Template talk:Reqphoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Reqphoto page.

Contents

[edit] More like an image box

wouldn'y it be better to make this box appear more box like ? in the corner of an article instaed of where the pciture should be? I dont know how to do so. --Procrastinating@talk2me 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should also be in the article where people will actually see it, not on the talk page. We need to recruit the general public to add images, not just Wikipedians. — Omegatron 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages?

Wouldn't it be more logical to have this template appear on article pages, since it's at least related to the cleanup tags? 81.158.1.206 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, the talk pages are rarely looked at in many cases and requests for photos for articles may be overlooked. I believe that if we are requesting photos for an article then the request should be made on the article page itself. J2rome 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I was the first commenter in this thread (though not logged in)... the point occurred to me when I was editing an article (can't remember which one) and inserted the template, only to be told that it was misplaced and should be on the Talk page. I really can't see the logic in that at all. Loganberry (Talk) 13:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I guess some think it takes away from the aesthetic appeal of the page. Michael 00:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a strange argument, really. We don't put cleanup tags on the Talk page, after all. There may be a good reason why Regphoto can't go on article pages - the guidance here is very insistent - but if so it would help to have it explained. I've asked User:Quadell, who set up the template in the first place, for an explanation. Loganberry (Talk) 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I created the template. At the time, it was a requirement that templates that discuss articles be placed on discussion pages. Cleanup tags were exceptions for historical reasons. It doesn't matter to me much either way. But I suspect if you move the templates to articles, someone will revert with a stern warning. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't feel strongly enough about it to risk causing that kind of fuss, so I'll leave things as they are. Hopefully one day someone with more authority than me will decide to make the diagram and photo request templates more consistent, though. Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I broke tradition and placed the template on paintball marker (I subst'd and removed the {{check talk}} template). The image request was filled in three days, while the talk page had been tagged since October 11, 2005! I suggest the check talk template be removed and the template be destined for the article page. Perhaps a coloring change might also be in order, as that tan-orange color is used mainly for talk page thingies. — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
One week later, no responses. If nobody objects, I'm going to be bold and alter it. — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Also changed all other (linked) related templates that included {{check talk}}. I didn't change the color, though, the blue conflicted with the tan image's border. If you think you can find a better color, go for it. — SheeEttin {T/C} 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This template should be placed on the talk page, and in most cases I would suggest using Image:Replace this image1.svg in its stead as it encourages the types of imagery we are actually looking for. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that it's really frustrating not to have clear guidance on why this template belongs on the talk page. Consider that:
  • Almost all of the feedback on this page, from experienced editors, has been in favor of putting the template on article pages.
  • The template's original author has explained that the only reason for including {{check talk}} in the first place was that "at the time, it was a requirement that templates that discuss articles be placed on discussion pages."
  • An editor removed the talk-page requirement only after months had passed without any rebuttal or explanation for the restriction.
Given all that, for an admin to appear several months later and revert the change with no explanation beyond "this template should be placed on the talk page," is infuriating, to say the least. To reiterate what Loganberry said almost a year (!) ago, there may be a good reason why this template should not go on the article page, but it would help to know what that reason is. Even just a link to the appropriate policy article.
If no one can explain the reasoning here or offer meaningful direction in the next week or so, I plan to remove the talk-page requirement again.
Tim Pierce 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article page is Wikipedia's public image; the place people come to read. Templates should only be placed on the article page in the case that something is wrong with the article, such as missing sources or a content dispute. WP:SELF covers this more. -SCEhardT 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the background. I'm not sure I agree, but that's okay, at least now I know what I'm disagreeing with. :-)
FWIW: It's not quite clear to me how WP:SELF applies here, since just almost every template is an explicit Wikipedia reference, not just the photo request templates. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that templates should appear on the article page only when there's something wrong with it. A great many article-page templates are used just to request improvements to an article, such as {{uncategorized}}, {{expansion}}, {{abbreviations}}, {{proseline}}, and any number of other cleanup-related templates.
Anyway, thanks again for giving an explanation for the talk-page restriction on this. I do think it's kind of cumbersome but will stick with it. Tim Pierce 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and copyright

