![]() | Photography Category‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Categories | |||
|
See no reson to have two identical categories. -- Stefan talk 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I had no idea there was one. Thank you. Doo- dle- doo 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed a WikiProject to organize the process of cleaning up and organizing photo requests. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Photo Requests and offer feedback if you're so inclined. Thanks! Tim Pierce 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to distinguish the difference? please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs. Traveler100 ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I question a number of articles in this category, e.g. Odda of Devon. At first it looks odd to be requesting a photo of anyone who lived in the 9th century, I realise striclly speaking you are only asking for an image, but e.g. the earliest Scots monarch who we have an authentic image of is James II of Scotland. Images of people from a while back are likely to be artists' impressions from later. Would it be ok if Wikipedians with a bit of artistic talent added their own drawing? PatGallacher ( talk) 14:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The Map all coordinates using OSM link does not work, it says: "sorry, no data to show"
That's a shame as it is a great way to find nearby photographs that need to be taken, when travelling. Who could fix that? Thanks! Nicolas1981 ( talk) 02:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at meta:Grants:IEG/Wiki needs pictures. All feedbacks are welcome. Thanks!-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Template {{ image requested}} currently puts all generic image requests, photographic or not, into this category and its children. I propose to separate photo requests from non-photo image requests, since the two types of requests are fulfilled very differently. I've already separated the templates {{ photo requested}} and {{ image requested}}; next I propose to move all the current categories to Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject and children thereof, allowing the "photo requested" categories to be populated exclusively by {{ photo requested}}. (This will not fix the problem of photo- and non-photo requests being mixed in the current categories, but photos are at least truly a subset of images, while the inverse is not true.) — Swpb talk 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What's going on here? Is the central discussion for swpb ( talk · contribs)'s moves? I saw that several categories requesting photos of biological organisms were moved (e.g. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cephalopods-> Category:Wikipedia requested images of cephalopods. And some of the organism "image" categories were tagged for speedy deletion (as empty categories) by {User|Liz}}. Deleting the "image" categories would leave the original "photo" categories as redirects without targets. Redirect targeting can be fixed but it still takes edits. I'd like to fix things for the dozen or so categories I care about, but I don't know whether to go Liz's route (tag "image" cat for deletion, and then go back through and unredirect the "photo" categories and readd their parent categories), or swpb's apparently intended route (unredirect "photo" categories, add readd their parent categories). At this point, swpb's route requires fewer net edits (assuming all the necessary changes are applied in one edit) than Liz's route to clean up the category structure. It looks like Liz CSD tagged 70-80 categories. There are 1117 subcategories of Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject (to see run this search), which includes some "photo" categories that swpb has already brought back into the tree as well as "image" categories that probably don't need a "photo" subcategory (e.g., requests for maps).
I've no objection in principal to making photo requests subcategories of image request. In practice, there's a big mess in the category structure now that needs to be cleaned up. And if we get beyond the mess in the category structure it's another matter entirely. There are 23,729 articles in just Category:Plant articles needing photos, which redirects to an "image" category, and the "photo" category is almost entirely populated by the |need-photo=yes parameter in Template:WikiProject Plants. As far as I'm concerned for plants, an available image that is not a photo is just as good as a photo (or better; an illustration of a tree that includes details of the flowers, fruits and leaves as well as an overall view is better than a photo that doesn't capture all these element; and an extinct organism is better represented by an illustration of it as it lived than as a photo of a fossil). Images of organisms work and may be better than photos in some case, but I think it's safe to say nobody is going to be going to be up for replacing all the transcluded |needs-photo parameters with |needs-image paremeters in various WikiProject Banners. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Has this proposal been through WP:CFD? The proposal seems to have merits but has not been thought through in detail and has not been tackled systematically. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject banners above need to be modified to allow "image-needed" arguments (with backwards compatibility for "photo-needed" arguments) and to categorize pages into the new "requested images of..." categories instead of the old "photographs of..." categories. (Note: this does not apply to "photographs in..." or "photographs of roads in..." categories). Thanks! — s w p b T 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think User:swpb now appreciates that this was not the best approach to tackling this issue. It would have been far better to discuss this on one of the village pumps and make sure there was support for the idea before launching in. We could then have discussed the strategy in detail and the result would have been smoother. The problem is that template editors will quite rightly be reluctant to make the changes on such a wide scale unless consensus has been established. Anyway we are where we are, and before mass reverting, I suggest the following:
What do you think about this approach? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Swpb, MSGJ, Jj98, and Djsasso: while some editor(s) earlier this month cleaned up many of the "Requested image" pages so that the categories were not empty, there still remain while dozens that need to be addressed: See Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for examples like Category:Wikipedia requested images of people of Zambia, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cephalopods and Category:Wikipedia requested images of food of Romania to name a few. It seemed like CSD C1 tagging them prompted people to act so I was thinking I could tag them next week if they are all still empty.
