Talk:Filename

message: Shouldn't the forward slash on windows be included, because when I create a file I cannot create one with a forward slash. And windows (2000) response with: "A filename cannot contain any of the following characters: \/:*?"<>|
:I added the forward slash, and the pipe (both were already included, but not displayed).
:I had to change pipe into HTML #124, and put the Slash at the end.
:Both appear now correctly (I only edited the Win95 and winXP entries: please someone check also the DOS and FAT sections?)
:82.196.52.11 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite true either.  The forward slash is supported as a path separator in all internal API calls.  It's just not supported in many command line utilities, including basically all those supplied with the operating system.  API calls such as CreateDirectory() work perfectly well with forward slash, but since it's one of the two valid separators (with backslash) it is not allowed in filenames.  Really, the original description is technically quite correct.  PeterHansen 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the SwitChar is changed from its default '/' to '-', all properly written tools will also accept the '/' as a path separator. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward slash (/) on Windows 

message: The article contains no mention of non-Unix filesystems. It would be nice if it included mention of historical systems (e.g., DEC RSX-11) and ISO 9660 CD naming conventions.
— Loadmaster 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For information on various file systems, Unix and non-Unix, see Comparison of file systems, which mentions both Files-11 ODS-2 and ODS-5.  The section giving file system details was somewhat incomplete - Comparison of file systems was more complete - and a bit confused for various reasons, including mixing up operating systems naming rules and file system naming rules (which aren't necessarily the same - a given file system might support names that an OS on which you're using it doesn't, and an OS might support names that a particular file system it can use doesn't).  I got rid of that section. Guy Harris 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other File Systems 

message: I find the explanation of filename very confusing. Argument:
I think a filename should be unambiguous.
:Protocol can be various, multiple names for the same file ? No protocol in filename then.
:Host can be various, so ? No host in filename.
:Device can be various, so ? No device in filename.
:Directory can be various, so ? No directory in filename.
:File can be various, why ? File indecates contents, sort of something you can actualy grap, you can not put contents in the name.
:Type can be various, what ??!! Well, this extension use for identifying a file's type is more something used by MicroSoft. It can be done that way, but is not necessary, UNIX and derivates mostly use contents and flags to define the explecit file-type, so ?? no type in the name.
:Version can be various, so ? No version in filename. You can, of course, code a filename as having a version number but that is not at all necessary.
I think the explanation of "filename" could be very compact and clear:
:filename is the name of the entity file !
name, entity and computer file are explained on other pages.
The rest of the article is nice as it explaines some of the issues one can encounter on specific computer environments. (80.156.47.238 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filename is not URL etc. 

message: This article is confusing when it comes to trying to determine if a filename is the name of a file within a directory or not.
On the one hand, it seems to suggest that a filename is the 'fully qualified filename', containing the full path, up to the access protocol.  On the other hand, it talks at the bottom about length of filenames, with the length being limited to 8 + 3, or 255, which clearly only applies to the name of a file within a directory.
This article should be cleaned up with that in mind, inventing or reusing clearly defined words for filename, filepath, ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasVanderStichele (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between 'filename' as a fully qualified (unique) name, a name for a file within a directory, or both 

message: At lot of the assertions about what "Windows" permits are superficially true at the user level, but not at the file system level.  For example, the prohibition about not having a dot at the end of the name is not actually a prohibition as FAT as NTFS or the kernel are concerned, and if you know the right incantations, you can create such a name.
That particular prohibition arises from FAT history. Since the (one and only) dot in pre-longname FAT was not actually stored on disk, but was merely a syntactic marker in the API, it was not possible to distinguish "FOO." and "FOO"; either way, the 8-byte name field contained "FOO     " and the 3-byte extension field contained "   ".  
The file system and NT kernel had no need of such nonsense, and in fact the original goal of a multiple-personality OS (and the requirements for POSIX conformance) argued against it. In what to my mind was a misguided fit of compatibility with old crap, the Win32 layer implemented DOS-like restrictions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.209.29 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  File system versus WIN32 API 

