I have content (in my case work-related seminars, workshops, etc) that does not exist in any online metadata DBs and which I'm trying to organize in a "Home Video" Content Type Library. I would find it very useful if we could populate a few metadata fields by following a particular Filename Pattern.
My proposal is that support be added for the following two filename patterns (the first one is my preference, but I think some people might also prefer the second in some instances):
- (20190415) This Is A Title [People A+People B].mkv
- This Is A Title (20190415) [People A+People B].mkv
(20190415): yyyymmdd, which then populates the fields Release Date (mm/dd/yyyy) and Year (yyyy). If the user enters only a partial string, such as (2019) or (201904) then the provided data still updates the corresponding fields (and whatever is not provided is left blank).
This Is A Title: Populates the Title field.
[People A+People B]: Populates People, ie, People A is one person, People B is another, and so on. The plus sign "+" acts as the delimiter, which enables more than one person to be indicated. The limit to how many People can be added this way would just be the limits of how long a filename can be (which is an OS-specific limit).
A Title or Date (one of the two) would be required, but the People string would be optional. If someone just uses the Date (20190415) then that would populate both the relevant date fields, and it would populate the Title field, eg, with "20190415".
I propose that this feature be Enabled for new Library creation (only for Home Video Content Type Libraries), but disabled for existing Home Video Libraries (so we don't mess up anyone's existing content). And of course the feature could be Enabled/Disabled via a checkbox in the Library Settings. Perhaps the Setting could be called "Populate Metadata via Filename" and there could be a link to a wiki article on Github explaining the proper syntax. However, if the Devs feel that this should be treated as an Advanced feature and disabled by default for new Library creation I'm fine with that too.
Thanks for considering my request!
PS - If this is something you might like to see implemented, be sure to "Like" this top/first post (as well as any subsequent posts in this thread that highlight particular aspects of what you are interested in) -- "Liking" the top/first post helps the Devs to know how much interest there is in a given Feature Request.