File talk:Camila (Official Album Cover) by Camila Cabello.png

Renaming
I simply don't understand how the name I had suggested violates FNC#7? Harsh Rathod Poke me!  12:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The name you suggested was a generic name. The current name in comparison supports Rule 7. The title says Camila song by Camila. reasonable. If you have a valid name and a valid policy in support of the change please feel free to discuss. Unnecessary name changes are discouraged. -- D Big X ray  12:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all let me clear your confusion that the image is an album cover and not the song cover as you say. My suggested name follows WP naming conventions. The current name contains wrong facts, the photo is clearly not clicked by Camila. I saw the album cover photoshoot on YouTube, there was a professional photographer behind camera. I can't find any policy addressing this issue, so let the name stay this wrong way. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  12:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please use WP:INDENT Please be specific and tell me under what rule of WP:FNC are you proposing the change and what is your proposed new name. -- D Big X ray  13:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposed new name is  under FNC#3. I want wrong info to be cut down.  Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: The argument that the current name is misleading does not seem like a valid reason to move the file to me. The syntax of the name as it stands is slightly confusing, and would be better as File:Camila by Camila Cabello (Official Album Cover).png. The proposed name isn't great either, but is sufficient to disambiguate and is therefore a valid file name. However, the current name is sufficiently valid to meet WP:FMNN, and the file should not be moved without further discussion. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. I don't feel that FNC#3 applies here. I don't feel that there is an implication that the photo was taken by Cabello herself, as I understand Harshrathod50's comment above. Striker force Talk 14:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but she never never said that the photo was clicked or edited by her when she first released it. Please reconsider cutting "by Camila Cabello." This is absolute error in the name. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  16:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remember to indent when you're replying to a comment. To the question at hand, she never said that she took the photo... but the title of this image doesn't say that, either. You're drawing conclusions based on things that aren't there. Also, please note that Facebook is a questionable source under the guidelines established at RS. Striker force Talk 16:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The indentations made above are creating difficulty reading on mobile web, but they won't listen, therefore I ignore. You say that there is no implication that photo is taken by Camila but what does "by Camila Cabello" actually imply there? What is the purpose of those words' presence? Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  17:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A typical reader is going to see the file name as "Camilia" by Camilia Cabello. Context over literal interpretation. There is no implication that Cabello herself took the photo. And, frankly, this seems like a rather trivial issue to raise, in the grand scheme of things? How many Wikipedia users are going to look at the image within the article, click on it, bother to look at the file name, AND then reasonably believe that the file name means that the artist "clicked or edited" the image? Striker force Talk 17:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't want to discuss other things. My primary focus here is plain English. Why use ambiguous words when proper once are available. "by Camila Cabello" is still laking in clarity, purpose. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree. I've stated my position and it's not changing. Striker force Talk 17:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree to the name suggested be the 3O clerk. What do you think Strikerforce? Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  18:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose There can be arguably "better" names for the title, but the current title is good enough and there is nothing wrong with it. File title and Article title are different and governed by different rename policies. Also as explained above the fact of the matter is no reader reads the file name and even if he clicks on the image, he will not feel offended, so no justification to change. FNC#3 is not valid here. WP:FMNN is valid here. End of the discussion, kindly use your editorial time at better places, Wikipedia needs your help at many places. Thanks a lot everyone for chiming in. -- D Big X ray  19:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)