Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject

message: See no reson to have two identical categories. --Stefan talk 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[:Category:No_image_available]] into this page 

message: Sure. I had no idea there was one. Thank you. Doo-dle-doo 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Plan to reorganize. Comments here please - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Organizing photo requests.  Traveler100 05:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed WikiProject Photo Requests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images and Photos , project articles needing images

message: 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)
replies: text: I would take the request to mean any picture related to the subject. In such cases I would add an image, maybe remains of some earthworks anything else related to the person then remove the request for photograph. If that was not what the person who made the request was looking for then they can add the request again, hopefully being a bit more specific. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: I tried downloading the KML, it only contains "No geocoded items found". Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: There are presently no articles in this category, so the OSM link doesn't load any items to map.  It doesn't visit subcategories to find all of the articles there.  Try loading a regional category for requested photographs.  For example, the OSM link for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Boston, Massachusetts. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map all coordinates using OSM: Not working 

message: Please take a look at :meta:Grants:IEG/Wiki needs pictures. All feedbacks are welcome. Thanks!--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tool for the mapping of missing pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually I suggest reverting your changes until you can get an actual consensus on such a massive change. This should most definitely have been discussed and a systematical approach taken. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal sat here for two weeks without comment; apparently no one really cared. As to what technical approach should have been taken, we have now gotten to the same end state regardless, so the question is academic. — s w p b T 20:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now editors are going to have to spend hundreds of hours resorting image requests into photo requests for example. You asked on a talk page that likely no one watches. Category renames have to go to CFD where a wider audience can comment. The whole point of having to go to CFD is because few people watch category talk pages. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has to resort a single image request; I've changed the request templates I can (nearly all of them) and requested changes to the protected ones. That will take care of it completely. I get that you're upset about a change you weren't aware of, but it's seriously not the crisis you think it is. Should I have handled process differently? Sure. Does it make any of sense to respond to that by tearing up a week of work that's undoubtedly made the wiki better? Hardly. If the problem is lack of discussion, then two wrongs don't make a right.  — s w p b T 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except they will, most of those requests were actually requests for photos which are now in categories for general images. So people will have to go back through all the requests and decide if they were actually requests for photos and split them back out. When if things had been done methodically we could have done the opposite and split out the much less common requests for images. The template switch only change those requests that were using the redirect, but I would bet most people would have just used the image template for photo requests due to the wording of the template. As it stands there are now many thousands of requests miscategorized from what was actually being requested to a more general category. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos are a strict subset of images: requesting a photo when a general image is needed (the previous situation) is downright wrong; requesting a general image when a photo is desired is merely less specific than it could be, and will usually be met with a photo anyway. However you slice it, the situation is far better now than it was before, when you had hundreds of requests for "photos" (probably most of them) that were really requests for general images (like "photos" of animation topics, or people who lived before photography). It would certainly be nice for all photo-specific requests to be in photo-specific subcategories, but it's far less of a problem than the reverse situation that existed before. I also question the idea that there was a possible approach which would have neatly sorted photo requests from image requests; the entire problem was that the two were massively conflated. This change does not seek to completely sort photo requests from general image requests; that is impractical. What it seeks to do is to allow requests to be sorted properly from now on.  — s w p b T 13:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And that therein is the problem. With a little bit of discussion and planning, it could have been practical to split the two. Instead you rushed in and created the exact opposite problem that you were trying to solve. The vast majority of requests are very obviously for photos. So we now have many that are miscategorized in a category that implies we want just an image and not an actual photograph. It would have been fairly simple to take a targeted approach and for example categories about animation topics could have been switched over because its far more likely they wanted an image. But biographical categories for subjects that are primarily about people since photography began would likely be looking for photographs for example. In doing this we could have narrowed down the changes into smaller chunks to fix faster and more accurately. And any that couldn't easily be figured out could then be dumped into the "general" category to be sorted out more individually. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where we differ is the assertion that "the vast majority of requests are very obviously for photos". That is surely not the case. Most of the time, a non-photo image (if one exists) would be just as useful as a photo, but was previously discouraged because a "photo" was requested. The cases where an image needs to be a photo, and a non-photo image will not do, are the rare cases; and where a photo would be best (such as for a modern bio), the images that are available will overwhelmingly be photos anyway. If the choice is between permanently misidentifying general image requests as photo requests, versus provisionally lumping photo requests into image requests, the latter is clearly more accurate and preferable; I have yet to see anyone but you suggest otherwise. / I'd also appreciate if you were a bit more polite in your tone. If you think something needs to be done differently now, that's one thing; if you just want to berate me for not having done it the way you would have liked, I don't see the productivity in that. I've already conceded that CfD would have been a good idea if I'd remembered it (although I don't think it would have saved any of the cleaning up I've done). — s w p b T 15:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Could you mock up these changes in the sandboxes of the relevant templates. As it is, you're leaving a lot of work for the template editors. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 22:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. All template changes are now mocked up on their respective sandboxes. These template changes complete the post-transition cleanup; until then, the respective photo categories remain populated redirects, which is not a great state. — s w p b T 15:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already mocked up at the sandbox. Please let me know if I'm wrong. JJ98  (Talk) 10:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Deactivated edit request here which duplicates the edit requests on the individual templates. And to be frank, having over forty edit requests active is off-putting. Bazj (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-protected template edits request

message: 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:
* A temporary moratorium on changes to templates.
* Open a discussion on WP:VPR to gauge support on the issue. In my opinion this does not have to be a full blown 30 day RfC.
* In 7-10 days, if consensus is clear we reopen these requests and get everything done.
What do you think about this approach? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I've only implanted at  and . I think it would be best to notify all WikiProjects to reach consensus. JJ98  (Talk) 17:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are going to bring this up on WP:VPR or individual project pages, can you remove or comment out the edit request templates on the individual talk pages? You can reactivate the edit request here when you are done, but if this is going to take 7-10 days to resolve it would be nice not to have it cluttering up :Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 18:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way forward 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiShootMe map