Template talk:Image requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


More like an image box[edit]

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)

Talk pages?[edit]

Wouldn't it be more logical to have this template appear on article pages, since it's at least related to the cleanup tags? 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)

Fair use and copyright[edit]

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)

Image change?[edit]

Does anyone mind if I change

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

Template needing talk links and other improvements[edit]

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)

talk pages or not[edit]

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)

"Improve its quality"[edit]

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)


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

Question about adding parameter value[edit]

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)

reorganization discussions[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


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)


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)

Wording concern[edit]

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)

interwiki links[edit]

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

Parameter inX=[edit]

"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)



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)

 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. Happymelon 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)

Improvements for inX[edit]

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


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)

Collapse parameter vs. nested parameter[edit]

{{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)

 Done Happymelon 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Images and Photos[edit]

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

Geographic coordinates parameter for Reqphoto[edit]

{{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)
Not done I hate the geo templates :D. Happymelon 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) In all seriousness, please work out exactly what needs to be changed to fix this before using {{editprotected}}.

Proposal - Unnamed topic parameters should be depreciated[edit]

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 Happymelon 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Built-in flickrsearch[edit]

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

Please try requested&l=commderiv&ct=0 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)

The one-click FIST link is a fantastic timesaver. Well done! --Padraic 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to the template[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could an admin have a look at this requested edit and see if it can be implemented? Adding something like (the r stands for 'reversed', i.e. the param is at the beginning, not the end):

{{#if:{{{1r|}}}|[[:Category:{{{1r}}} articles needing photos|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}
{{#if:{{{2r|}}}|[[:Category:{{{2r}}} articles needing photos|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}
{{#if:{{{3r|}}}|[[:Category:{{{3r}}} articles needing photos|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

should work. If this goes ahead, it should really be added to the doc as well. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:05, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

When that is put through could you also remove the "(FIST)" in the subheading. It is not necessary. Thanks, Monkeyblue 01:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The (FIST) is a link to the free image search tool, which was requested just above here, so I don't think that will be removed, at least not so quickly.
I am at a loss as to why you are requesting "1r", "2r", and "3r". The parameters 1, 2, 3, etc. have the specific meaning that they refer to the first, second and third parameters passed without requiring the parameter to be named. This would break the template on a large number of pages. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Or did you mean you just want the abbreviation (FIST) removed but the link kept? Stifle (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The request wasn't to change parameters 1, 2 & 3, but to add the parameters above. Sorry if this wasn't made clear. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:11, June 13, 2008 (UTC)
Just the abbreviation after the link. So "The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be..." becomes "The Free Image Search Tool may be..." Sorry I should have made that clearer. Thanks Monkeyblue 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Happymelon 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

reqphoto is broken, links to "Wikipedians in..." not to "category: photos requested in..."[edit]

At, for example, Talk:Larkin House, if "reqphoto|in=Monterey County, California" is used the reqphoto link goes to redlink category "Wikipedians in Monterey County, California". If "reqphoto|in=California" is used, the link goes to the bluelink (but equally irrelevant) "Category:Wikipedians in California".

What is wrong? It is crazy, in my view, to link to lists of wikipedians. You want to link to the category of photos requested in the given geographic area. doncram (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the link on that talk page is pointing to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Monterey County, California. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It didnt do that in this version of the page, which pointed to Wikipedians in Monterey County, California, or the next version that pointed to CA Wikipedians. Another editor since edited the article so that it used "requestin|Monterey County, California", hence your different finding. Anyhow, I still think that "request|in=California" or "request|in=Monterey County, California" ought to point to something other than wikipedians. No one is interested in whichever few wikipedians have chosen to put themselves forward that way. doncram (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it looks pretty strange. And in the case of a heavily populated area like Monterey County, it doesn't make much sense. (Especially when no one has actually populated Category:Wikipedians in Monterey County, California.) However, if you're really interested in getting a photograph added to, say, New Sweden, Maine -- a town that's several hours from the nearest big city -- it may be helpful to browse through Category:Wikipedians in Maine to see if anyone listed there lives close enough to help. So I think it does make sense for the template to include that link, even if it's kinda superfluous for those of us who live in densely-populated areas. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to this discussion about a year later, I just want to observe, again, that it is pointless for any version of reqphoto template to link to the category of wikipedians in a given area. What is the intention? If there are a lot of wikipedians who are willing to put themselves forward in the area, then the reqphoto link to them is some kind of condemnation of them. It does not actually reach them. And, if some automated process was going to reach them by email or otherwise and say they ought to add a photo for some specific article, then I think you would observe rapid exodus of those people. There is no clear point that i see, to linking to wikipedians who say they are in the area. Do you mean to exclude wikipedians who visit the area but do not live there? There is no point! This is an aggravating aspect of the reqphoto system. I don't want to overstate this, but doesn't this show general unthinkingness (i am censoring out stronger terms)? A year later, anyhow, when i revisit this, that is what seems to be apparent. doncram (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

granularity of the 'in' parameter[edit]

I'm wondering about what is the correct practice when adding 'in' parameters to this tag. Is it preferable to put only the most exact location? Or on the other hand would it be acceptable to put something along the lines of in=city,in2=county,in3=state ? It seems that the idea behind multiple 'in' parameters is to accommodate things that are in more than one place (in other words, things that move or things that span multiple locations), but it isn't clear whether it is supposed to be used for multiple locations that are 'in' each other. Am I making sense? DaveMenninger (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say, as specific as would be useful. If it's a building in New York, put in=New York, if it's something common to one state then in=California. The Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California is a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California anyway. TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitespace fix[edit]


The line break between {{check talk}} and the first line of this template causes a gap when placed below other templates. This should be removed. Sandbox at user talk:Thumperward/image. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

removing links to "Category:Wikipedians in Foo"?[edit]

When this template is applied with a single "in" parameter, e.g. {{reqphoto|in=Hohokus, N.J.}}, the resulting infobox includes a link to Category:Wikipedians in Hohokus, N.J. When this category does not exist -- and it often does not -- it produces a redlink in the article.

This strikes me as a minor issue, but I have recently had conversations with other Wikipedians who find the redlinks deeply bothersome. In some cases people are actively converting {{reqphoto}} into {{reqphotoin}} to eliminate the redlinks. That seems like a step backward. {{reqphotoin}} is officially deprecated; if there are people who find it more useful than {{reqphoto}}, we're doing something wrong.

I would like to propose that we remove the link to the "Wikipedians in..." category from the {{reqphoto}} template. I think it was a clever idea to add it and a worthwhile experiment, but ultimately I think there's actually very little practical benefit. The "Wikipedians in..." categories are just not that popular. For example: right now, there are only 88 users in Category:Wikipedians in San Francisco, California. I'll lay good money there are a lot more than 88 Wikipedians in San Francisco; they just haven't listed themselves in that category.

I'd like to hear more from editors who think the category link is helpful. Right now I'm thinking that it's not worth the hassle if it actually turns people actively off from using the template. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

well, since redlinks are not very useful for this purpose, I'll make a short-term edit request that will keep redlinks from showing, but won't affect the template otherwise. the discussion can go on for a more permanent solution, if this doesn't satisfy.


can line 31 be changed to read
{{#if:{{{in|}}}|{{#ifexist:Category:Wikipedians in {{{in}}}|'''[[:Category:Wikipedians in {{{in}}}|Wikipedians in {{{in}}}]]''' may be able to help!}} }}
thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea. I am embarrassed to admit I didn't think that was possible or else I would have suggested it straight up. Many thanks for offering it. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Done --Amalthea 09:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

parameter input for category that does not exist[edit]

The ifexists function mentioned above suggests there is a solution to a problem I have been trying to address for some time. If someone input a parameter that is a new subject or new place the article will be placed in a category that does not exist. This in itself is not incorrect, it can be a valid new subject. The problem is that this uncreated category will not be a subcategory of any Wikipedia requested photo category and is therefor not visible. Would it be possible to automatically add such pages also to a category of reqphoto pages needing attention? The article could then be categorized or the new category created and placed as a subcategory in one of the main grouping. Traveler100 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the only way to make a category a subcategory of a different page is to actually create the new category page and add a category link to the super-category. templates themselves don't have the ability to modify pages other than those they're transcluded onto (though it might be possible to do something tricky, the way {{documentation}} works). I might bring the issue up over at Wikipedia:Bot_requests: having a bot go around and create obvious category structures might not be such a bad thing. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the suggestion was that {{reqphoto}}, when adding an article to a category page that does not exist, should also add it to something like [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in orphan categories]] (or some such). Which I think makes sense (and Traveler100 and I are sharing a brain entirely too often these days). But I think you are right that this is a problem well suited to a more general-purpose "orphan category" bot. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

proposal to rename template[edit]

I would like to bring up a subject I have tried to address before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs),namely removing the distinction between photographs and images. There are many categories created by reqphoto that overlap with categories created by WikiProject templates. It makes sense to have both these methods pointing to the same category. However on trying to do this I have found a number of people object to changing the working of XXX articles needing images to Wikipedia requested photographs of XXX, they take the working too literally. For example how can you have a photograph of an event that happened before cameras were developed. My argument is one should not differentiate between an image and a photo; I can photograph a painting of a historical event or company logo, or scan an image of a photograph!

The best solution I can think to this is to change the wording of reqphoto to Wikipedia requested images of XXX.

Comments: how to archive; for/against; alternative solution?

