Category talk:Bad name

Useful?
I just created this category because I saw that Locket was recently working on renaming images with bad file names. Not sure if it's useful since there is already the Unsatisfactory image template that covers many more aspects, but I thought it could be convenient if someone wants to focus on the renaming of the images instead of other things like filling the Fair use rationale template.

What do you think? Should this category be kept or removed?--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 05:03, June 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's useful, but like the other categories, they work best when people actually add them. If I'm remembering correctly, I've seen a couple that didn't have fairuse or was unsatisfactory in every way; yet they had no category to distinguish them as such. I was actually using my admin abilities to look through all the categories, quite a few need work. @_@ Some images aren't getting certain categories like they're supposed to. But I think it would certainly be helpful for images added after today. Unless someone decides to go through several of the images and add this category. So hopefully people add it so that it works like it's intended too. EternalLocket (talk) 20:19, June 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * There are A LOT of images that don't have categories nor FUR, are not added to any page, and are bad named. I've been exploring through the images in the past days and I found that only around 60% of the images have FUR (the total of images on the Wiki being almost 2000), and of that percentage not even a 40% are properly categorized. A large percentage also has poor file names.


 * We can work with that 60% that has FUR and the others that are added to a certain category, but the ones that don't have any of them and are not used in any page are impossible to find unless we explore through the Special:NewFiles.


 * We need to accept that we won't be able to finish this task in the recent future. It will take months, and we'll need to work little by little without pressure, and probably prioritize other more urgent tasks that will be arising.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 20:54, June 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't know there were that many, just that there were some. o_o I agree, it's nothing to rush through, we'll get there eventually. EternalLocket (talk) 21:26, June 25, 2015 (UTC)