Wikipedia talk:File mover/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Discussion on the Page (moved from project page)

• File moving guideline? (commons:Commons:File renaming should be good to base it upon.)

  I grabbed that doc, slapped it in above, and did a couple edits that seemed appropriate at first glance, but I welcome people trouting me if those changes were inappropriate.

• Requirements? Maybe a suggested number is not a good idea; doesn't really prove experience, just that someone slapped on a tag 50 times or whatever.

  It's possible, you might very well be right., but note that the procedure for autopatrolled tends to assume that the granting administrator actually looks through some of the requests and verifies they're policy compliant. I think we'd want the same thing here, in particular, some number of unrelated name changes that all advance some policy goal (significantly more meaningful name, harmonization for template use, etc.) My hope for a minimum number is to have some editors self-select away from asking for it, which I realize is probably too optimistic.  :)

  Yeah, hopefully that's assuming the admin bothers to look :P. However, I don't know if 10 is too few to judge experience; but 50 would be hard to keep track of. Usually, I'd say that if only a small number of people actually need this right, someone would have seen them working with files often and would be able to grant it upon request. It might be easier to see what happens without a required number first and if there are issues, add a number.

  Sounds reasonable to me. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's live

I'm starting to worry—I don't want this turning into another "extra" right for "experienced" users; we should only be giving it to people who will use it often, not people who will have it and maybe move one or two files a month, without helping with the backlogs. That's the point of this userright—to help admins eliminate backlogs, not to sit on some user's account for show. There's no harm in giving this to experienced users, but if they don't do anything with it, what's the point? Hopefully this is not a big issue, but this is why I hate creating new userrights. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that, and am glad you have raised the issue. On one hand, I've come to believe there's no significant danger lurking here, and in fact in the end I supported handing out to all autoconfirmed users. On the other, I'd like to honor consensus, that's more important than "what I think", and the discussion that led to this right didn't really say much of anything consistent about appropriate bar for handing it out. this leaves me feeling a bit at sea about what to do except in some of what I consider the more obvious cases, and I would appreciate suggestions, discussion, guidance on the point. Let's make a little consensus. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a little wiggle room is OK (any hard limits would just lead rights-eager users to think, "Hey, I'll tag 50 images and get file mover") but we need users who either a) will use this regularly (not just "I want it because I'm a filemover on Commons" because that doesn't mean anything), as evidenced by regular, quality work in the file namespace (now, if someone was a filemover on Commons and has a good track record using the tool regularly and not making mistakes often, this would make sense); or b) have a legitimate reason for requesting this without file experience on enwiki (e.g., needs to rename the files in a whole category for consistency and whatnot; maybe temporary filemover would make sense here? I know they do that with accountcreator sometimes; IDK if it will work here). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Either I don't know as many of the people that work in the file namespace as I thought I did, or some of the people who signed on are just grabbing for rights. My personal knowledge goes as follows: Kelly will use it, and well, definate filespace gnome that one. Chzz, 28bytes, Addihockey10, and Logan I recognize, I think all from Articles for Creation. Donno if they're going to use it, but I trust them regardless. Mono works in the filespace, but usually on the creation end. I trust him to do good work, though. SandyGeorgia does a lot of work in FAC, if I recall correctly. There might be a need for it there, I don't know, but again, I doubt she'll misuse the tool. I've seen Guerillero in featured sounds as of late. Very little contact with him thus far. Neutralhomer, White Shadows, and Swarm are names I recognize, but can't pin to any work specificity, the rest I don't recognize or barely recognize.

Yes, I see there's talent here, but (and I'm sorry to name names), Bobby131313 has a total of 18 edits in the file namespace, and The Writer 2.0 has none. I don't know who's granting these permissions, and I don't want to prevent people who could use this from having it, but if we're going to do it as a right, basic checking for experiance would be nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly where my concerns lie. A lot of people apply for rights because they think, "Oh, I have all these others, so I'm probably trusted and adding another can't hurt". No, it can't hurt that much, but the whole point of making a new user group is for people to help with backlogs, not have it sitting there. I'm sure, however, that whoever is handing out these rights is doing so in good faith and obviously this is a little different that reviewer, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the good faith, yeah, the views in the discussion on this user right were all over the map, and as I've said elsewhere, I can see people walking away from it with a sense that the right bar is anywhere from "barely more than autoconfirmed" to "there should be only ten of these handed out ever", and have those beliefs based in some of what happened. What I'd like to do, if it isn't too CANVASy, is to go through the list of granting administrators so far and to leave each of them a note mentioning the discussion here, with a hope that we'll get more alignment going forward. Does that seem constructive? --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, thumbs up on "wiggle room", and also flexibility to grant to people willing to take on backlog projects. I don't even care if they're temporary, I just want the backlogs cleared! Speaking of which, fewer than 9800 URBLPs left, back to the salt mines... --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just sharing a perspective FWIW. I'm a heavy content creator. Not a gnome, not a backlog clearer. Not interested in mopping the floor. But very interested in building real professional quality (or close) content. I got the reviewer and rollbacker thing and they have (so far) been useless to me. But the page move is VERY useful to me. I am always having to bug peope to move pages for me. So, FWIW, for heavy content creators, this is a useful tool. Just a perspective, in case y'all had not considered it. TCO (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For TCO, it seems that you have done very little with images on Wikipedia, perhaps you need filemover on commons rather than here. Filemover will not let you move pages over the top of other pages.

I reckon that we should have a guideline on when to set or unset the bit. We could include criteria such as user knows what they are dong, user does not cause trouble, user has done a lot of work in the file: space, user has requested good file moves, or has filemover on commons. The bit could be removed from those that cause problems, eg moving without updating articles, or against consensus. Mere nonuse should not result in the loss of the permission. Feel free to come up with other ideas on a guideline! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done a lot of file uploading to Commons. I figure that is the place for images. Often have wanted to rename something I uploaded if I goofed or there was a new upload, with some differences so need a series name etc. Or I find misclassified animals. Just have to put that rename template on them. For here, it's renaming article titles that was nice. Used that right away and is my more frequent need.TCO (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

TCO: File mover only moves files though. There should be a tool that lets non-admins move pages over redirects. Most of my contributions are in numismatics, and a lot of the articles use improper capitalization that I would like to fix, but there are sometimes redirect pages for the correct spelling.