Traveler100 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree - it's annoying that we have this distinction where 99.9% of the time it doesn't really matter, and in those remaining cases it can be fixed by specifying "a photo" in the image request description. It doesn't bother me a great deal but clearly makes it difficult to reach consensus in some cases. I support renaming the {{reqphoto}} categories, and renaming the template to reqimage, and am happy to work on tools to help with the transition.
I'm not sure what your concerns about archival are. Can you say more about that? Tim Pierce (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the support, as I have no idea how this could be achieved! Started a statement on what needs to be done. All interested please add/edit.Traveler100 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I wonder whether it doesn't amount to a lot of busywork. In retrospect I would certainly prefer that we had gone the route of calling them "images" rather than "photographs", but now that we're there I'm unsure that it's worth it to undergo quite this much work. It's a bit of a distinction without a difference: as you say, most of the images that are available to add to an article are technically going to be photographs of something, whether a person or a painting or a statue.
I wonder whether changing the wording in the {{reqphoto}} template to say "An editor has requested an image or photograph of this subject" rather than "a photograph or photographs", if that would be sufficient to pacify the people who don't like the wording, without going through the trouble of updating and changing all the category names. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point. Changing the working of the template is worth trying; agree a lot less work. When the template wording is changed I will attempt to rename a few overlapping categories, see how other react. Traveler100 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request that we change the template wording:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs ...
An editor has requested that an image or photograph ...
The background for this request is at Template_talk:Reqphoto#proposal_to_rename_template. Traveler100 (talk · contribs) has encountered negative feedback from some editors who consider it inappropriate to add the {{reqphoto}} template to an article for which no photo can reasonably be expected to exist, e.g. medieval or prehistoric people or events. This template is widely used to request all sorts of images and not simply photographs, so it is appropriate to update the wording of the request to reflect that. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This didn't seem too controversial so I have done it. I agree that it would have been preferable to have the word "image" in the categories, but this would be a huge amount of work for perhaps not much gain. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Template talk:Reqimage#Why deprecated? which seems relevant. Specifically, images can refer to many things, including diagrams, maps, etc. There are categories for these, for example Category:Wikipedia requested maps. So I think this proposal will confuse things too much. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help. I agree that there's some value in having some templates like {{reqmap}} for a very specific sort of image. Hopefully the new wording will make the {{reqimage}} fans more comfortable with deprecating it in favor of {{reqphoto}} for general image requests. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)



  • Removed redundancy and duplication of images request categories.
  • Remove redundancy and duplication between reqphoto and WikiProject need-image/need-photo templates.
  • Remove other overlapping request for picture/image/photo templates.

Method - Tasks

  • Rename categories from Wikipedia requested photographs of XXXXX to one of following:
    • Wikipedia requested images of XXXXX
    • XXXXX articles needing images
  • Edit reqimage to same function as reqphoto but with new category naming.
  • Edit reqphoto to new naming convention
  • Edit all other req picture/image/photo templates to redirect to reqimage
  • Edit all WikiProject templates with image/photo request to new category naming.
  • Rename all Wikipedia requested photographs of XXXXX and Wikipedia requested photographs in XXXXX categories to new naming.
  • Edit all Wikipedia requested photographs of XXXXX categories so parent-categories are matching new name
  • Edit all pages that reference old category names or set up redirects.


WPBiography need-photo category and template[edit]

How to get the very big list addressed. Comments requested at Template talk:WPBiography#need-photoTraveler100 (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Use when other photos exist[edit]

Should this template be used to request specific photos in articles that already have other photos? I suspect that this question will come up more frequently as PhotoBot tries to clear out the categories (see this comment for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, simply add the of= parameter to detail exactly what additional image is needed.Traveler100 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Could the reqphoto template be revised to allow for different circumstances: when more photos are desired (although specific features that would be covered by "of" request are not known specifically enough to ask for); when better quality pictures are desired; when more recent pictures are desired. It is not clear how to use the "of" parameter to make these other types of requests. By the way, I visit here in response to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Photo requests. doncram (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you just say |of=more pictures, or |of=better pictures than what's already here? Also, it's not technically necessary for every explanation/detail/whatever to actually be contained inside the template. Perhaps |of=what's described below on the talk page would be good enough. Then you could explain whatever you want, at any length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Interlanguage link[edit]

I suggest include a link to [[eo:sxablono:petfoto]] (eo:sxablono:petfoto)--Sennaciulo (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of this template[edit]

Is it okay to remove this template from the talk page of the article, after I've uploaded an included an photo? -- (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, please do. There are thousands of requests and we are trying to remove those that are no longer relevant so people can concentrate on addressing the other. If someone feels the photo added is not antiquate to meet the request they can always add the reqphoto again (hopefully with a more specific request text). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical requests?[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to define "historical" photo requests - I mean requests where an event has passed or a building has been demolished. An example is Talk:1974 Brisbane flood, which is impossible to photograph today, we are really just hoping for a photo in someone's shoebox to be found. Perhaps using syntax like in2=historical and some documentation on the template page would be ok? The definition of these types of requests may be good for bot reports.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply add the additional category subject historical events. It will then be added to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of historical events. But make sure other subject categories and a location is also stated so there is more chance of it being seen by people monitoring specialist sub-categories.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cat sort?[edit]

Would somebody a add cat sorting parameter and hooks into this? Unlike WP templates, this seems to ignore the DEFAULTSORT on a talk page. It would have been nice to sort the request for The Bach Choir of Bethlehem under B instead of T. Thanks. --J Clear (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Please update interwikis by Czech page: cs:Šablona:Požadavek na obrázek I have checked all the pages manually. --Gumruch (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have done it, please check that is is ok. Actually anybody can do it, at Template:Reqphoto/doc.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Making Wording & Links More Helpful[edit]

The wording and links in this template are not particularly helpful. I propose new wording to provide more apposite guidance, such as:

This article will benefit from appropriate images to illustrate and/or clarify the subject matter, in accord with Wikipedia's quality standards.
The Free Image Search Tool may help you locate suitabe images to add.

