• i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      YES! But when there’s absolutely no ambiguity on the year, it can be skipped… Feels weird though.

    • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      100%

      And I name all of my filenames by YYYYMMDD and then the relevant name. Vastly superior and naturally intuitive. I also accept DDMMYYYY but I’m in the US and it’s not as intuitive for others around here

      • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Your way is automatically sorted by date when sorting by name and that’s just, oh , uhhjh nnnnnngggg ahh.

        Please excuse me as I change my pants

        • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          Or — hear me out — or you could sort by name if you want to sort by name and sort by modification date if you want to sort by modification date – and get this – sort by creation date if you want to sort by creation date.

          No need to shove two pieces of information in the same field.

          • 843563115848@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            But creation date and or modification date aren’t always the dates I want to sort by, so I use the same convention yyyy-mm-dd_name for most of my filenames too. It works for me, shoving those pieces of information all up in there. Lovin some shovin.