There is an ongoing battle over what images can and can't be used in Wikipedia articles, with more than one "user of authority" (including - I believe - Jimbo Wales himself) stating that they'd rather see articles with no images than run the risk of having a copyvio. Similarly some wikis, such as the German one, have very few images (rendering the site ugly, but that's my POV). My own personal view regarding Fair Use aside, if we're going to have request tags like this I think the wording should include an advisory that images added should follow Wikipedia's ever-stricter fair use rules. Otherwise someone seeing this (and the other related) tags who aren't familiar with the rules might go ahead and add an image without checking it out. Similarly, there are some articles where this tag has been added where IMO no free-use image is possible. Any thoughts on how this could be addressed on this tag? 23skidoo 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should get too specific on this template - both to keep it clean and since, as you said, the policy is ever-changing. The Uploading images page does a good job covering what we're concerned about and starts off with a warning against uploading images found on the net, so I suggest a change to the following:
 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images before adding an image
-SCEhardT 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's perfect -- all we need is to add a quick link so those who aren't aware of the rules can see for themselves the latest guidelines. 23skidoo 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image change?

Does anyone mind if I change

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
to
 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Just for better recognition of the camera. Thanks, Monkeyblue 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just while I've got your attention. Could we change the link from Wikipedia:Uploading images to Wikipedia:Images and mention something about commons as there are a lot of unused images there. Thanks again, Monkeyblue 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For your info - When I created the danish version (and others manipulated it) the result was an in-the-bottom-of-the-article box with the text
  • Denne artikel kan blive bedre, hvis der indsættes et (bedre) billede.
  • Du kan hjælpe ved at afsøge Commons for et passende billede eller uploade et godt billede til Commons iht. de tilladte licenser og indsætte det i artiklen.
Free translation is:
  • This article would be better if a (better) picture is inserted.
  • You can help by searching Commons for a suitable picture, or by uploading one to Commons according to allowed licenses and inserting that in the article.

I think that's quite much a "here's what we'd like you to do if you haven't got anything else to do" made so that beginners could understand it and feel invited to be important. G®iffen 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template needing talk links and other improvements

I added the Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements to this template. It needs a talk page link. The template should always be accompanied by a short talk page note describing what picture, where it would be placed and optionally why it would improve the article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages or not

I've been adding this tag to article pages as seen above I to agree that people looking for an article for informaiton rarely go to the talk page. Also no where on the page talking about the tag does it say for talk page only. I discussed this with the admin Yamla and he tended to agree with me somewhat after a discussion about it. I come in today to find all the req photo tags I added had been undone. Now I could almost and I stress almost understand if a tag was already on the talk page but some didn't have that. They are a very active member in the image part of wikipedia. But I am just going to revert their changes done removing the tag. MANY articles need an image of course per wiki rules but not having the tag where people can see that is only detramental. So where would one go to find out, or to have made some kind of policy on where this tag should 'officially per policy' be placed. --Xiahou 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

discussed with admin in question and agree there should be some discussion on this. Though they did point out where an infobox is available to use "Replace this image1.svg" in the image section of the infobox. Still in pages that don't have infoboxes something needs to be decided on the used of the reqphoto tag. Talk page only, article only, or both. --Xiahou 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Improve its quality"

Just to add an aside, I think it might be a good idea to stand back a bit from adding this template to too many articles right now, since a lot of us (your's truly included) are becoming quite frustrated and discouraged by the ongoing purging of images from Wikipedia and the flooding of user talk pages by bots flagging images that were, up until a few months ago at least, satisfactorally tagged as fair use. I know if an article I'd added images to, but the images were now no longer considered appropriate by the ever-changing rules and were removed, and then suddenly this template appeared, I might seriously consider deleting it out of spite. Seriously.

What upsets me, I think, is the wording "to improve its quality". That's what a lot of us were trying to do by adding images initially -- and yes giving all the proper use rationale and all that -- but now that Wikipedia has changed its rules and so many of our images are being deleted, to have this show up ... I'd like to suggest the wording "to improve its quality" be removed. At least until the "Great Image Purge of 2007" has ended. 23skidoo 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Something is going on the text now says "It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Talk:.." So did some policy pass. Is there a place (here would be an obvious one hint hint admins) where this can be told or did someone just pull a 'be bold' and changed the template without discussion. If there is another discussion official or otherwise where the heck is it? I would think the template in questions page. Apparently not. Any help please. --Xiahou 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion if you haven't already is to contact the editor who made the change by checking the history. My original statement that the template should be reworded in light of the current image purging stands, however. 23skidoo 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

Can we get interwikis to this template in other languages besides just Arabic? Badagnani 03:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about adding parameter value