To others: I have to say I don't understand the uproar. Many users are given rollback and reviewer that might not use it all the time (I've used rollback once and reviewer dozens of times), so what's the difference with file mover? As long as the editor is trusted to not misuse the tool, why not give it to them? I can't possibly envision any damage that could be caused by giving out this tool to trusted editors. I might not use it all the time, but I'd be glad to help with the backlog from time to time. Just my opinion. I'm not actively involved in all this bureaucratic stuff, so don't put too much stock in it.-RHM22 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Wehwalt gave me the power. Then I went and renamed "List of U.S. state bats" to "U.S. state bats". (Did I have that power before? I always asked other people to move pages for me, before.)TCO (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, to clarify:

• Any user with at least 10 edits and an account at least 4 days old, can move a non-file page.
• "File mover" permission means exactly that—you can move files as well as regular articles. Previously, while almost anyone could move articles, only admins could move files. You seem to only need to move articles; you don't need file mover permissions for that.
• So, in reality, you didn't need to ask others to help you move pages before unless you wanted them moved over an existing page or you need to re-title an image on en.wikipedia.org. File mover here does not give you any extra permissions on Wikimedia Commons. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I do a lot of image work, actually. But it's all at Commons. Would want the file mover power there.TCO (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File mover is best for fair use images, since those are all here on Wikipedia. There a few free use images scattered about, but most of those should be moved to Commons anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just rolled back though. Some kid (probably) came in and wrote junk in painted turtle. Just rolled him back. TCO (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You were added to the rollbacker group in February. That's why you can roll back. It's a separate right and a separate group, with no relation to files or moving pages. The complete list of this wiki's groups and their associated rights can be found at Special:ListGroupRights. Reach Out to the Truth 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect Fetchcomms' view on this; all of the editors I gave it too are article writers who may find it useful. I'm an admin who really spends most of his time writing, and as I cannot do it all, I consider an important part of my wikiduties helping aspiring writers along. Respectfully, I see no downside to giving it to them. None of them will abuse it. I don't hand out bling, btw, either in the form of userrights or barnstars. In addition to writing, I try to support aspiring article writers (people who I've helped have at least a half dozen FAs and soon a FL I think) by advice and giving them tools I think will help them. Perhaps you can recruit them to help with the backlog, they are all good people.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict that actually responds to Wehwalt) The reason why filemover never really was given out before now is that the potential for something to go wrong is rather high. When you move a file namespace page, you move the file on the WMF storage discs. When you move a non file namespace, you don't. There was one incident way back in Wikipedia's infancy were a bunch of files were deleted forever because of some technical mishap, and since then, despite layers of protection designed to prevent that, the idea of giving people the ability to move files never really came up, partially because there didn't seem to be a pressing need, and partially out of a desire to minimize risk. In reality the risk is the same no matter who is performing the move, and I haven't heard of any files being lost in years. Still, a few basic precautions for anyone, admin or file mover, for moving files:

• If it needs moving, move it. The guidelines to what justifies moving and what is trivial are laid out in the file mover page. Don't lose sleep over this though.
• If Wikipedia (or it's servers) are acting up, it's not a good idea to do anything important, so save the file moving for after the techs have fixed stuff.
• Giving out filemover like candy is bad, but setting a standard so high that people that could use the tool don't have access is worse. If I were giving it out, I'd personally want to see about 100 edits in the file namespace and/or commons, and at least a passing knowledge of fair use guidelines and other image policy. I want area familiarity and the basic knowledge, but I don't think it should be restricted to only the expert's experts. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw it being given out on my watchlist to several article writers as well as the FAC delegate mentioned above, and looked into it quickly and decided which editors could benefit from it, such as TCO. I suggest we leave it at this. If the right is given to anyone totally unsuitable, a way can be found to deal with it without wheel warring. We'll be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment, mostly @ Fetchcomms: I myself might only move one or two files per montn; I might not even use it for months. OTOH, one day, I might finally get around to those bad filenames I once looked at, and might use it extensively.

As it happens, just a few hours after being granted this permission, I came across a 'helpme' where moving the file made sense - User talk:Rio Cicica#Help with filename. That is quite coincidental, as I do not come across such things on any regular basis. However, because I had the right, I was able to deal with it more efficiently than if I'd had to go hunting for admin assistance.

So - I may not use it often enough to satisfy your own criteria - therefore, do you think it should be removed from me?  Chzz  ►  18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, I'd say you'd be able to use it to help others pretty regularly, but even if that's not the case you are definitely qualified for it. I think that's a bit different than whether you should have it, and I was kind of unclear above. I don't really care whether you should have it if you never work on that backlog, but you are qualified and will still make good use of it. My main concern is people without file experience are getting it (and, as seen above, may not understand how it's to be used even); my secondary concern is that people like you are experienced but won't rename regularly—this latter bit doesn't really matter as much. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, to get the tool, and it did help me in that it made me think I could move article pages now. (Which is sorta funny, really.) That said, the Commons file mover would help me a lot more and be a natural progression in terms of all the image crap I've done over there. Commons is the shiznet for images. No biggie to me to have it or not have this wiki File mover thing. Just don't be mean to Wehwalt, since he rocks.TCO (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you, and for the kind words, but I suggest you keep it. Not only have you learned something, but it may cause you to want to work in that area a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A possibly stupid question

So I requested and received this right, intending to help out with the backlog(s), but every time I've checked Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming, it's been empty. Are there other backlogs I should be looking at? And if so, can those be added to the Wikipedia:File mover page, so that people know where to go to help out? 28bytes (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Category:Incomplete file renaming requests, which you'll need to determine the target file name yourself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like that one's empty at the moment too, but I will add that to the list of cat pages to check in on. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can also actively look for filenames that would be good to change such as starting with File:DSC or File:IMG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good suggestion. Interestingly, I did that yesterday and wrote down File:IMGP0491.jpg as a possible move candidate, but I see that that file no longer exists, and there's (apparently) not a redirect or a "logs" link anyplace on the file page I can click on to see the delete/move history. I wonder if that's a bug? I notice that I can find out that it was deleted by typing out this URL manually, but it seems like there ought to be a link to that someplace on the file page. (I realize I'm sort of wandering off on a tangent here...) 28bytes (talk)

Chzz did a little list at one point, no idea how up to date it is, but I bet you could ask. And thank you! --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Picking one at random from Chzz's list, I see File:DSCI1553_03-04-06.JPG. I see it's been released into the public domain but is not used on any pages in en-wiki. What's the general guideline on such images? Rename them, tag them as {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, or leave them alone? 28bytes (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more in favor of moving that type of image over to commons. If you use the link at the bottom of the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template, it'll allow you to rename it on the way into commons. It's a bit of work, yes, but at the same time there's just an obscene backlog at copy to commons already, and unused PD images really should be on commons where they can be found by other projects. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sven. I think I'll first finish transferring my own locally-uploaded PD/CC-BY-SA images to Commons and then tackle other folks' uploads. I haven't tried Commons Helper yet, hopefully that will be less of a pain than doing manually as I've done a couple of times before. 28bytes (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Blacklist" error message

I requested and was granted the file mover permission this morning, but each time I've tried to use it I get an error message. For example, I'm trying to move File:G53066unkw1.jpg to a descriptive title, but no matter what title I try to input I receive the following error message:

"File:G53066unkw1.jpg" cannot be moved to "File:Against Me! - Against Me! 2001 EP cover.jpg", because the title "File:Against Me! - Against Me! 2001 EP cover.jpg" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.

