ 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. ツ 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. ツ 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. ツ 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' section

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 instructions

"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. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

faulty renames

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. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and 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)

Move war: 大诺史 and CAPTAIN_RAJU vs Impru20

A volunteer to stop the crapfest producing collateral damage (such as deletion of redirects)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects were removed to make way for move (they had no other use other than being the leftovers from a previous move). The initial move was requested by user 大诺史 without consensus nor any significant reasoning behind it (CAPTAIN_RAJU merely conducted such request), breaking consistency with other already uploaded files named following a similar pattern, thus I've requested a re-move to the initial location (which has been in use for years without any trouble). Impru20 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies about this. Should’ve paid more attention when requesting. 大诺史 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment In this situation these are graphs generated by the user for use in templates at esWP. Whilst I would normally encourage spacing, I am comfortable letting the contributor make that assessment on their needs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File movers - problem moving files?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226672
RESOLVED

Sorry, I don't know where else to post this. Are any other file movers having issues not having a 'move file' button under the "More" tab? It's not showing up for some reason and I am trying to move a file... Corky 19:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Please see phab:T226672. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Review rights please

Please review the mover rights of someone who would do a move like this one! Total chaos will result if things like this go on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: That was not a file moving/renaming. Pinging @DenghiùComm.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with creating consistency between category names and leaving a redirect? Pinging @Jeff G.--DenghiùComm (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
P.S.: look now the name Charles here after his rollback. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Same thing you see at en:Category:Swedish monarchs. I don't see the problem with it -- if the most-used term for someone is different than predecessors with a similar name, well then it's different. On the other hand, this has nothing to do with file-moving, so probably doesn't belong on this page (and there are no special rights involved). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The main discussion of these category moves is at COM:ANU#DenghiùComm.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Six uses for rename requests

It is rather seldom, a few times a year, that I rename a file. But when doing I would like to give the short coded reason, e.g. "r#4" or what is well understood. For that, I would like to have in the move box a link where I can look for the six reasons – I am not fit enough to remember that stuff, from one rename to the next one. Of course, it can as well be a drop-down just to tick the reason, with the advantage to have it normalized. May be that some others would like that too. -- sarang♥사랑 13:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ratelimit exceeded

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T228317

Hey guys, since I got filemover rights I tried to rename some files; often I got this message:

Some edits exceeded your rate limit of 900 edits per 180 seconds. Please let this tab open until this dialog disappeared or you got a positive response from the tool you are using. It will take approx. 168 seconds to complete this task.

It's a bit annoying to wait 3 mins until I can continue, anyone knows how to fix that issue? Greets, Arjoopy (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@BWolff (WMF): I thought the ratelimit was increased to 10500 per 3 minutes for autopatrol? I ran into ratelimits some time ago as well, so something seems to be up.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
But unlike me, you don't seem to have performed anywhere near 900 edits.. So this may be a bug that needs to be reported on m:Phabricator. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like after moving 16 pages in one minute you got stuck. Seems like there is a ratelimit for page moves. The MediaWiki default for that is 8 moves per minute. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Alexis, I really appreciate the quick support. You're absolutely right, I never came close to 900 edits in 3 mins, that's why I wondered whether this is a bug ;) Following the thread at Phabricator, I assume you'll need a few more days? Greets, Arjoopy (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There does, however, appear to be a bug - the message for ratelimited moves should not be the message for ratelimited edits, or at least should pass the action as a parameter to allow customization. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: In addition, Arjoopy's limit is not 900 edits per 180 seconds. It's 10500, he's autopatrolled. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the move rate limit being too low, it sounds like part of the confusion is that the error message uses the edit rate limit instead of the move rate limit. This appears to be a bug in MediaWiki:Gadget-libAPI.js. Bawolff (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm requesting file renaming privileges

I plan to use this only on files I've uploaded myself. I make little errors and hate to trouble someone else with them. Deisenbe (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Deisenbe, unfortunately you have not even autopatrolled rights nor have you read the very first section of this project page. So probably there are more mistakes to be expect. -- User: Perhelion 23:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rename requests!

