File talk:Bricks JE1.png

Move
The move is really not necessary. The name of the image will not affect the wiki because the image will still be the same on the Brick page.

Why suggest a move? Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the old iron block textures aren't either "old iron.png". It's part of the wiki naming scheme. CosmoConsole 	 my page! my talk! my contributions! 15:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The naming scheme makes it easier to search for articles using the search bar. Images have no such restriction.  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you explain the names of old brick (Pre 1.7), gold and iron blocks? CosmoConsole 	 my page! my talk! my contributions! 15:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They have similar names is a certain format, yes. That does not automatically imply a naming convention, though.  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no good format if the naming formats are different in each file. CosmoConsole 	 my page! my talk! my contributions! 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Images should always have a meaningful name. Classic bricks aren't very specific. – ultradude25 ( T &#124; C ) at 03:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep an eye out for that in the future. What about images like these which are so old that I'm not sure anyone knows when they were changed?
 * File:Glass JE2.png File:Oak Planks JE2.png
 * Or this, which was never a block to begin with?
 * File:Crying Obsidian JE1 BE1.png Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll re-phrase that, images should always have a meaningful name, if it's easy to do so. If an image is used on heaps of pages, or it's likely to be used on the other shared languages then it's not worth moving.
 * Those images are just going to have to stay on bad names until someone finds proof of the versions they were added. – ultradude25 ( T &#124; C ) at 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)