I'm totally new to this moving files business, so can someone help me out? Am I doing something wrong, or is the problem elsewhere? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, I believe it's the two exclamation points that are causing the trouble. Drop one or both and it should be OK, as should "File:Against Me! 2001 EP cover.jpg" 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(Or alternatively, either an admin or a non-admin with both filemover and account creator rights should be able to move it to the blacklisted name.) 28bytes (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, as above; 04:09, 11 March 2011 Chzz (talk · contribs) File:Against Me! - Against Me! 2001 EP cover.jpg ‎ (moved File:G53066unkw1.jpg to File:Against Me! - Against Me! 2001 EP cover.jpg: meaningful name; This is the cover art for Against Me! by the artist Against Me!. also see Wikipedia_talk:File_move#"Blacklist" error message)  Chzz  ►  04:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. If it is the exclamation points that are causing the error, then I'll probably have to request moves for the rest of the files in the family as necessary, since the artist's name (Against Me!) includes the exclamation. Boo for technical hangups... --IllaZilla (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we grant all the filemovers the account creator bit as well so that this kind of problem will not occur to them? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd love to have the a.c. flag so I could fix edit notices, but I think the account creators would probably balk at the idea of handing it out to people who didn't intend to do account creations. 28bytes (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that will happen; ACC is for account-creation - the ability to override the title blacklist and edit-notices is, really, just a 'technical' side-effect of the actual purpose.

It is no more appropriate to ask for that permission than it would be for someone wanting to move any 'normal' (non-file) page.

See Wikipedia:Account creator.  Chzz  ►  23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File moving guideline

I think the file moving guideline will need to be made into a separate document to sit alongside Wikipedia:File names and to be included in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines etc. It would obviously be referred to (and possibly summarised) in this page. It took me a while to discover there is no actual guideline document (there is one on Commons at commons:Commons:File renaming). In the meantime I have attempted to clarify in this document. Thincat (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How do files get to en.Wikipedia rather than Commons?

Let me describe what I think I am seeing, then please would someone confirm if I am interpreting these things correctly.

There are lots of files uploaded to Wikipedia, for example image files. Many of these files have bad names, such as in the cases of the examples given here on this project page. However, I am wondering how it came to be that these files were uploaded to en.Wikipedia anyway, when as I understand most of these images which are eligible for upload to any Wikipedia would have also been eligible for upload to Commons, and on Commons they would have been more accessible to all the Wikipedia projects.

If I am understanding this right correctly, it is to rename on en.Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with any other Wikimedia project. But there ought not be a lot of files on en. Wikipedia, and yet now that I have this right and am looking at a typical backlog I see many files are on en.Wikipedia.

This user right would make it possible to fix these bad names on en.Wikipedia. But if the pictures to be fixed are in the public domain anyway, would it not be better to also move them to Commons and apply the rename there? This userright only fixes a problem on en.Wikipedia, but it seems to me that a related problem is that if these pictures are to be reprocessed at all then there ought to be some plan to move them to Commons along with rename.

Am I correctly understanding the current situation? If so, then what stands in the way of migrating images uploaded to en.Wikipedia as public domain to Wikimedia Commons? Or am I just totally confused about how picture hosting works? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Well, yes, there are a lot of images on enwiki that probably should be on commons. But if the uploader has not chosen to release it as public domain, we can't make that decision unless they agree to it. Moreover there are always at least a few images that can't be public domain, since they're album covers or other copyrighted artwork, such as File:DSC00698.JPG. —Soap— 13:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on Soap's point, a lot of new users who want to upload an image for use in a Wikipedia article simply don't know about Commons; the "upload file" link lets them upload to Wikipedia, so that's what they do. 28bytes (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a tool that lets trusted users automatically move images to Commons. I've done it a couple of times, and it's a real annoyance saving the image, copying the licensing stuff and then uploading it to Commons.-RHM22 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is. "The best practice is to use CommonsHelper to make the move (you will need a TUSC account). This tool automatically copies all necessary information and makes things much easier for administrators reviewing the move. This is easiest using the user script CommonsHelper Helper" - copied from Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons.  Chzz  ►  22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's an off-wiki tool that you need a special username on that website to use.-RHM22 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's off wiki, on the other hand, it requires a Wikipedia account, and it's a safe and stable process. I've used it a few times. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Still, there are tools to perform rollbacks off-wiki, but there is also a tool given to trusted users that does the same thing.-RHM22 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. There is a user permission 'rollback' which allows you to very quickly revert edits. And to use that, you need rollback rights. So for example, you can only use 'Huggle' in a somewhat limited way if you do not have that right - because it logs in to your account, and wishes to send 'rollback' requests.

Programs can emulate what 'rollback' does - as can any user - by loading up an old version of a page, and saving it over the top of the current one. But in doing so, they are not using the 'rollback' user right.  Chzz  ►  23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not exactly the same as rollback, but the programs do essentially the same thing as rollback, though they're much more complicated. My point is that though there are programs that can do it, it would still be a good idea (in my opinion) to have a tool that allows non-admins to move files to Commons. At the least, it would really help eliminate backlogs considerably.-RHM22 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it could be better integrated. Maybe you can suggest it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Reducing interface complexity?  Chzz  ►  17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shadow image

If I have time, I'll get to writing something up but I wanted to leave a note here about it in case someone else really wanted to. There should be a note on this page about how users with the file mover right cannot upload over files from Commons. Admins can, however. See Special:ListGroupRights, where admins can "Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-shared)". Mr-Zman says it succinctly here and here. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's interesting - so I wanted to check for myself, before saying anything - so I did;

File:Chzz test image.jpg

File:Chzz_test_image.jpg (commons)

1. Uploaded (a 'mostly blue' test) to Commons, as "Chzz_test_image.jpg" File:Chzz_test_image.jpg

2. Tried to upload to the same name on enwiki (a 'mostly yellow' test). Got a small note on the upload page, A file with this name exists already. Please check File:Chzz test image.jpg before overwriting. - which I ignored, and tried to upload anyway...

3. Got a sort-of-error on the upload screen, but actually a bit messed up;

Upload warning

A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. You can:

* go back and upload this file to Wikipedia using a different name.

* upload it to Commons, if your intent is to replace the image that already exists with a better version.

File:$1

      $1

Yes, it really said "$1". I think it was supposed to be showing the actual file.

File:Chzz test image 2.jpg

File:Chzz_test_image_2.jpg (enwiki)

3.Changed destination filename to "Chzz test image 2.jpg" and uploaded it to enwiki. File:Chzz test image 2.jpg

4. Tried to move "File:Chzz test image 2.jpg" to "File:Chzz test image.jpg" - confirmed, it didn't let me - it says, The file name chosen is already in use on a shared repository. Please choose another name.

...so, apart from the fairly trivial bug - yes; we can't move over same-name-on-commons.

I think that is worth clarifying, so, I've added a brief note in Wikipedia:File_mover#How_it_works [1].

I'm sure it can be improved and clarified, but it's a start.  Chzz  ►  00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Re. the bug where it doesn't show the filename...if anyone can be bothered, that should probably be logged too)

hold off on that; I mentioned it to Domas (dev), and I think it might be being fixed  Chzz  ►  00:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Logged, see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28034  Chzz  ►  00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the inability to move a local image over a commons one is deliberate and highly, highly, highly desired. The amount of chaos that not having that feature in place could cause is immense. Admins are expected to have the good sense not to do it, but have the ability to do so. File movers do not have the ability to do so, and I would fight against giving it to them. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chzz. Sven, no one suggested the right(s) should be changed. I was suggesting that it should be noted on the project page somewhere, just so people know in the future. Killiondude (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I know. I just wanted it on the record in case someone came in and saw this and got the wrong idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the bug, I can't actually manage to reproduce this. I put an image on commons, and tried to upload over it on enwiki, and other than the initial warning saying it existed, it let me do it. Any ideas? Reedy (talk · contribs) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted on the bug and my talk - admins can "Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-shared)". So you'd have to test with a non-admin account - but, it'd have to be 'confirmed' to allow upload.  Chzz  ►  22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The bug described has been fixed in the Mediawiki software, and the fix will be introduced to enwiki when we update (in the near future).  Chzz  ►  17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename the Commons file or the file here with the same name?