message: There has been a proposed merge with Fully qualified file name for years; I think these articles are sufficiently different to keep as-is. I am removing the merge tag. Jminthorne (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: In the article, the term "basename" is used to mean the name of a file without any trailing extension. In POSIX systems, the term "basename" refers to a command or function returning the name of a file without any leading path component (see ), so the basename of "foo/bar/baz.txt" is "baz.txt" (and not "baz"). This is also consistent with PHP (), Ruby , Python (, note also how "os.path.split() is defined), Visual Basic inside Microsoft Word 2003 () and so on. 
Also note that the source cited in the article uses the expression "base file name" (and not "basename"). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of basename 

message: Individual files can be accessed be different protocols and ports and are not part of a filename. 
DG12 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  protocol and port are not part of file name 

message: The article cites [1] to claim that no Windows version before Windows Vista has a tool to create hard links. This is wrong for two reasons. First, the page does not mention Windows Vista but instead states that beginning Windows 7 the mklink tool is provided. Second, that page is absolutlely wrong with this assertion because in Windows XP there is the built-in tool fsutil which can be used to create and delete (at least) hard links. The writer of this sentence in the article should have informed him-/herself better before citing a wrong source (using a single source is never a good idea).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixot (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There IS a built-in tool to maintain hard links in Windows XP 

message: While the picture might be irrelevant to illustrate article, the filename is an example of real filename as it can appear on the english wikipedia.
So I suggest to not include picture, but to add a sentence like:
but to add a sentence like:
* Users tend to include diactrics characters and spaces in file names, as in regular names. For instance one of the pictures which illustrates the Wikipedia articles (on Épône and Parking) is named: "Épône - Parking Gare01.jpg".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.160.141 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Épône - Parking Gare01.jpg 

message: The NTFS length restriction is actually not by the filesystem.
Its by the file system handler, NTFS supports paths of up to ~32,000. The 255 are defined by MAX_PATH.
You can test it for yourself, create a folder with a total path length of around 230. Then create a folder inside it with only like 5 chars. Create a network share for the small folder.
Now you can put another 255-foldername inside there if you access the share over the network. And it will still work. Only localy you will have issues accessing it. But the Filesystem can handle it. --217.151.145.186 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTFS Length Restriction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Filename. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://developers.sun.com/global/products_platforms/solaris/reference/presentations/IUC29-FileSystems.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315014244/http://kerneltrap.org:80/mailarchive/git/2008/1/23/593749/thread to http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2008/1/23/593749/thread
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: try creating a folder and naming it something like this: "@ thisname 100,200 installowed"
it doesn't matter what else goes into the name, if it begins with @ and has 2 numbers separated by a comma with no space in between, it will silently fail to name the folder.
not sure why this is, but it's still an issue in Windows 10 64-bit running on NTFS, and after an extensive search I couldn't find any documentation, explanation, or even other mention of it on google.
This is peculiar to MS Windows file system as apple's AFS allows exactly that
-rw-------    1 30010 Apr 30 17:43 .zsh_history
drwx------   50  1600 Apr 30 18:04 .zsh_sessions/
-rw-r--r--    1     0 Apr 30 18:04 @ thisname 100,200 installowed
drwxr-x---+  71  2272 Apr 30 18:04 ./
DGerman (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal and under-documented sequence: folders starting with @ symbol and containing 2 numbers delimited by a comma 

message: Can/should someone add a paragraph explaining IBM GDG.
Perhaps a distillation of https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos-basic-skills?topic=vtoc-what-is-generation-data-group DGerman (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a paragraph about filenames with versions, in general; Files-11 has version numbers for all files, so it's as if every file belongs to the equivalent of a GDG. Guy Harris (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And maybe you would be the "Guy" to add it. :-) DGerman (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation Data Group IBM GDG