If someone adds a parameter that is currently not a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs it will create a new, blank, category with the name given. If however the user does not then edit this new category page and thus add it to some other category will it just get lost in the system? Is there a way of tracking these non indexed requested photo categories? (Test example: Talk:AOL Toolbar). Traveler100 04:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right: if a user creates a new category but doesn't add it to some other "Wikipedia requested photographs" category, the new category will be essentially orphaned. The only solution I can think of offhand: write a bot to visit all pages that use {{reqphoto}}, and check the categories those templates create to see that they are properly subcategorized. I can take this on after I've fixed my existing photo bot. :-) Tim Pierce 03:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reorganization discussions

Would appreciate some input to discussions on reorganizing categories and request photo pages. For example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Science and Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures#proposed WikiProject Photo Requests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite?

I don't like the current wording - you can have articles with very good images but missing one or more images in certain sections. At the moment the wording seems to imply that the article is without any images at the moment. One could always just add a separate request or requests, but requesting images via template seems to be more the way things are going at the moment. I much prefer this method myself to adding a request to an absurdly long list, as it's easier to do and manage, and the issue is visible on the article as well, so is more visible. I suggest the wording

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be added to this article to improve its quality'

Such images may not be available on Wikimedia databases at present, so may have to be uploaded.

Richard001 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

This template could do with a couple more useful links, like suggestions on where to procure images from. Currently we link to the upload page - great. It would be far more helpful if it linked to Magnus's FIST tool for instance. Stevage 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording concern

Not to beat a dead horse, but I remain vehemently opposed to the use of the wording "improve its quality" per my comments of July 31, 2007, above. Reading it again, I don't think it's even necessary even if there were no restrictions on images. Just saying "it's been requested that an image be added" is sufficient. I would like to seek consensus on this because I am considering removing the "improve its quality" wording under the provisios of WP:BOLD and no one has yet convinced me as to the value of that wording, especially given the current Wikipedia attitude regarding images, which is as I understand it that they are optional and unnecessary in 99% of cases. Another acceptable solution to me is a complete rewording to suggest that this template be used specifically for articles in which an image is necessary to the understanding of the subject matter. 23skidoo 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one - the extra words aren't adding anything useful. It'd be nice if we could get away from the passive voice too ("Please add a photo if you have one."?), but anyway. Stevage 04:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki links

can someone add in, [[es:platilla:pedirfoto]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parameter inX=

"Additional in2= and in3= parameters can be used to specify additional location categories." Would someone increase the number of location categories to "in20="? List of National Historic Landmarks in California needs 20 locations and many of the roads and mountain ranges in California stretch over numerous counties. "in20=" should cover all worldwide situations as well. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. The code is entirely untested, so it may not work -- let me know if there are issues. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More

{{editprotected}}

I tried the new code at Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut. The code work for the category part, but the template display at the top of the page may need to be change. In addition to the "'''Wikipedians in {{{in3}}}'''" may be able to help, there may need to be a "'''Wikipedians in {{{in4}}}''' may be able to help" etc. On the other hand, that may make the talk page template look to cumbersom. In addition to adding "'''Wikipedians in {{{in4}}}''' may be able to help" etc., can you add a "|nested=yes" parameter to Template:Reqphoto? That might take care of it. Thanks. Also, can you cahnge the instructions to read "Additional in2=, in3=, up to in20= parameters may be used to specify additional location categories." and "This template includes a "nested=" parameter that nests the template on the talk page if "yes" is indicated for "nested =". MZMcBride indicated that he is unable to make these changes. Would someone please make these changes? Thanks! GregManninLB (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done code is untested, but seems to work :D. The nested parameter is a bit complicated and would involve changing the appearance of the template. You can update the documentation yourself at Template:Reqphoto/doc. Happy‑melon 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm bummed about the nested feature. Is there an official template group that I can contact to have the change made? GregManninLB (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I followed up here. GregManninLB (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements for inX

Per GregManninLB's request above, I made some changes to the template and placed on my sandbox User:Edene/Sandboxes/03.