The guidance overleaf has been amended to say "If a file name on English Wikipedia conflicts with a file name at Commons, please check the File usage on other wikis before deciding which should be renamed. Renaming a file at Commons might affect 500+ projects instead of just one."

The guidance at Commons:Commons:File renaming says "If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed." What's the point of having local guidance here that the Commons file should be renamed if the Commons guideline is that requests to rename a file to avoid a conflict with a local project filename will be refused? Shouldn't we just go back to saying that if the file names clash, rename here? Bencherlite^Talk 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was never confused by it, but yes, that's a good idea. We should just say "change it locally" and be done with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify it, and say "use your common-sense", and trying to avoid WP:CREEP. There are times when the file name on Commons might be utterly irrelevant, and it'd therefore make more sense to remove the one on Commons. I was also trying to clarify and simplify the language. Yes, changing a file on Commons might affect 500+ other projects. Or it might not. You'd hope people would have common sense, but maybe not. The trouble is if we say flat-out "you must change it on local", and then if there is an occasion that requires the opposite...people will bitch about not following guidelines. Maybe IAR comes in there. I don't know; I hate stuff like this - I don't really care. If we need 10 pages of explanation, so be it. I still hope the people doing the moves will exercise common sense and ignore any rule if/when appropriate.  Chzz  ►  02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true; if a Commons image is called "File:Orange penguin.jpg" but it really shows a picture of a purple monkey, obviously that should be renamed and the local image that is of an orange penguin should be moved to the aforementioned title. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Or "File:This is not an orange penguin" :-) (link related; postmodern irony FTW)  Chzz  ►  17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Magritte reference FTW --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving to different filetype

I know it says under Other guidelines that you're not supposed to move files to different filetypes, but can this userright do that? I was working on converting the images at User:TheDJ/badfiletypes a while back and it is a tedious process of downloading the image, reuploading under the right filetype and then going through the delete process for the original. So my question is, is it possible to move a file to a different filetype with this userright, and if so, can this type of move be an exception to the rule? — Bility (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The page (file) name on Wikipedia has the technical ability to be different than the extension the file actually is. For example, a file could be Example.png when it really is a jpeg file. This situation is not good (obviously). To fix this, we can now simply move the file to the correct title, which in that scenario would be Example.jpg. The file mover permission doesn't actually change the file type, only the name it is listed as. Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh good, that makes those jobs a lot easier. Looking through the "badfiletypes" page it seems like that's the method used with a lot of them, since they left redirects behind. If it hasn't been done already, someone should turn off the ability to upload file with the wrong extensions. — Bility (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to do just this and received the message 'The new file extension does not match its type'. This was in connection with moving File:Acorn Computers Medusa project dev team.png to File:Acorn Computers Medusa project dev team.jpg (the current version was created from a GIF, as linked to in the listed source info, but I've since noticed the existence of an apparently higher definition file and have reconsidered the decision to use a lossless compression filetype). In alternatively attempting to upload the new version of the file first (as a JPEG), I receive the message 'File extension does not match MIME type.' and don't appear to be able to edit in the Destination filename: field. --trevj (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MIME types are listed below the image/file on its description page. For the image in question, it is listed as (768 × 256 pixels, file size: 88 KB, MIME type: image/png). So whoever downloaded the GIF must have converted it (knowingly or not) to a png before uploading to Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The file was uploaded by me, and I deliberately converted it from GIF to PNG, believing GIFs to be non-preferred (except in the case of animated GIFs). With hindsight I could have used JPG but because the image is of relatively low quality, I thought it best at the time to not reduce the quality even further... however, I've now decided that in fact a JPEG will be fine. It's not a major problem as I can of course simply upload the new file and request that the current one be deleted. But I thought the File mover right would overcome such tedium. --trevj (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm really hoping to do is rename the file on Wikipedia, then upload the new file in its place. Even (in desperation) attemtping the following hasn't seemed to help:

• 'Move' to a new name with no filetype extension
• 'Upload a new version of this file' as the JPEG but with the source file incorrectly typed as PNG
• 'Upload a new version of this file' as the JPEG but with the source file having no filetype extension

--trevj (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Might have enabled mw:$wgStrictFileExtensions by now. — Bility (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I tried ignoring the warning, but perhaps they're on the local mw:$wgFileBlacklist. Does anyone have any idea how we can check this? --trevj (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just better (and simpler) if you upload a completely new file rather than bothering with all sorts of silly pagemoves. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Now tidied up Thanks for the suggestions and info. --trevj (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this is long past resolved, but I'm going on the record in case this ever comes up again.

Officially, Wikipedia allows the upload of fourteen different extensions: .png, .gif, .jpg, .jpeg, .xcf, .pdf, .mid, .ogg, .ogv, .svg, .djvu, .tiff, .tif, and .oga. Unofficially, there might be more, I have not tried to see if it accepts .midi or .djv, which are essentially the same as .mid and .djvu respectively. Of those fourteen, moving any but the first four will screw things up. Wikipedia has built into the software very specific rendering tools/aids/programs/whatevers for the other ten. Could you get lucky moving a .ogg to .ogv or .oga? Maybe, but that's the only one that touches those last ten (not counting moving .tif to .tiff and vice versa) that is remotely possible, and it works in only one direction.

As for the other four, moving from .jpg to .jpeg accomplishes nothing, it's the same thing, but that's not a license to go do it. Moving across the three formats messes with stuff too, it's not as surefire a break as messing with an SVG, but it's still going to screw stuff up. Do it the long way, period.

Long story short, I wrote that in for a reason. Let's not break stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Category mover

Any thoughts about adding the ability to move categories to this user-right? Marcus Qwertyus 03:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Moving categories. 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Bummer. Marcus Qwertyus 04:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Failing to see "move" tab

Hi. I thought I'd move File:Crick - DIRFT - geograph.org.uk - 40356.jpg to something like File:Crick - DIRFT - geograph.org.uk.jpg. Having not yet performed any file moves, this seems like a good candidate and only has 2 inbound links.