Scheinwerfermann T·C21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the existing links are pretty well chosen. Can you explain more specifically why those changes would improve the template? Tim Pierce (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Best name for this template/these templates[edit]

I moved the template to {{Request photo}} - separate full words, without changing the meaning. I think that it is pretty clear, however it could be clearer depending on the scope. If it is to cover just photos then one of

  • {{Photo needed}} - matches the meaning better
  • {{Photo requested}} - matches the category name better (we can of course move the categories easily)

would seem best, however if as indicated in the template wording it is to be used as a catch-all then the noun should be "image" giving

(All the above currently redirect here.) The same applies to the verb parts of the other templates in this family.

Note that a template renaming often (usually) doesn't involve changing all instances of the template, and old names continue to work as before.

Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

If we're to rename the template then I agree that {{image requested}} would probably be the best choice of all. This template gets used for a variety of requests that include screenshots, TV image captures, scans and other things that don't precisely mean "photos". I think "requested" is also better than "needed", for those articles which already have several images but someone would like to see a specific kind of image added to it. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes the second point had occurred to me and was swaying me towards "requested" too. Also, maybe a bit pedantic, but anyone can feel free to "request", whereas "needed" implies some kind of objective reality, or maybe some consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

I though the idea of a protected page was that no major changes would be made without first requesting or at least discussion? A few of us have been slowly working on cleaning this area up for some years so changes can have a number of unforeseen effects. On the topic of the best wording, definitely request not needed. Also image would be a better term as the requests are for any type of picture not just photographs. We did a while ago discuss rewording of the categories but decided it was too much complication for just a syntax topic in an administration area. One issue needs checking on; there are a number of automatic and semi-automatic programs running in this area, not sure if a template name with space character in it will mean major rewrites. I for one have a monster of a AWB script that I would not want to run a major change over. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose moving back the main template page to reqphoto. The move was made but no pages documenting the use of this template has been updated. Updating all help pages that explain the use of this template would be a reasonably large task and considering the many productive tasks that still need doing not a good use of our time. Extensive work has been done by a number of people over the years to rationalise all the image request template. This move without consultation has not helped. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Please establish a consensus one way or the other before using the editprotected template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's leave it alone for now and see if there is consensus in favor of {{image needed}} (or something else, for that matter) before doing any more renames or moves. I also wish that this move had started with a discussion, but as long as the issue is upon us, let's try to get it right. Rich is correct that the existing links and documentation do not need to be changed hastily, since {{reqphoto}} will continue to work as before. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
On the question of bot and script editing: AFAIK there is no reason why having a space in the template name will pose an implicit problem. PhotoCatBot can certainly cope with it, and already copes with other synonyms for {{reqphoto}} that include a space in the name. I am not sure if something special needs to be done to AWB scripts to handle this case, but I'm pretty sure it can be done. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Traveler100 and I are the only people who care at all about the template name. :-) In which case I think we're okay going ahead with {{image requested}} and then updating documentation and categories as necessary. Traveler, do you have any additional reservations about that name? Tim Pierce (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree {{image requested}} is the most appropriate wording for this template but {{reqphoto}} is the most widely used format by people making a request (and is easier to type in). If a change is made reqphoto should still be reference as acceptable. As you say we are probably the only two working in this area at the moment.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made the move to {{image requested}} because this seems to have the most support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to Rich Farmbrough. You stated that "we can of course move the categories easily", I would be interested to know how this could be achieved as we have discussed this in the past but decided it was too complex. I know changing the template would be easy and this would start the server off automatically changing the 10s of thousands of articles to the new category name, but that is the simple part. How can you change the nearly 2000 category pages to the new wording? Also there are a few hundred project templates that have parameters that place talk pages into these categories, is there a good way of identifying all of theses and making the changes in these (some protected) templates?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the category pages would be an AWB run, if they were to be moved a bot run to create the new pages and cat redirects, the project templates would be a change to one of the WikiProjectBanner meta templates I believe. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Redirects nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated a lot of the redirects of this template for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Various redirects to Template:Image requested. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

nocat parameter[edit]

