Flickr-ID

Hello everyone, Commons:File renaming states that "If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number." I wonder if the flickr-ID should be seen as a catalogue number and therefore be kept or is that something that can be disregarded. Please see this for an example Isderion (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Isderion.

If the Flickr number was used in the original filename, it should be retained. These are often batch uploads, and the images are listed in the categories in a specific order as a result; removing the number would disrupt this sequence. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@יו「Ziv」: However, that would only apply if the name before the flickr-ID is the same, which is often not the case (for example when the image depicts different things) or the flickr-ID is at the beginning, which is also not often the case.

Do you think an existing sequence should be kept always (if so why?) or only under certain circumstances?

Also pinging some people from the renamer Top 100: User:Illegitimate Barrister, User:Xocolatl, User:Raboe001, User:Fæ --Isderion (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Isderion: You are absolutely right, of course. I had a lapse in thinking when I replied to you. Even so, I wouldn't necessarily remove a Flickr ID now, since it serves as Flickr's inventory number. The same applies, for example, to cases like this one: File:P20260723JB-1335.jpg. Although the file didn't contain the Flickr ID, but rather the White House ID, I decided to keep the White House number after the merge (it was originally a duplicate) in the renaming. However, I also consider it wrong to retroactively add such an ID to a file if it was not previously in use, as requested here by @Solomon203: and rejected by me. The original still use the old file name File:Burlesque model Hazel Honeysuckle in a cupless bra.jpg. After the file was split, @ROCKY: moved it after all under Crit 1, which was correct in this instance, however. Please excuse this example, but I couldn't find anything else on the spur of the moment. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

However, if the filename consists merely of an impersonal camera number (e.g., IMG_6979 or similar), which isn't really useful for anything else anyway, then, in my opinion, there is no reason not to remove it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

In the move example, this was a poor interpretation of FR2 "meaningless or ambiguous name". Anyone should feel free to revert such moves that erase valid references from file names. @Deltaspace42: , do you have any views about the move? Fæ (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fæ: the original file name was "Peaks of the Balkans - 133 (25019625008).jpg". I accepted the rename request under criterion 2.4 (Only information is the location (broad)) and moved the file to "Peaks of the Balkans - Hridsko Lake, Montenegro.jpg". I don't think preserving Flickr ID in the file name is necessary. Deltaspace42 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

From my experience I remember that stripped Fickr-Ids lead to duplicate uploads and therefore further work in merging. A clear id, be it from flickr or a photographers photoid or archiv number is always useful to have, as that gives people option to trace the origin even if the file gets separated from the commons page. So I think preserving should be the norm and is as important as making the filename human readable. Agathoclea (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is against stripping Flickr ID from filenames for the sake of it. Though in the example the ID is be embedded in a URL, which is not visible on the file page, including it in the filename is quite normal and avoids any possible confusion. Fæ (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion where such a consensus was reached? Isderion (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's been a default consensus since Commons:Requests_for_comment/File_renaming_criterion_2#Ridiculously_long_file_names. Renaming to be a little bit shorter by dropping Flickr ID just is not needed, and as pointed out by others could increase the chance of duplicates if the ID is harder to find as a result. There's a couple of other discussions about Flickr numbers in the archives, but not sure there are sufficient critical cases to need a RFC on a rule for it when it's more about good practice. Fæ (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I read through the linked discussion, but didn't find it conclusive in regard to the flick-ID Isderion (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Flickr IDs are so important that https://web.archive.org/web/20260507022420/https://www.webfx.com/tools/idgettr/ helped people find them for 9 years.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)