The problem is, I can't see the "move" tab. I was granted this right in March 2011] and apparently still have it. What am I missing, please? Apologies if this is a user incompetence error. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• That image isn't on Wikipedia, it's on Commons. You would need to have the Filemover right on Commons to move it. I moved the file to File:Kilsby and Crick railway station.jpg, as I personally took more objection to the website in the name than I did to the five random numbers at the end (mind you there is a bot uploading hundreds of images with the exact same naming structure, moving all the pages one by one would be infeasible.) That aside though, if you see the little blue and red commons logo in the top right corner of the file page, that means that the file is on commons, you would have to move it there. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I now see that the number is the image ref on geograph. In fact, perhaps this is useful. There should be some sort of policy on it (perhaps there is!) E.g. I was considering geograph.org.uk/photo/1074068, then searching for 1074068 at Commons turns up the image. What do you think? Anyway, I'll look out for images which aren't on Commons which could do with moving instead. --Trevj (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for things that need moving, Chzz has a list at User:Chzz/dsc0311. Just click on the image, see what it is, and rename it. If the image is free use, stick a {{copytocommons}} tag on it. If there are sourcing issues or if it's unfree and not used in any articles, flag it for deletion. If it has no description and you can't figure out what it is, skip it, someone else might have better luck. For example, avoid using generic terms like "bird", use the name of the specific bird, or if that's unknown, skip it. Thanks for helping out. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved one for starters. Perhaps I should've used File:Lincoln Town Car exterior rear.jpg, but followed the (slightly meaningful) convention for other images at Lincoln Town Car#Third generation (1998-2011), otherwise I'd have felt they should be renamed too! I had to draw the line somewhere. --Trevj (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC to adopt Wikipedia:File mover as an official guideline

I propose that Wikipedia:File mover be adopted as an official guideline of the English Wikipedia because of its importance and its documentation of what are and aren't acceptable names, the only page which has a clearly defined list. Given the respective Commons page (which this guideline was largely based off of) is marked as an official policy, this should too, it is far too important for there to be huge non-consensual changes. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:31pm • 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure I see the point. Wikipedia:Image file names is already a guideline, while Wikipedia:File mover is just instructional commentary on file naming. Anyone who is given the user right as a separate permission should familiarise themselves with either page, and we should trust admins to read up on file policy before moving files around. I'm not sure why turning this into policy is important. The analogy with Commons isn't that helpful: the primary purpose of Commons is to be a host of files, and since Commons exists, it takes over that function in a lot of cases from enwp's filespace. Commons ought to have file naming guidelines as policy in the same way that enwp has verifiability or NPOV as a bedrock principle; but just because Commons has it, that's not a reason enwp needs to have it unless there is a compelling case for enwp to have it as well. Without such a compelling reason (have we had major problems with file moving or file naming policy?) this seems like adding little more than policybloat. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This document provides information about the circumstances under which files should or should not have their names changed. This goes beyond anything in the Wikipedia:Image file names guideline which deals with initial naming. So the complication is that, while Wikipedia:File mover describes itself as a "how-to" guide, it also substantially documents policy-related issues. As long as these aspects are combined in a single document it deserves to be a "guideline" or "policy". I support changing it to a guideline and gaining consensus on details. Before it became a full policy it might be that the "how-to" and policy aspects would have to be separated. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose rules for file renaming, if needed, should be a section of the file names guideline, not an independent page. This page should remain a simply technical description of what is the userright. Cambalachero (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't want the section "What files should be renamed?" to be seen as a set in stone bright line guideline. There are plenty of bad file names that don't cleanly fit those categories, and the ability to look at them in a case by case basis and move them when needed, while not having to create an entirely new category at "What files should be renamed?" to justify it, is something that I as an experienced file mover find valuable. I'm neutral on this proposal for the moment. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment According to a message at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R4_:_Retitled_image, developers oppose removing file redirects as this guide instructs. That needs to be sorted out before this should be considered for guideline. I also tend to agree with Cambalachero, it makes more sense for the guidelines to be centralized to the file name guidelines, and leave this for instructions. Monty₈₄₅ 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  Hi. I guess "In most cases a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if it is a misleading or promotional name" isn't clear enough or you didn't read it. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  I was referring to the section later on where it says "If the rename was done under criteria 3, 5, or 7, tag the redirect (the old file name) for deletion." Criteria 7 is a good case for deleting the redirect, but why loose the incoming links if the move is to correct a spelling error as in the case of 5? Criteria 3 is a bit close to 7, but to the extent that the redirect is from a somewhat misleading, but inoffensive name, and is unlikely to result in actual confusion, (calling a picture of your rabbit a mouse is unlikely to cause anyone to think it was really a mouse) why delete the redirect at the expense of any external links pointing at the old file location? Monty₈₄₅ 06:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  I apologize. I didn't know that was added to the page. I've removed it. Ever since moving files has been added to the software devs have made it clear that we should strive to keep file redirects after we've moved them. Killiondude (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  It may be a good idea to clarify what misleading means in the section you quoted, so that it is referring to names that are deceptive, rather then harmlessly misleading, but you have dealt with my primary concern. Monty₈₄₅ 06:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  I still think that things moved under criteria 7 needs to be deleted. Stupid_fat_bitch.jpg dosen't deserve to exist, even as a redirect, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think common sense covers that. Killiondude (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent file moves

Is it possible to view a feed of recent file moves? If so this might be helpful to link to so that people can see some examples of file movers in action and what the file movers consider to be good and bad file names. This is close but shows all moves, not just those in the File: namespace. Anyone know how to get such a feed? 28bytes (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I do is that I use the browser search bar (the one that searches for text within the webpage), type in "File:" (without the quotemarks, but with the colon), and click next repeatedly to jump from file to file. Afaik, a specific page for file moves does not exist. To make one might be complicated or might just be as simple as getting the 'sort by namespace' feature that user contributions special page has applied to the move log. Donno who to ask, but it's a worthy question. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sven. I tried just tacking "namespace=6" onto the end of the Special:Log URL just to see if that would do the trick, but no dice. Maybe I'll put in a Bugzilla request for that. 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Any word on the bugzilla request? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File movers: Time to use the tool!

Hi there everybody, I just wanted to let you all know that, at the time of this writing there are 175 items at Category:Incomplete file renaming requests and 245 items at Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. File mover was essentially detached from admin rights specifically so that these two categories could be kept empty. Lets spring into action folks. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

F9?

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.

---

How 'bout we introduce an F9?

F9: Change files with non-English names which are not on Commons to English ones.

Say? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like something you'd propose at WT:CSD. Killiondude (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops...I meant WP:FMV#F9 so that we can use this link as an move summary. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Names in other languages seem to fall within the "What files should not be renamed?" idea: files whose name is valid but may be better, should be left as they are. The main goal is to have strong stability in file names, the cases listed are exceptions and should be used sparingly Cambalachero (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   Well, consider: File:慈禧所绘牡丹.jpg. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   See my comment below in regards to that. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2. I think that we should be discouraging renaming that is not necessary, and this is one case of it. It mucks up appearance of articles in their history. And can screw up attribution from sites outside of Wikipedia. So I think we needs a stronger reason than wrong language. Graeme Bartlett 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• I dislike this. If it's a non-free image, it is required that essentially all the information you'll ever need is on the image description page, in English, making the answer only a click away. If the image is free use, 99.9% of the time it should be on Commons. It also should have a Template:Information template on it describing what it is, whether it's on Commons or whether it's here. I'll hold off on opposing or supporting this, but it strikes me as unnecessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In either case, free or non-free, all the information must be in the file page, that goes without discussion. This proposal is not about the language in the file page, but in the file name. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that. The point I was making, which I thought was not in terrible need of being stated overtly, is that the name really isn't that important if everything else is done correctly. Since we all know that it's rarely done correctly, it's also worth noting that if the information isn't already out there to be had, renaming isn't possible. (What would you do, guess?) Let me expand; searching for images using the search bar is a barely functional option even if everything were named 'perfectly' (which I don't, for the record, believe is possible). Far better would be the use of WP:FIST (if you can figure it out) or even surfing through categories. So yeah, as I said, this proposal strikes me as unnecessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:11, 28 August 2011 (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.