{{editprotected}} Would it be possible to add a parameter nocat=yes to the template, which would show the text and image on the page but not add it to any category. There are a number of pages just referencing the template and not actual requests. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Disabling as it isn't clear what's being suggested. Can you provide an example of a page being inappropriately categorised? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look here Category:Wikipedia requested photographs you will find Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup/sandbox, Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace, Wikipedia:WikiProject Extinction/Articles without image. Also often seen on user pages where people use it to note templates they use.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Aha. In that case, what is needed is namespace detection, not a manual switch. It should be possible to do this automatically. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think actually that Traveler is right and disabling the categories makes more sense. In the examples Traveler gives, the template is being used as an example or to show how the page should be updated. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup doesn't actually need an image and it doesn't make sense to add it to [[Category:Pages in the Wikipedia namespace needing an image]] or some such. Being able to write this as {{image requested|nocategories}} would allow the page to render the template without automatically adding categories. I have seen other templates implementing some kind of "nocat" parameter -- I'll look for one and see if I can propose a code change for this. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that Chris was suggesting that in some namespaces (e.g. project namespace) there would be no category at all. This would work fine as long as there are
  • no project pages where categorisation is desired;
  • no article talk pages where categorisation is not desired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Syntax something along the line of #ifeq:false around the definition of the categories.

--Traveler100 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Difference between {{reqphoto}} and {{Image requested}}[edit]

Is there any difference between using one or the other? I thought that {{reqphoto}} was merely a re-direct. I ask this because User:People-photo-bot has been adding {{reqphoto}} to talk pages which already have {{Image requested}}. Just check Talk:Ikuma Hoshino. Are the changes done by the bot correct or is it duplicating the same template? Jfgslo (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

there is no difference at all. {{Image requested}} was create because it was felt it reflected in words better the meaning of the template, while {{reqphoto}} is the more established syntax and is a little easier to type in. Also the bots running overs these categories are quite complex, did not what to do big edit just for a redirect.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
but I see I need to update some bots to account for the fact that {{Image requested}} is now being used by people. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Territory[edit]

{{reqphoto|in=Northern Territory}} produces the right category, but does not point to the right Wikipedians category. {{reqphoto|in=the Northern Territory}} produces the wrong category, but points to the right Wikipedians. Any way around this?--Muhandes (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Either edit all the articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Northern Territory or edit the category in Template:User Northern Territory. Suggest the latter as less work and Northern Territory does not have the in the article name. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the standard is to use "the", see all sub categories of Category:Northern Territory. It's the same way as Netherlands not having "the", but all subcategories of Category:Netherlands do. And I'd assume the same with all other such cases. I thought the template could handle it, but you are probably right, the change should be in the articles. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As it was five minutes work to correct it to use the standard category naming "the Northern Territory", I went bold and did that. --Muhandes (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Add type[edit]

{{edit requested}} Please add type = style as a parameter to tmbox. --Bsherr (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

could you please explain what this does? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure. See Template:Tmbox#Talk page message box types. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have implemented this on Template:Image requested/sandbox so that people can see what it looks like. Bsherr: please wait for a consensus before using {{editprotected}}, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no real issue with this, although the style option implies Minor warnings and problems whereas this template is really a request for improvements rather than something actually wrong with the article. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would distinguish the template for purposes of ordering talk page templates per WP:TPL, but that's a good point. Which would be better? --Bsherr (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template[edit]

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)(background check) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs category=no parameter[edit]

This needs a |category=no parameter, so that regardless what values are specified otherwise, it can be illustrated on talk pages and in projects' "Templates" sections, without actually categorizing anything. Just borrow the code from the WikiProject banners (I forget which subtemplate it's in, but it's part of Template:WPBannerMeta). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

free-license photo request[edit]

The {{Reqfreephoto}} template has been expanded to be closer to this template. Do others think it would be a good idea to add a parameter to this template that would change the text to request a freely licensed photograph, thus removing the need to maintain two similar templates?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

request to add parameter free = , which when value is yes will set the text to that which is currently used for {{Reqfreephoto}}, other wise use current text of this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)
Sounds like a good idea. Would you please put the required code on Template:Image requested/sandbox and make sure it works properly and then reactivate the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Updates sandbox--Traveler100 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Note I cleaned up the sandbox slightly, otherwise |free=no would have displayed the "free" message. Anomie 18:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

all Image Requested templates[edit]

As per this discussion on User talk:Traveler100#Image_requested_categories, please advise if this can be corrected. With normal categories, any page added is listed by the Default sort on the page. In the case of a person, that would usually be the last name. With the image requested categories, it sorts by first name. Can this be remedied?--Maile66 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully my last edit will have fixed this, although it may take a while for changes to update. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite[edit]

  If you used the "Free=yes" option, the first line reads

  • This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free photograph or photographs.

I would like to suggest a small modification, with the emphasis only meant to show change and not to be included. Perhaps:

  • This article contains, may have contained, or may require one or more non-free photograph or photographs.
  • This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free, or may or may require a Public Domain photograph or photographs

or something along those lines.
  I suggest this so that this template can be used on pages that don't already have or never had a non-free photograph, but require a Public Domain image in all cases. For example when a person is alive or a building is still standing. The way it reads now isn't quite right in those common situations.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since no one seems to care, it seems that this edit is uncontroversial, so I'm going to ask for an edit.