Show

Please let me know how you think about the changes and other suggestions. Thanks. eDenE 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some articles you may want to test your display arrangement changes on include (i) Talk:Texas State Highway 114, (ii) Talk:Texas State Highway 21, (iii) Talk:Texas State Highway 36, and (iv) Talk:Interstate 20 in Texas. If it works for those, then that should satisfy most situations. A nesting option that may work is shown in Talk:Texas State Highway 11. GregManninLB (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I now understand what you meant by "nested" parameter. I don't think we want to put Reqphoto template into the WikiProject banner shells. In addition, the size of this template with multiple in's has been reduced, it wouldn't take too much space. Other than that, I tested the template against those Highway articles, and they works fine. Should I go ahead and request for update? eDenE 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I created a nested parameter draft. See below. GregManninLB (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse parameter vs. nested parameter

{{editprotected}} I modified a draft of the Reqphoto template code to create a nested parameter. The results are shown here. Please copy the code here and paste it over all the code listed here. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think we want a nested feature for this template, because they don't belong to WikiProject shells such as {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. They should be placed alone and I think we just need a feature to collapse the list, as in the above proposal. eDenE 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The nested parameter does not require WikiProjectBannerShell to work. GregManninLB (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is true; however, the nested feature was created for that purpose and there's no advantage of having this feature, if it is going to be used by itself. If this feature is used by itself, then the templates will have inconsistent width. eDenE 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The collapse parameter seems to involve less change than the nested parameter and thus is less likely to piss someone off. Also, the "If more than 6 items are given (resulting 3+ rows), the list will be automatically collapsed" feature of the collapse parameter is especially good. Admin - Both eDenE and I are in agreement. Please use the code at User:Edene/Sandboxes/03 to replace the existing code for Reqphoto template. I have already updated the Template documentation to reflect the new collapsed parameter. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Happy‑melon 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images and Photos

Do we really need to distinguish the difference? Could be merged with reqimage and WikiProject imageneeded=yes ; please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs

[edit] Geographic coordinates parameter for Reqphoto

{{editprotected}} Template:GeoGroupTemplate generates external links to services that use all the WGS84 coordinates. GeoGroupTemplate is posted on many Wikipedia requested photographs in xxx category pages, such as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Orange County, California. This category has thirty listings. However, when clicking on the GeoGroupTemplate in that category, only two locations are shown on the google map. GeoGroupTemplate within the category space appears to be reading the article pages for their listed coordinates (see, e.g, Fullerton, California and Balboa Pavilion. Ideally, clicking on GeoGroupTemplate on the category page should bring up a map of all thirty location. However, having coordinates appear at the top of the article page isn't always appropriate. For example, there is an Orange County, California photo request for Paul Caligiuri (who was born there), but it wouldn't be appropriate to put coordinates on the top of his biography article. Is there a way to include a geographic coordinates parameter in reqphoto that, when filled in with the geographic coordinates, would cause GeoGroupTemplate on the category page to generate a google map that marks the location? For more information on this request, see Doncram's post. GregManninLB (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Two issues I'm seeing here. First, articles such as George Key Ranch do have coordinates, but are still not being listed. However, the coordinates on the articles not listed look different than the ones that do work. I don't really know much about the coord templates, but it looks like there are two different implementations for coordinates, and the script on the toolserver only recognizes one of them. As for the actual request - for articles such as Paul Caligiuri, what coordinates would be used in the reqphoto template? --- RockMFR 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. I have no idea why the toolserver isn't getting those coordinates. --- RockMFR 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
N Not done I hate the geo templates :D. Happy‑melon 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) In all seriousness, please work out exactly what needs to be changed to fix this before using {{editprotected}}.

[edit] Proposal - Unnamed topic parameters should be depreciated

The three unnamed parameters populate "Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of xxx". The use of the three unnamed parameters is confusing and their use should be depreciated. We can't get rid of them from the template unless a bot makes the changes. In the mean time, to depreciate their use, we should add |topic=, |topic2=, and |topic3= parameters to the template. We then can revise the template documentation to reflect this change. Please comment below about whether you agree with this. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you by any chance mean deprecated?? :D Happy‑melon 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Built-in flickrsearch

What about adding a built in flickr search on the talk page template?

Please try searching Flickr for images and upload them to wikimedia commons.

There are so many articles tagged with this template, and this would make it easier to search for images. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I'd be bold and do it myself, but the template is protected. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a link to the Free Image Search Tool, which searches Flickr, the Commons, other Wikimedia projects, and some other web sites. By the way, did you know about {{editprotected}}? You can use it to get an administrator's attention when you want to make a specific edit to a protected page. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Thank you, both for the edit (way better than just flickr), and for telling me about {{editprotected}}. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)