File talk:Marktkirche Clausthal.JPG
Renaming the file
[edit]
@Richardkiwi: Regarding your assessment I'd like to add that if you look at a selection of wikicommons pictures of that church most of them show a blue church. The reason is that this wooden church has been renovated in the last 1-2 decades, and since 2013 it is painted in blue which was the original colour from the erection the 1640s. The picture from 2005 shows a grey outfit, now is it blue, while the Oberbergamt in the background still is ochre-yellow. Therefore it is important to tell in the name of the file when the photo was taken.
On the other more formal point of view saying that "Marktkirche_Clausthal.JPG" is ambigious: any picture which has been taken from this church falls under this term. We are not able to differentiate easily if all of these photos as given in [1] would be named "Marktkirche Clausthal" only. Therefore it makes perfectly sense to add a qualifier - such as the year of the observation - to the file name. Criterion 2 = "to change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays" is exactly adressing this problem. A good term needs a distincting feature to discriminate between different photos from the same subject. "Marktkirche Clausthal" is just too short, as this photo is not the only one of that church. --Gunnar (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I declined the request, and I'm not going to discuss that. If you think you're right, you can request it again, with a very good reason. Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- that's not ambiguous. naming a photo of a building with the building's common name is good enough. RZuo (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