Can an admin please change the "|text=" code to

|text= {{#ifeq: {{yesno|{{{free|}}}}} | yes | This article contains or may have contained one or more [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free]] '''photograph''' or '''photographs''' or may require a [[free content|freely-licensed]] photograph. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph{{ #ifeq: {{{of| }}}|{{{of|u}}}| of '''{{{of}}}'''}} be [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|included]] in this article to replace such copyrighted images in order to better comply with our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|policy for non-free content]]. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our [[public domain image resources]], or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may [[Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission|request permission]] from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. | It is requested that an '''image''' or '''photograph'''{{#if:{{{of|}}}| of '''{{{of}}}'''}} be [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|included]] in this article to [[Wikipedia:Article development|improve its quality]].}} --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you update the Template:Image_requested/sandbox please? mabdul 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know there was one. Done.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put the current and proposed versions on /testcases so people can compare them. I think the new version complicates the wording and I'm not sure it is even grammatical. Can we simplify it? For example, by removing the first sentence entirely? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with any change your willing to make. As I listed above I'm not picky as to the wording. I would just like to be able to use the template in cases where no image was ever uploaded but a freely licensed image is required.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There were no other comments so I've gone with what I thought was best. I hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing space when "of=" is present[edit]

For examples, see Talk:Guangzhou Metro. A space is missing between "photograph" and "of". Kxx (talk | contribs) 18:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is now fixed. Thanks for reporting it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlink image[edit]

Please unlink the image and disable the alt text. The image is PD, so should be no problem either way, and the alt text isn't necessary here. The code is in the sandbox. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie 17:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing "be"[edit]

Please change the text "Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help" to "Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help". — Kpalion(talk) 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie 12:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

in= not working according to docs[edit]

Docs state that in= uses categories. However, many categories do not seem to result in the location being displayed. For instance, I just did the following: {{Reqphoto|in=Aomori Prefecture|of=the Asamushi Aquarium building and exhibits}}. Category:Aomori Prefecture" exists, and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Aomori Prefecture also exists, but the resulting request box does not include "Wikipedians in Aomori Prefecture...". What am I doing wrong or misunderstanding (or is this a bug)? Don Lammers (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The category doesn't show because Category:Wikipedians in Aomori Prefecture doesn't exist. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added a slight clarification to the documentation since there is obviously an unstated condition for this to work. Could you make sure I got it right? Don Lammers (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template question[edit]

When {{Image requested|in=Delaware}} is used, the template displays "Wikipedians in Delaware may be able to help!", and the talk page is categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Delaware. When {{Image requested|American football people|people of Delaware}} is used, the template doesn't have the message, but the talk page is better categorized into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of American football people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Delaware.

Is there a way the template can be revised so that it has the display of the first example and the categorization of the second? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Upload button[edit]

Ought this template have an upload button similar to those in National Register of Historic Places listings in Hunterdon County, New Jersey? Seems to me it would greatly help photographers who don't know Wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering a similar thing. The challenge I think would be identifying a category to upload to. Also some of the upload code used is hidden. Agree worth investing. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have in the sandbox, Template:Image requested/sandbox, added an upload icon to the template. It just however take you to the upload page on commons. If there is anyone smarter than me reading this maybe it can be improved. It should be possible to pass over a useful description and category. Also opening up in a new browser window would be nice. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Specifying "In=Moscow" already puts it in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Moscow so maybe that category needs a Commonscat Moscow. Probably it wouldn't be terribly difficult to persuade a few geographically interested editors to populate most of these request categories this way, though how difficult to make the upload button follow such a trail I have no idea. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think I have almost worked out how to pass parameters through. Can take the parameters (i.e. request photo categories) of the image request template as categories for Commons. If we can get this to work then there is probably some work aligning photo request categories to commons categories, but that would probably not be a bad thing anyway. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Got the article name coming through as description but so far only worked out how to get one category through to the wizard automatically based on the request category. Cannot workout what the delimiter syntax is.--Traveler100 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Well no one responded to my questions on submitting multiple categories so I have made the upload button so if there is a subject category the first gets passed though, if not, the first in parameter is passed though.--Traveler100 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
That increases the size of the template considerably. What about putting the button on the right side? (On sandbox.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, the change you made makes it look better. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of neat. When a photo is uploaded using the button, it's not automatically added to the main article page; how can we know that a photo has been uploaded or otherwise find it? Will it only be found if an editor happens to search an appropriate category on Commons? —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be cool if it also added the image to the page and removed the image request template. But that is way beyond my coding knowledge. It does add the article link to the description on commons. If we could figure out how to add additional categories then could add a category uploaded from reqphoto on commons (just and idea). --Traveler100 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Loves Monuments campaign last month used this button in the {{UploadCampaignLink}} template, which is configured on Commons as an upload campaign to manage photos that are uploaded as part of a photo scavenger hunt or that sort of thing. It might be worth pursuing with someone at Commons to find out if it would make sense to define an "upload campaign" just for the {{image request}} template on Wikipedia. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As it happens, an upload button for every article is under test for the Mobile version of Wikipedia. See MediaWiki button. Camera phones, far as I see, are where such a button is most valuable. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