I don't know if this is an issue that will be resolved by this Village Pump proposal (above). But unless there is a disclaimer (like on Category:90 BC deaths) or the {{empty category}} tag is used, empty categories are eligible for deletion. These categories need to be tended to and shouldn't sit around empty indefinitely. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ought the category header mention the map? An entry in Wikidata becomes a red dot on the map. When vising a place and having an idle moment, I bring up the map and snap and upload pictures, turning the red dots green. Later, at home with the big screen and keyboard, I put the Wikidata pic into whatever article ought to have it. Sometimes we have only a bad picture, so I kill the pic in WD, thereby restoring its dot to red. Make sure your located subject has a WD item with coordinates! Jim.henderson ( talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Photography Category‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Categories | |||
|
See no reson to have two identical categories. -- Stefan talk 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I had no idea there was one. Thank you. Doo- dle- doo 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed a WikiProject to organize the process of cleaning up and organizing photo requests. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Photo Requests and offer feedback if you're so inclined. Thanks! Tim Pierce 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to distinguish the difference? please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs. Traveler100 ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I question a number of articles in this category, e.g. Odda of Devon. At first it looks odd to be requesting a photo of anyone who lived in the 9th century, I realise striclly speaking you are only asking for an image, but e.g. the earliest Scots monarch who we have an authentic image of is James II of Scotland. Images of people from a while back are likely to be artists' impressions from later. Would it be ok if Wikipedians with a bit of artistic talent added their own drawing? PatGallacher ( talk) 14:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The Map all coordinates using OSM link does not work, it says: "sorry, no data to show"
That's a shame as it is a great way to find nearby photographs that need to be taken, when travelling. Who could fix that? Thanks! Nicolas1981 ( talk) 02:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at meta:Grants:IEG/Wiki needs pictures. All feedbacks are welcome. Thanks!-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Template {{ image requested}} currently puts all generic image requests, photographic or not, into this category and its children. I propose to separate photo requests from non-photo image requests, since the two types of requests are fulfilled very differently. I've already separated the templates {{ photo requested}} and {{ image requested}}; next I propose to move all the current categories to Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject and children thereof, allowing the "photo requested" categories to be populated exclusively by {{ photo requested}}. (This will not fix the problem of photo- and non-photo requests being mixed in the current categories, but photos are at least truly a subset of images, while the inverse is not true.) — Swpb talk 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What's going on here? Is the central discussion for swpb ( talk · contribs)'s moves? I saw that several categories requesting photos of biological organisms were moved (e.g. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cephalopods-> Category:Wikipedia requested images of cephalopods. And some of the organism "image" categories were tagged for speedy deletion (as empty categories) by {User|Liz}}. Deleting the "image" categories would leave the original "photo" categories as redirects without targets. Redirect targeting can be fixed but it still takes edits. I'd like to fix things for the dozen or so categories I care about, but I don't know whether to go Liz's route (tag "image" cat for deletion, and then go back through and unredirect the "photo" categories and readd their parent categories), or swpb's apparently intended route (unredirect "photo" categories, add readd their parent categories). At this point, swpb's route requires fewer net edits (assuming all the necessary changes are applied in one edit) than Liz's route to clean up the category structure. It looks like Liz CSD tagged 70-80 categories. There are 1117 subcategories of Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject (to see run this search), which includes some "photo" categories that swpb has already brought back into the tree as well as "image" categories that probably don't need a "photo" subcategory (e.g., requests for maps).
I've no objection in principal to making photo requests subcategories of image request. In practice, there's a big mess in the category structure now that needs to be cleaned up. And if we get beyond the mess in the category structure it's another matter entirely. There are 23,729 articles in just Category:Plant articles needing photos, which redirects to an "image" category, and the "photo" category is almost entirely populated by the |need-photo=yes parameter in Template:WikiProject Plants. As far as I'm concerned for plants, an available image that is not a photo is just as good as a photo (or better; an illustration of a tree that includes details of the flowers, fruits and leaves as well as an overall view is better than a photo that doesn't capture all these element; and an extinct organism is better represented by an illustration of it as it lived than as a photo of a fossil). Images of organisms work and may be better than photos in some case, but I think it's safe to say nobody is going to be going to be up for replacing all the transcluded |needs-photo parameters with |needs-image paremeters in various WikiProject Banners. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Has this proposal been through WP:CFD? The proposal seems to have merits but has not been thought through in detail and has not been tackled systematically. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject banners above need to be modified to allow "image-needed" arguments (with backwards compatibility for "photo-needed" arguments) and to categorize pages into the new "requested images of..." categories instead of the old "photographs of..." categories. (Note: this does not apply to "photographs in..." or "photographs of roads in..." categories). Thanks! — s w p b T 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think User:swpb now appreciates that this was not the best approach to tackling this issue. It would have been far better to discuss this on one of the village pumps and make sure there was support for the idea before launching in. We could then have discussed the strategy in detail and the result would have been smoother. The problem is that template editors will quite rightly be reluctant to make the changes on such a wide scale unless consensus has been established. Anyway we are where we are, and before mass reverting, I suggest the following:
What do you think about this approach? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Swpb, MSGJ, Jj98, and Djsasso: while some editor(s) earlier this month cleaned up many of the "Requested image" pages so that the categories were not empty, there still remain while dozens that need to be addressed: See Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for examples like Category:Wikipedia requested images of people of Zambia, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cephalopods and Category:Wikipedia requested images of food of Romania to name a few. It seemed like CSD C1 tagging them prompted people to act so I was thinking I could tag them next week if they are all still empty.
I don't know if this is an issue that will be resolved by this Village Pump proposal (above). But unless there is a disclaimer (like on Category:90 BC deaths) or the {{empty category}} tag is used, empty categories are eligible for deletion. These categories need to be tended to and shouldn't sit around empty indefinitely. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ought the category header mention the map? An entry in Wikidata becomes a red dot on the map. When vising a place and having an idle moment, I bring up the map and snap and upload pictures, turning the red dots green. Later, at home with the big screen and keyboard, I put the Wikidata pic into whatever article ought to have it. Sometimes we have only a bad picture, so I kill the pic in WD, thereby restoring its dot to red. Make sure your located subject has a WD item with coordinates! Jim.henderson ( talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)