Where was the discussion for this edit

With this edit a new rename reason was introduced. I see no reason to do so because it will make a lot of moving around and for what reason? Can the software not handle these problems?

Files on Wikipedia are often used outside Wikipedia and when files are moved the links will break unless redirects are kept.

Check Wikipedia:File_mover#What_files_should_not_be_renamed? that says "1. File:TowerBridge'09.jpg should not be renamed to File:Tower_Bridge_2009.jpg only because the latter looks a bit better.". --MGA73 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the software that has problems, it is the users. I personally know that file names are case sensitive, but most new users do not. When they try and type in a file name and then do not get what they thought they were going to get, it rarely ends up with them figuring out what went wrong on their own and calmly fixing it.

There was a relevant discussion a while back about changing the software to eliminate case sensitivity in filetype extensions, which passed by a large margin, was sent to bugzilla, and is not being pursued by the tech team. While it did not directly address file moving, it did show that a clear consensus of the community found largely duplicitive file names, especially when it came to the extensions, to be an issue. I could find it if needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions like this on Commons and every time it has been desided not to move files just because the new name is slightly better. Everyone agrees that uploader should try to find a good name but once the file is uploaded moving it around will create a mess. I do not think that rename reasons should be changed without a discussion so it would be nice if you could find the link to the discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things: First, my change only is for cases where there are clear naming conflicts. It isn't just to 'make names slightly better', it is to disambiguate images where there is a high likelihood of people getting the wrong image because of some stupid capitalization issue. Second, this is not Commons. Commons is an understaffed project with a highly dysfunctional and absolutely intolerable community, so please don't use any of the many bad things Commons does as a rationale for doing or not doing things here. The discussion was here, by the way. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just said that there have been many discussions on Commons about when to rename files and when not to rename but I saw no discussions that showed concensus for your change here. You may not like Commons but I still think it is good practice to discussion before changes are made. That is why I asked.

I agree that it would be nice if it was possible only to upload files with the extention .jpg and not .JPG and .jpeg and .JPEG etc. but it is not the same as saying it is a good idea to rename the files allready uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are less than 1000 LDFNs left. When they're done, which probably isn't that far off, I'm going to go have another chat with the devs again about fixing the extensions issue. Their biggest argument last time was that there were LDFNs now. If that gets done, we won't even have to do LDFN renaming in the future. As for the issue of discussion, I believed that I was largely covered by the linked discussion, and by that LDFNs were being moved by admins before file mover even became a user right. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If excisting files make a change impossible then what about deleted files? Even if they are not visible for ordenary users they are still there and could be restored. Will that be a problem then? Perhaps you could ask them that when you talk to them next time. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think of that, but it shouldn't be a problem. The ideal solution would be that the developers just remove the option of choosing a filetype extension from the upload wizard, so that all new files have, say, three letter all lowecase extensions added in by the system (which already can tell filetype). This might get tricky with .ogg vs. .ogv, but there are ways around that. As for main body capitalization (NINJA.jpg vs. Ninja.jpg) I suppose that we could again tackle the issue through the upload wizard, having it search existing names before allowing you to upload, but that might make uploads a lot longer, unless the clever devs think of something that I didn't. (Fun fact, most LDFNs pairings are uploaded by the same user at the same time. This means that any solution would have to be at the point of upload, and be dynamic, rather than working off of a periodically updated list.) Ah well. We'll think of something. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the automatic addition of file extensions work quite nicely on the Commons upload wizard. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New Template

Hello everybody, I recently created a new template, Template:FilemoverTalkpageNotice, and would love to hear some feedback from my fellow file-movers. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 05:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good idea. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Magister Scienta^talk 02:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As an opt-in only tool, this would be fine. I check periodically, and keep a link in my "Quick Link Bar" on my talk page, so I wouldn't use it, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Centralized discussion page

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

I think this activity should have a centralized discussion page, similar to Requested Moves or FFD. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean? Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A place to list and discuss renaming of files, say WP:Files for renaming or something, so that one doesn't need to place a request directly to a filemover, instead filemovers can check a central list, which would contain a reason as well as a file and its requested name. Since not every requested rename through the current scheme would end up with the best name, some other name may be better and come up in discussion, or why the requested name is bad, and might not be obvious at first glance of the person who requested it or the filemover who was contacted. It would also create a consensus discussion that can be referred to in the naming of files. (like how WP:RM and WP:FFD establish consensuses that can be referred to) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and there's certainly a chance I might support implementing it (I'm an undecided right now). I suggest leaving some messages on the talk-pages of the more active file-movers to ask them to come here and give their thoughts on your proposal. You may also want to start a consensus seeking vote (see above for an example). Sound like an idea? Magister Scienta^talk 20:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, though, how I contact them without contravening WP:CANVAS would be a problem (blitzing user talk pages seems to be disallowed, and there are 250 people with filemover permission). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest just inviting the file-movers that have their usernames on this page (see all the discussions above). Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 15:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why no using Wikipedia:File namespace noticeboard? mabdul 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If we do that, the instructions here should be modified, to indicate using the noticeboard. I'll post a notice to the noticeboard about this discussion. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, invitations have been sent to people active on this talk page. I think that'll conform with WP:CANVAS, and examining their userpages, I don't see any notice about them not wanting to be contacted, unless I missed something. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Creation of a centralized requests board for files to be renamed. This would function like WP:FFD or WP:RM in manner, to allow for measured reasoning on the naming of files, and a consensus building, to allow for files to have referencable consensuses similar to WP:RM, and so that individual filemovers need not be contacted, as a centralized noticeboard would list such requests (and so that a filemover who is on vacation does not get a request that is unanswered for lengthy periods).

This board can function like

1. WP:RM with its RMbot autolisting requests requested through a template, with discussions taking place on the file talk page
2. WP:FFD with a template requesting a rename on the file page, and a discussion taking place on the centralized discussion page

The advantage of file talk page is that it keeps the discussion with the file. The advantage of keeping it on a centralized discussion page is that filemovers may peruse all open discussions at once.

The proposed name would be WP:Files for renaming (WP:FfR/WP:FFR)

70.24.251.194 (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives

• This function (centralized discussion) could be taken up by WP:FFD (with it being renamed WP:Files for discussion). This would make it similar to WP:CFD, which renames categories.

• This function (centralized listing) could be taken up by WP:RM (the current templates would need to be adjusted to take into consideration of files, since the current move request template will render images, instead of just show them as a pagelink)

Both these alternatives have been rejected by their respective centralized discussion communities previously (check the archives for WT:RM and WT:FFD respectively)

• This function could be added to Wikipedia:File namespace noticeboard as suggested in the top discussion prior to opening the RfC.

70.24.251.194 (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another alternative is not to have it centralized, but tag the file page with a template, and talk about it on the file talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Please enter your opinion on the proposal here, and preferred format of the resulting centralized discussion/notice page here if you support the idea, as well as alterations to the proposal.

