Forum:Image names

Do we have a policy on the names of images? If we don't I think we seriously need one, especially now all our images are being put into categories. It will seriously help with image searching and when someone wants to add an image to an article.

Take File:Autons2.jpg - that comes up very easily in any search for an Auton image. However File:St--3a61autonhandweapon.jpg can be more difficult to took up and what can be even more difficult is when an image file's name is just complete gibberish - file:FE8T74GN349.jpg.

We should have a policy that states the file name should be what the image shows. Looking back to my earlier examples, File:Autons2.jpg, is fine. However, on the other hand File:St--3a61autonhandweapon.jpg needs to be renamed something along the lines of Autonhandgun - the name clearly shows what the image is about. file:FE8T74GN349.jpg should be simply renamed Auton3, so it comes up much easier in searches.

All images should so what is included (in this case, Autons), then what is the main aspect of the picture (if needed (picture 2 is a prime example of this (handgun))) and lastly the number of the file uploaded. I.e if this was the first Auton image upload it would be Auton1, then Auton 2 ot Autonhandgun1. etc.

Lastly, there should be no files upload just plainly as Auton or Dalek - file names like this should be locked or just plainly used as the main article image. This is stop Users uploading and replacing images which take up valuable file names, when the file names can be put onto a much better image, such as one for the infobox. MM/ Want to talk? 16:23, February 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * We have T:IUP NAMES, so yes, strings of gibberish are already disallowed. No idea about generic naming of things like Dalek.jpg though. -- Tybort (talk page) 16:30, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd take some issue with MM's statement. Not much, but a little.  I don't agree with substituting one type of numbering for another.  Having Auton1, Auton2 and Auton3 is better than 2330930900909.jpg, of course, but it's still arbitrary.  I'd prefer that the use of numerals be used only when absolutely necessary, and not as a part of some arcane system of order.  Use additional words to describe the pic, I say.  Like Auton Happy.jpg, Auton and Doctor.jpg, etc.


 * I'd also prefer that the words be either separated, as in Auton Handgun.jpg, or at least demarcated by capitals, AutonHandgun.jpg. This cuts down on cases where lack of capitalisation allows for interpretation of two different words.  For instance, Schoolhouse.jpg connotes something different to SchoolHouse.jpg.  One is ostensibly a picture of a schoolhouse, while the other is a pic of a school and a house.  And since we're in the realm of science fiction, honeymoon.jpg would probably give you a whole different visual experience to HoneyMoon.jpg.  Equally, in the DWU, a township.jpg might be very different to a town ship.jpg


 * We might need to consider firmly stating the nomenclature for a multi-word title. Should it be CapitalWordNoSpace.jpg, Normal English spacing.jpg, Hyphenated-word.jpg, or Underscore_word.jpg.  I think we should at least say that people have to use one of these four formats.  If we say that it has to be "Normal English spacing.jpg" only, that will necessitate a lot of work that is probably beyond the bot.


 * The battle for the simple file name is also something that needs to be cleaned up at some point, since it's so easy to overwrite one Dalek.jpg with another. Probably, we should move all file names away from the simple word, then create-lock the simple word, so that no-one gets Dalek.jpg, for example.  I think this preferable to just locking Dalek.jpg as it is now, because someone's always going to disagree that the image there now should be the "prime" image of a Dalek.


 * We should absolutely rule that lower case file extensions are a must, because there are many examples of Name.jpg and Name.JPG — which is just damned confusing. We should outright ban the extensions .jpeg and .JPEG.  If you've got a .jpeg, you've also got a .jpg, so there's no reason why we shouldn't insist that the only valid way of styling the thing is  . Equally it's .png, .gif and .svg, not .PNG, .GIF and .SVG.  (Why MediaWiki software allows you to upload both Doctor.jpg and Doctor.JPG is simply beyond me.)


 * Another thing we need is a template (so I guess that means work for me) whereby users can immediately alert staff that they've misspelled a name. There are tons of pictures which have a reasonable name, free of numbers, but the crucial word is simply misspelled — like brian when someone means brain.  The chances are that the user knows they've misspelled it, but because they don't have the power to change it, they just leave it.  Years later, when someone else is trying to use the pic, they can't find it because of a simple spelling error.  As we continue to actually sort through and organise our picture library, more and more of these types of errors.  (Actually I say users don't have the power to move image names, but I honestly don't remember.  I seem to recall that it's true, but I don't know for sure. Tybort, give us a quick check, will ya?  Can you move a pic?)  16:26: Tue 21 Feb 2012


 * Yeah, it doesn't work for non-admins. -- Tybort (talk page) 16:40, February 21, 2012 (UTC)