For medical topics[edit]

Any time this template is used as {{reqphoto|medical subjects}} can it also display a link to the essay WP:Pictures for medical articles instead of just mentioning Flikr? Biosthmors (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See my changes at Template:Image requested/sandbox and some test cases:
{{Image requested/sandbox}}
{{Image requested/sandbox|medical subjects}}
{{Image requested/sandbox|foo|medical subjects}}
{{Image requested/sandbox|foo|medical subjects|bar}}
{{Image requested/sandbox|Test}}
Feel free to improve the wording and the ifeq cases; I wasn't able, but this works! mabdul 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if we should go down this road. Although it looks like a good idea on first viewing, if you take this to its logical conclusion we should add such tips to all 2500 permutations of subjects. This would make the template too complex. I suggest added the link to useful website to the category of requested photos. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Most topics don't have such a page nor will they ever get one. Yes indeed, that code looks ugly, but with a bit tweaking and using a #switch the code wouldn't be that bad and complex. mabdul 12:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
How about "See Wikipedia:Pictures for medical articles for additional resources"? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And I mention Flikr at the essay so maybe just link to it? Biosthmors (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not done for now: Sorry for the delay in answering this. The test cases are looking fine, but given that Traveler100 has raised an objection to the proposed change, I think the consensus is just a shade too unclear to implement this right now. Perhaps you could mention this on a more widely read page or noticeboard, or start an RfC? Things might become clearer after we have opened this up to a wider audience. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Add "url=" parameter[edit]

I propose that a "url=" parameter be added to the template. This would be useful for situations where the editor who lacks the ability to add the image themselves but has encountered an image which would fit the bill. An example of when this may occur is where a vector graphic housed in a PDF would be appropriate, but the editor is unable to extract it at that particular moment. Rather than upload a poorer quality version and add a {{Should be SVG|url=}} box, they could skip uploading the first version altogether. Your input is, of course, very welcome. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 18:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Project jump warning[edit]

I'm all for asking people to upload images to Commons rather than to EnWiki, but it might be a good idea to mention in the template that if you click on the upload button, you'll be taken to Commons. New users are likely the only ones that are going to need this template's prodding in order to get them to upload an image, and they're the ones most likely in need of such a warning.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to Free Image Search Tool Broken?[edit]

Is it just my computer/browser, or is the link to the "Free Image Search Tool" for Flickr broken? Or is it the webpage itself? I get a 404 warning page when I follow the link. Thanks! TCMemoire 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Make Template:Image requested show links to Wikipedian categories when more than one category is requested[edit]

From: Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_make_Template:Image_requested_show_links_to_Wikipedian_categories_when_more_than_one_category_is_requested

As you can see in Talk:Colegio Alemán Alexander von Humboldt, Template:Image requested only links to the Wikipedian categories if one category of Wikipedians is specified.

  • {{reqphoto|in=Mexico City|of=Campus Xochimilco Kindergarten and Primary: Camino Real a Xochitepec 120 Col. Tepepan, Del. Xochimilco 16030 México, D.F.}}

If more than one is specified, such as:

  • {{reqphoto|in=Mexico City|in2=Mexico|of=Campus La Herradura, Main Campus: Bosques de Moctezuma 124 Fracc. La Herradura, Huixquilucan 52784 Estado de México}}

Then none of the potential categories are linked. Is it alright if someone sets up the template so it links both of them? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates for individual photo requests?[edit]

OSM takes coordinates and can use them to map photo requests. However for Talk:The Japanese School of New York I have specific photo requests for former campuses in Queens, but they don't show up on OSM because the coordinates in The Japanese School of New York reflect the current campus in Connecticut, not the old ones in Queens.

Is there a way to have each photo request tag have its own set of coordinates so it can be mapped in the OSM?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request: Please use future-proofed URL that is also capable of HTTPS access[edit]

To future-proof the URL for the Free Image Search Tool and to facilitate the use of HTTPS in the URL, please consider changing

<br><small>The [http://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/fist.php?doit=1&language=en&project=wikipedia&data={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}&datatype=articles&params%5Bcatdepth%5D=0&params%5Brandom%5D=50&params%5Bll_max%5D=5&params%5Bcommons_max%5D=5&params%5Bflickr_max%5D=5&params%5Binclude_flickr_id%5D=1&params%5Bwts_max%5D=5&params%5Bgimp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_skip_flickr%5D=1&params%5Bgeograph_max%5D=5&params%5Bforarticles%5D=noimage&params%5Blessthan_images%5D=3&params%5Bdefault_thumbnail_size%5D=&params%5Bjpeg%5D=1&params%5Bpng%5D=1&params%5Bgif%5D=1&params%5Bsvg%5D=1&params%5Bogg%5D=1&params%5Bmin_width%5D=80&params%5Bmin_height%5D=80&sources%5Blanguagelinks%5D=1&sources%5Bcommons%5D=1&sources%5Bflickr%5D=1 Free Image Search Tool] may be able to locate suitable images on [[Flickr]] and other web sites.</small>