• I don't really see a problem, so this is a solution looking for a problem to solve. Sure there are major controversies moving articles, but I have not seen the same with files, as their name is more hidden. For the small number of disputes, the general RFC on the file talk page will do. This has the advantage of not introducing more complex bureaucracy and pages for people to know about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Like Graeme Bartlett, I see this as a solution looking for a problem. I'd oppose the creation of a noticeboard like this, pretty much per Graeme. There might be several hundred file movers, but only a handful of them actually do the work that the tool allows them to, and from what I've seen, that handful is pretty competent. Just use Template:Rename media, and things will sort themselves out fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• per above. If a file rename is controversial there is a good chance it should not be done. We are moving far to many files that have OK names. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And I am concerned about deleting the redirects to the moved pages as it would be breaking attribution for those outside Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also oppose, if there is something somehow problematic, then we have also the noticeboard and/or here this page to discuss about a file move (aren't that many). mabdul 11:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. While at first I was considering supporting this proposal, the arguments made above have swayed my opinion. I would ask for a speedy close per WP:SNOW for this discussion. Magister Scienta^talk 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• I've been wanting to close this, but as I'm involved as being a file-mover, I decided not to. SNOW close please. Per above. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Shadow Commons

Files with at {{ShadowsCommons}} needs to be renamed to solve the problem. So I think that it should also be a valid reason to rename. Perhaps it is possible to find an example or two where it would be a bad idea to rename the local file but never mind that - there is no need to make a long text to cover every possible problem. --MGA73 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, seems valid - 264 more filemoves then... (ideally) mabdul 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't just change all of them willy nilly, some of them may have been set up like this on purpose. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, leave things as they are.--Deathlaser :  Chat  16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This user is now blocked and sadly there was not provided a reason why we should "leave things as they are".

Currently files ARE often moved/renamed so it is a de facto reason to move so I just thought it would be best also to add it as a formal reason. --MGA73 (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

help out link on Template FilemoverTalkpageNotice

I wanted to raise the thought that the helpout link on Template:FilemoverTalkpageNotice should go to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming instead of the File Mover page. Any thoughts? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support that would be much helpful --DBigXray 20:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the above content has been moved from Template_talk:FilemoverTalkpageNotice for a better discussion

Comment: Wait, nevermind. I see why this links how it does. This notice also shows for file name requested moves for items in Category:Incomplete file renaming requests. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming would be the best link to use, as this is where we go most of the time.--DBigXray 21:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I end up at Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming more often than not when I see that there are some waiting to be moved. Maybe the solution is two links? Or just to leave it alone and for me to stop being lazy. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 DoneAs we have no opposition I have gone ahead and linked the help out with Category:Wikipedia_files_requiring_renaming. --DBigXray 17:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposing making this a guideline

Because files should not be moved willy-nilly, I suggest making this page (specifically its "What files should be renamed?" section, but obviously the whole page must be nominated) a guideline. Commons:Commons:File renaming (whence the section in question was copied) is a guideline over there, and I see no reason that it should not likewise be treated here. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the past discussions on upgrading it to a guideline have met with some opposition, see Wikipedia talk:File mover/Archive 1#RfC to adopt Wikipedia:File mover as an official guideline, to move forward you would want to start an RFC on the question. Monty₈₄₅ 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked but found no past attempts to make it a guideline. Given what you found, I'll withdraw this and will plan later to submit a modified proposal. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatchacallit?

I'm already a filemover here-what do you call someone who can move files _from_ en:wp _to_ Commons?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Move_to_the_Commons#How_to_transfer_files_to_Commons. I don't think there is really a title or anything, but the link explains what you would need to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So the answer to your question, what do you call someone who does that, the answer is "helpful". Anyone can do it, but it is technically complicated. Apteva (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a bot fix backlinks to moved files

Now that I am a file mover, I was reviewing the instructions, and saw: After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one. I didn't see anything in the user-script that did this, meaning that it is done manually. I believe that using a bot that checks the move log every hour (or some other length of time), and automatically updates backlinks to reflect the new location, would be more thorough (bots don't forget to do things), and reduce the load on editors/file movers.

Additionally, if such a solution is implemented, what links should not be updated? Are there any? Legoktm (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What should not be updated are pages which contain specific log entries, or user talk page warnings. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, there needs to be a userscript. No opinion on it being automatic though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that automating this task is a very good move. I am all for it and don't see any bad fallout. --Mareklug ^talk 17:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Guideline status for the What files should be renamed section

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.

---

Should the entire "What files should be renamed?" section be moved to Wikipedia:File names, which is presently a guideline? I've placed the RFC over here because there's already an RFC running at that page, and having two RFCs running at the same page might be confusing. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is already treated like policy and enforced like policy. At the very least it should be moved up to guideline status. A noticeable amount of wikilawyering comes about because File names is a guideline and this isn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just a quick note. If the above proposal is successful, I propose that the section be copied, not moved. The version on FN should be the official one (we can even use transclusion to make sure they're always the same). This page won't function without that section, and this page really should be kept, even if the heart of the page is moving elsewhere. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• No objection to that, but couldn't we just have a summary here? Something like "Don't move files without good reason; see WP:FN for appropriate criteria for file renaming"? Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no problem with both notes, Sven has a good point not to remove it from here, but I don't see why we cannot have a "See here" type message section as Nyttend implies. Mlpearc (powwow) 11:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely should be moved. I been reverted per that section, it's policy to me Mlpearc (powwow) 03:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - First sentence of this Wikipedia page says "The file mover user right allows users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy." -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If you want a guideline on file naming conventions, you have WP:IFN. This How-to should be in support of that page. However from my recent experience, editors are taking the 8 most widely supported reasons to rename a file as if they are the only reasons to rename a file, thus ignoring all other rationales that may justify a rename (such as ambiguous file names like File:CRC-cover.jpg). —Farix (t | c) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand you; I'm proposing expanding the IFN guideline to which you refer. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why not have this discussion over at WP:IFN? No, your original proposal was to promote this page to guideline states. I oppose it because editors are already interpreting this page very narrowly. It's one thing to state the most widely accepted reasons to move a file. But editors should not interpret them as the only acceptable reasons. If an file moving is going to deny a request, they should present a good reason (trivial, large number of links, ongoing naming dispute, etc.). So instead of focusing on the most widely accepted reasons for a file move, you should instead focus on cases when a file move would not be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - We don't need a strict guideline about specifically which types of file moves are acceptable. Presumably if someone is granted the privilege in the first place it's because they're responsible to use their better judgement and not move a file for arbitrary reasons. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Why is it good for Commons to have a strict guideline but bad for us? And if they do move a file for arbitrary reasons, why should someone complain if we don't have something telling them not to be arbitrary? Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because a file move at Commons affects multiple Wikis which are not easy fixed. However, unlike on Commons, there are very few images on the English Wikipedia with a lot of incoming links to them. Thus cleaning up after a file move on the English Wikipedia is a trivial matter. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but also because moving files is a rather fragile thing, compared to moving pages or... well... doing just about anything else. Unless things have changed since when I spoke to the devs about it when I was first seeking to get File Mover broken off from adminship over here, I am under the belief that while still negligible, moving files entails a risk of irreversible data loss. It's one of the more broken parts of the system. This is why trivial moves are looked down upon. This is also Sven Manguard 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Hopefully this will reduce the trivial renaming, and particularly the deleting of redirects that break attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully, this will reduce unnecessary renaming. I would prefer some adjustments to the current rules, but maybe it is better to have a separate discussion about these issues:

At Commons:COM:FR, it says that you shouldn't move files which have been nominated for deletion. Apart from the problem mentioned on Commons, it also breaks the link in {{fdw}} and similar templates. I'd like to copy this rule over to Wikipedia. I sometimes see files being moved after I've nominated them for deletion.