Please have a look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Rename requests!--AntanO 05:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure

I am not sure, whether my recent move was right (this one). I clicked to fast. I often work with location maps and the old name is the more obvious scheme for these kind of files. Is it better to move it back, or use the more often used kind of names like "map of foo, bla highlighted". Sorry, I looked at the reason but forgot to think. -- DerFussi 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the old name is better, so if you want to move it back, in my opinion you may safely do so. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a tool to rename multiple files?

Is there a tool to rename multiple files in one go? For instance, if there are several files where a word is misspelled or missing, I would find it most convenient if I could put them in the list, mark the common part to be changed, put in the reason for the renaming, and send it off. Example at hand: in Category:Sutton Courtenay there are multiple files where the place name is written "Sutton Courtney" and should be corrected. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding an explanation

Majora, you gave in your talk page this instructions:

"If you are using the move and replace script that is active on file pages there will be a checkbox that says "Leave a redirect behind". This is automatically checked and cannot be turned off if the file is in use. If you are using the normal Special:MovePage that is active on normal pages there will also be a checkbox there that says the same thing. To bypass the move and replace script on file pages you have to open a new tab through the "Move and Replace" button. For me I can do that by doing a "middle click" (clicking the mouse wheel on my mouse) while over the button. An alternative is to right click on the "Move and Replace" button and open it in a new tab. You can also get to the normal moving page by searching for Special:MovePage/PAGENAME in the search bar. "

How about a version of it here to all others volunteers? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Sure I can do that. Let me think of some more formalized language for the policy page. If you have any suggestions on a proper paragraph please feel free to post it. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I added two quick paragraphs on how to suppress redirect right. Before I set it up for translation I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions for improvements. --Majora (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Majora,
Thank you, I made some adjustments, as even with no usage, there is no option to uncheck, at least for me, a filemover.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: The move and replace script simply hasn't been updated yet to reflect the addition of the suppress redirect right to all file movers. I have requested an update. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Per its mention in "Important message for file movers", "File renaming criterion #5" should presumably mention "vandalism". Hyacinth (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Gratuitous vulgarity, personal attacks, blatant advertising, and cases where revision deletion would authorized are all examples of vandalism. That box is used in the Ajax script and while I'd normally have no problem adding it, even though it is already there just not explicitly, the big warning box at Template:File renaming reasons/i18n gives me pause especially considering all the translations that would have to be updated. Even more so considering #5 is all about vandalistic file names. I don't think this is totally necessary but if others think so I'll see what I can do. --Majora (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ugh

Can someone poke the correct person and have leave redirect ticked as the default option for move and replace? I wasn't even sure whether suppress redirect had gone live yet, I assumed once it was, it would not be the default. GMGtalk 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Majora, Zhuyifei1999. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo and Alexis Jazz: From my reading of the script it is defaulted on unless the file is younger then 2 days old. Then it is defaulted off. Is this the behavior you experienced GMG? I just opened an old, unused, file of mine that has it defaulted on. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Yes, I had just uploaded a batch of files and forgot to replace the file names which were bare unique identifiers. But that's really poor design. It really should just have a default that people can get used to, rather than some dynamic default that people need to remember to check for. GMGtalk 21:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure there was probably a reason for it at one time but I agree with you now. That part of the script should probably be deleted. Alas, only interface admins can edit it so we'll have to wait to see if Zhuyifei1999 responds to their ping. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: in general it would seem reasonably sensible for experienced users, but given that suppressredirect has been granted to all filemovers with stern consequences on abuse, this is no longer a good idea. (it's up for debate whether or not it ever was..) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Special:Diff/377175130 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Original uploader’s request and declining criteria

First renaming criteria states that "unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored". Is declining criteria (specifically criterion 1, 2 and possibly 3) a "compelling reason" to decline the original uploader's request? Ahmadtalk 10:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmad252: afaik no. (though, if an uploader is somewhat disruptive by requesting hundreds of renames that could be discussed first..) I think the most compelling reasons to decline uploader's request would be: introduction of errors, the new name is less descriptive or the file is heavily used. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:File_renaming/Archive/2019&oldid=423097671"