<br><small>The [{{fullurl:toollabs:fist/fist.php|doit=1&language=en&project=wikipedia&data={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}&datatype=articles&params%5Bcatdepth%5D=0&params%5Brandom%5D=50&params%5Bll_max%5D=5&params%5Bcommons_max%5D=5&params%5Bflickr_max%5D=5&params%5Binclude_flickr_id%5D=1&params%5Bwts_max%5D=5&params%5Bgimp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_max%5D=5&params%5Besp_skip_flickr%5D=1&params%5Bgeograph_max%5D=5&params%5Bforarticles%5D=noimage&params%5Blessthan_images%5D=3&params%5Bdefault_thumbnail_size%5D=&params%5Bjpeg%5D=1&params%5Bpng%5D=1&params%5Bgif%5D=1&params%5Bsvg%5D=1&params%5Bogg%5D=1&params%5Bmin_width%5D=80&params%5Bmin_height%5D=80&sources%5Blanguagelinks%5D=1&sources%5Bcommons%5D=1&sources%5Bflickr%5D=1}} Free Image Search Tool] may be able to locate suitable images on [[Flickr]] and other web sites.</small>

Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I assume you've tested this works correctly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

edit request -- someone please fix the bug[edit]

Something is broken here.

{{image requested

results in:

[[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of History


{{image requested |History }}

I found this error on an article talk page. It should not be splitting the category brackets apart with a newline inbetween.

-- (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Looking through your contributions I found your problem case at Talk:Bilbao (Mesoamerican site).
|of=sculptures recovered from Bilbao, Guatemala
The template's an unholy mix of named parameters and positional parameters. For the category parameter to be recognised it needs to be first parameter or numbered to pretend it is.
|of=sculptures recovered from Bilbao, Guatemala
Additionally, the category Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of History doesn't exist. Bazj (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't actually fix the problem, because as illustrated here on this talk page, if you use an unnamed parameter, it still does it.

[[Category:Wikipedia requested images of history


It happens regardless of how you capitalize "history" -- (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not true that the explicit numbering is necessary for the parameter to even work: "History" in {{Reqphoto|in=Guatemala|History|...}} is counted as the first unnamed parameter as expected. Adding the 1=, like in Bazj's second code block, does solve the problem with the newline, because leading and trailing whitespace is preserved for unnamed parameters and stripped for named ones in all template calls. The template itself could be quite easily changed to strip whitespace from unnamed parameters as well, though. SiBr4 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

I would like to add this sentence (in regular-sized font), as I've done on {{diagram requested}}:

"Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible."

I've recently created a number of specific sub-templates for diagrams, and it would be helpful to encourage taggers to use the most specific tag they can. Swpbtalk 14:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, but there isn't much explanation and no introduction to the topic. It would be nice if you could write a help page or something and then transclude this template as part of that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I've added an introductory sentence to {{media request templates}}. I'm not sure what more explanation is needed; it seems pretty self-explanatory. What else are you looking for? Swpbtalk 17:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to link to a template like this. Anyway  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── After reading this request, I took the liberty of including the explanatory text with {{Media request templates}} when it is transcluded to the See also sections of the appropriate /doc subpages, and I added a little to possibly make it more clear for our less experienced editors. Feel free to improve it or revert it as needed. Be prosperous! Paine  12:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Swpbtalk 16:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Pleasure! Paine 

Requested edit[edit]

This template is used to request non-photographic images as well as photos, but in key places it indicates photos only, and incorrectly categorizes requests as such. For requests specifically for photos, {{photo requested}} may be used. Requested edits to this template:

  1. Change "It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph" to "It is requested that a freely-licensed image or photograph"
  2. Change all categories [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs]], [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of {{{X}}}]] and [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{X}}}]] to read "requested images"

Swpbtalk 15:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: I mocked up the changes in the sandbox. Do all the "requested images of" and "articles needing images" categories exist? --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No; right now the "requested photographs" categories contain a mix of requests for photos and non-photo images. I will seek consensus to rename those categories; the emptied "requested photos" categories can then be used strictly for photos, using {{photo requested}}. For now, can you implement the first request above? Swpbtalk 19:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Swpb:  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Per above, categories have been created/moved (following two weeks proposed here without objection). Please change in the template:

  • [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs]] to [[Category:Wikipedia requested images]]
  • All [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of {{{X}}}]] to [[Category:Wikipedia requested images of {{{X}}}]]

(Do not change [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{X}}}]] )

Thanks! — s w p b T 02:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! — s w p b T 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)