At the Commons page, it says that you should move Wikipedia files instead of Commons files in the event of a filename conflict, but the Wikipedia guideline doesn't specify whether it is permissible to move a file in the event of a conflict or not (unless one of the 8 standard cases applies). I think that we need to add a rule explaining what to do in order to avoid stupid situations like File:S-STP-cable.png / File:S-STP-cable English.png which has been shadowed and unshadowed several times. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Being able to move files is relatively new, but it is better to have the detailed instructions here than at WP:IFN. 99.99% of files are not moved, probably more than that. See the essay Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. I think the link at the bottom to "rename" is adequate. Add a sentence that if an error is made in file naming it can either be re-uploaded using the correct name and a delete request added to the first file or a rename tag can be added. File:S-STP-cable.png may seem stupid, but the file is misnamed - there is a misleading extra S. The S means shielded, the TP means twisted pair. The twisted pairs in that file are not shielded, only the cable, so that file should have been named S-UTP-cable.png for shielded unshielded twisted pairs. See the four Italian variations (Cavo means cable). 24.62.156.219 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Twisted pair cables

• 
  Cavo S-STP.png
  Two shields
• 
  Cavo S-UTP.png
  Outer shield
• 
  Cavo STP.png
  Inner shield
• 
  Cavo UTP.png
  Unshielded
• 
  S-STP-cable English.png
  Two shields
• 
  S-STP-cable.png
  Outer shield only (file is misnamed)
• 
  S-UTP-cable.svg
  Outer shield only (file is correctly named)

• • "99.99% of files are not moved." I highly disagree with that "fact", for all the files I have moved (150 or so), I have only denied 4 requests. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless what he means is that 99.99% of the total files uploaded to Wikipedia are not ever renamed. Considering that there's something around 700,000 files on Wikipedia, that'd mean only 7000 files have been moved thus far. To small a number, although 99% never being moved is plausible. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: documenting current practices is a Good Thing, and making them formally enforceable is makes both their fine-tuning and enforcement easier, which is needed for stability of process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per Farix: That this page lists some common reasons to move a file does not mean that these are the only reasons to do so. Don't confuse a how-to with policy. I do agree with the underlying basic rationale of the proposal (which should be at IFN, since it would modify IFN, not buried here where no one will notice), which is that we need to clean up site-wide advice/policy on filenames, but this isn't the way to do it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:29, 14 October 2012 (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.

Closure

The argument for "upgrading" the list of valid reasons for renaming files to guideline status has near-consensus, with two primary objections:

• That this discussion belongs in WP:IFN because it proposes a change there; and
• that there is no demonstrated need for strict guidelines about when to rename files.

The former objection does not seem particularily compelling given that the set of participants in both fora seems overlap greatly and that this discussion was announced there more than two months ago, giving plenty of opportunity for other editors to have chimed in.

The latter objection is not addressed by the supporters (except, arguably, implicitly in that they do support the proposal) and resounds strongly with Wikipedia's reluctance to engage in needless rulemaking; but finds no additional support beyond the participant who raised it. In conclusion, I beleive there is consensus to copy the "What files should be renamed?" to Wikipedia:File names (making it part of the guideline) and keep a copy (possibly by transclusion) here. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request on village pump to add 'move-subpages' to this

Take a look: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Add_.27move-subpages.27_permission_to_the_filemover_group. Klortho (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not an essay - move to upgrade status

I plan to upgrade this header from essay to the guidelines and policies header along the lines of Wikipedia:Page mover - are there any objections that this is actually just an essay? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Outdated instructions

The instructions that appear when moving a file read, in part:

...please consider manually changing all links to the old title to the new title, and then moving the file without leaving a redirect behind. The option to leave a redirect behind is checked by default, and must be unticked if you take this course.

Unless I'm missing something, the ability to "untick" and move files without leaving a redirect no longer seems to exist for file movers, and Wikipedia:File mover#File redirects says:

As when a page is moved, a redirect is left when moving files. In most cases the file redirect should remain on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria...

Can the instructions be corrected? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK, you need to be a page mover to have the ability to move a file without leaving a a redirect; I had became a file mover first and the option wasn't there, but now that I'm a page mover, it is. I still think the existing instructions should be updated to make this clear. Thanks.—  TAnthony ^Talk 02:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: The text is behind an #if: at MediaWiki:Movepagetext. Per current wording at WP:R#SUPPRESS, removal of file redirects is apparently "hostile" to user experience, which is surely in conflict with the wording at the interface page (introduced in 2010). I'll submit an edit request on behalf — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename to "File handler" and grant ability to patrol files

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Backlog of unpatrolled files. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of related discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name about creating a new file renaming criteria. DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Giving filemovers the "suppressredirect" tool when moving files

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 163#Proposal: Give file movers the "suppressredirect" tool when moving files about giving filemovers the "suppressredirect" tool when moving files. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition of criterion

Proposal moved to Wikipedia talk:File names#Addition of criterion. Please vote! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Filemover be removed from CU indef blocked accounts?

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.

---

Should the filemover flag be removed from CU (indefinitely) blocked accounts (socks/masters)? Per Wikipedia:File mover, the flag is only granted to "trusted users", which being CU blocked indefinitely would excluded them from. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This could also be constrained to recently blocked accounts. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Threaded discussion

• I'm confused, (a) how can editors use their filemover perms if they're indef blocked? (b) what do we currently do about other perms in such a case (TE, page mover, etc)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In order to respond intelligently, I need the following information:

Are blocked users with filemover permissions able to move files?

If they are, it seems like this is a no-brainer.

If they are not, this seems like a symbolic gesture with no actual effect on who can move files. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• @TheSandDoctor: I too am confused about the intended effect here. Trust is a required element for all user rights, but WP:INDEFRIGHTS states that In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is, subject to the discretion of the blocking administrator. Is there a reason to deviate from this specifically for file movers? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 21 November 2020 (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.

New userscript for renaming files: LuckyRename

LuckyRename after using the Feelin' Lucky button which generated an appropriate filename

I made a userscript to make renaming files easier: LuckyRename. It's a bit like Twinkle for moving files, it automates almost everything. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Users who aren't file movers can now use the script to file requests. Handy as it performs various checks, FNC criteria can be selected from a menu, and Feelin' lucky (file name suggestion generator) can be used. @Some Dude From North Carolina, Terasail, DuncanHill, NeoBatfreak, Berrely, SnapSnap, Minorax, and Jonteemil: you might want to consider giving it a try. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooo this looks interesting, time to give it a try. About time there was a script to request renaming :D — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:, thank you - now to find some files with the wrong names and get myself too drunk to come up with better ones! DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)