Forum:Image naming system

I think we need to implement a proper system for naming images. Currently there's no system, and we only name what "fits". This makes it incredibly hard to find images and is just very messy generally. I think we should make a system consisting of prefixes that describe what the image is, like anime or manga, profile or portrait, technique or animal, etc. I had something like this in mind;

Technique
Then, for example, Luffy's profile in the anime post-timeskip would be named:

Anime Human Profile PostTS Luffy.png

This will also make bots be able to manipulate and find images due to the algorithmic pattern. Please share your opinion on this.

Discussion
I don't think a general system is needed, simply we should choose proper names because currently we don't do it. Most of the images have random names or abbreviations. Proper pattern name pattern may be set for some kind of images like "XXX portrait" or "Chapter X", but for history images and alike that's not the case. We can set some guideliens like "no abbreviation, lowercase extension" but that's all.

Well currently it's like impossible to find images just for searching, because you have no idea what to search for, since images are named randomly, and you can't just guess.

That's because, indeed until now we didn't use proper name, but I dont' think this system will work. Beside I think there is a flaw in your system: depending on the image's purpose, the image itself may not necessary come from the manga or the anime and either version can be uploaded to the same file, this is also true for other "parameter". If the whole point of this system is to categorize some kind of images, then we should use the categories. Categories are also simpler to handle by bot then title patterns.

Well there's another problem. No one has any idea what categories to use and it's barely taken seriously. While some images may have the action images category, it may be missing the plot images category (if also used in history sections), and vice versa. Maybe we should clarify when the categories should be used and when they shouldn't? It's all very fuzzy.

Yeah, I think it's the best solution, categories are made to be used like this. Basically, each image is supposed to be in at least one "source" category, one "content" category, and one "usage" category (the "license" one is added via the template, and the "status" one is special—more like a maintenance category). But as you noticed, people tend to be lazy and the category scheme is kinda fuzzy. I think that part of what makes it fuzzy is the fact that it's incomplete (for example, there's no "manga images" category!) and kinda redundant (probably because it was not done all in one go). So the solution would be to create the missing categories (some of which could implement your naming scheme) and reduce their redundancy. I added an explanation of the image categories to Category:Images, as I should have done a year and a half ago…

As most of my edits have been on image pages, I've seen a lot of the bad names that file have, and I've tried to correct them with the Rename template but that takes a long time because only admins can rename pictures. And given that there are 12,000 images on the wiki, I think it's just entirely impractical to think that we can rename all of them. It took me several days to go through ever picture in Category:Portraits alone, and it took even more to get through the first page of. The main problem that slows things down is that when people upload a new version of an old file, they do not alter the categories. Sofor example, many anime infobox pictures can be mistakenly placed in. (The tendency to change all current manga images to anime once it comes out is probably why a "manga images" category doesn't exist. Though we should probably have a category for images that must remain manga due to anime differences.)

The images that should have proper names are the things like portraits, infobox pictures, etc, and I have been working to correct that a bit, but it is slow (and boring) work. My suggestion is to just make sure any images you click on are named after what they depict, and work to rename them like that. If you want to find a specific image, just try to use a category, or better yet just go to the page where you think it might be used, as the wikia's search function is terrible for images and templates. 17:52, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, images that are in a set (ex, a set of Eyecatchers, or a set of portraits for a specific template like the 11 supernovas one) should use the same naming convention so it's easy to edit the template or gallery. Some examples are the ones in this template all are named the same, except for Hawkins'. They should all be "11SN Character.jpg". If that makes any sense anyways... 18:30, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not Wikia search function which is terrible... if you name a file like "11SN XXX" it will never match a search with the term of "supernova". The name should describe the image in the simplest way possible using proper key words. The images used in a template aren't necessary used in that template alone, so you cannot bound the name of a file to the use of a single template. This is also why I'm doubtful to divide the images between manga and anime images... I mean that's ok for images that are necessary from one or the other, but that's not the case for all images, like for example for history images.

The way I understand it, is that every images should have EVERY category from each of the 4 main categories? Lol, no image has that.

And why do we even have Category:Images by Status?? Seems otiose.

Nevermind. I found out now why we use it. Some people had just put the wrong sub-categories in it.

I suppose you're talking about "Animated Gifs" or "Page Images"? The reason they were in is that their use is supposed to be limited by specific rules, hence the need to have them in this category (just as "Scanlation Images", that you left in for some reason). Now, it is indeed weird to have them only in "Images by Status"; but I don't think "Images by Content" really fits (it's supposed to describe what the picture represents). The best option would be to add another sorting category "Images by Type" or something, in which we could put "Aminated Gifs", "Painted Still", "Logos", "Concept Art", "Collages", etc.

Reorganizing categorization discussion
We don't have a content type for covers, log books, data books, and such. Should I create a new one or just use the ones that we have? I don't see anyone that fits at the moment.

Yeah, you're right, I redid your edit. For now at least, let's use what we have, the matter is complicated enough… We'll make it better little by little. So, if the content of a picture does not seem important (that is, there is no need to classify the pic by its content), it may be that either its source, or its type, or its usage category needs to be categorized also into "images by content".