Template talk:Reqimage

message: After nearly 30 days, Template:Reqimg, a redirect to this template (and previously a similar template) was deleted.  You can view the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted (look here after April). -Frazzydee|✍ 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Reqimg]] deleted

message: Hi, I suggest updating the template to be more appealing, and/or with more options in use.  I originally created this as a stub, but was informed it would be better served as an update to this template.  Please see :User:Who/ReqImage for my proposal for updating the template. <> Who 02:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the Template

message: :This template belongs on the talk page not in articles.  It is information strictly for editors, not readers. - SimonP 01:13, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Hyacinth 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I proposed the update of the template and moving back to the main article a month ago. I advertised this proposal on this page, and 1, 2, 3, 4. It had been discussed with other administrators, and the entire re-categorization of the Image request categories and pages.  As far as the template pointing to Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures instead of Wikipedia:Requested pictures. All the pertinent information on requests and instructions are on Wikipedia:Requested pictures.  I also updated the Template message pages about a week or more ago, AFTER these proposals.  If you wish to change them, please discuss them, as I followed Wikipedia procedures, BEFORE any of my changes.  <>Who?¿? 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood the original reasoning of the "for editors and not readers" argument, that is one of the reasons for the re-design. As some editors were using the :Image:No_image_yet image, which is way more tacky.  I personally feel this is not an eye sore, and easily notifies the editors and readers that an image could be used in its place.  As such, in the small amount of time I have been using it, have had more image request fills from the category then from the original category and template configuration.  <>Who?¿? 00:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I also still firmly agree that this template belongs in the talk namespace. -SimonP 01:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
*See Wikipedia:Template locations for discussion on this. <>Who?¿? 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk pages?

message: This is currently being discussed here. Please see this discussion before changing this template further. At some time in the future, the discussion will be moved here, but it is currently part of a larger discussion.  Thanks.  ∞Who?¿? 08:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this has gone on long enough.  That ugly box and image needs to go FAR away.  That is the consensus I read all over those discussions.  I don't care about specifics, but anything close to your version is no good. -- Netoholic @ 08:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, no single Wikipedian can make these decisions. And the fact that you plainly state I don't care about specifics, is very concerning.  The version I reverted to was not mine, but ALoans, if you would have responded to any of the commments or participated in the discussion, you would have seen this in the history.  ∞Who?¿? 08:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about the specifics of the messagebox wording or color (though purple is standard for cleanup/improvement templates). All that matters is that no one likes the side-box version of yours. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If it goes on the talk page it uses CoffeeRoll.  violet/riga (t) 17:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is quite directive.  Of course, I disagree with that generalization. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm afraid that's what was chosen at WP:TS, and if you have a reason to ignore those standards for this template then please give it.  Your time may be better off at the discussion for the new article template standardisation.  violet/riga (t) 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason is because I feel this is not a "project status" template, like FAC, but rather a cleanup template.  If you look at the templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, many of them are used on talk pages also.  Template standardisation was proposed to deal with project status or collaboration templates, not cleanup tags. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no – WP:TS was and is a standard for any notice that appears on a talk page.  What would be the point of having a standard scheme if some are exempt?  By all means fix the templates you've spotted at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, or tell me which ones they are and I'll fix them.  violet/riga (t) 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because cleanup tags are action items, and so should be visibly different from  FAC and WikiProject templates, which are just Wikipedia status.  Nothing needs to be "fixed", except the WP:TS page, which should make the distinction I am making. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that your distinction is wrong, though, so I'll go through any that are supposed to appear on talk pages and correct them.  violet/riga (t) 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Design and Layout

message: I realize this template is destined for use on Talk pages, but so are many other cleanup\improvement templates.  I think this matches more closely with those, than with the "article status" (FA, FAC, Peer review) templates, which use talk standard. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it goes on the talk page it uses CoffeeRoll.  violet/riga (t) 17:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is quite directive.  Of course, I disagree with that generalization. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm afraid that's what was chosen at WP:TS, and if you have a reason to ignore those standards for this template then please give it.  Your time may be better off at the discussion for the new article template standardisation.  violet/riga (t) 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason is because I feel this is not a "project status" template, like FAC, but rather a cleanup template.  If you look at the templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, many of them are used on talk pages also.  Template standardisation was proposed to deal with project status or collaboration templates, not cleanup tags. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no – WP:TS was and is a standard for any notice that appears on a talk page.  What would be the point of having a standard scheme if some are exempt?  By all means fix the templates you've spotted at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, or tell me which ones they are and I'll fix them.  violet/riga (t) 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because cleanup tags are action items, and so should be visibly different from  FAC and WikiProject templates, which are just Wikipedia status.  Nothing needs to be "fixed", except the WP:TS page, which should make the distinction I am making. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that your distinction is wrong, though, so I'll go through any that are supposed to appear on talk pages and correct them.  violet/riga (t) 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk standard or cleanup style 

message: I didn't know this template existed, and I created my own stub called , which has been deleted recently.  I'm just wondering where I could've learned about this template so I didn't have to learn the hard way?  Thanks  :)  FranksValli 07:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are at Wikipedia:Template_messages; but there are lots of them! I have not checked if this particular one is listed or can be reached via that article, but if not I guess you can add it. --Alicejenny 07:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not listed there.  I spent ages looking for it!  In fact there is only one 'request' template - general section expansion.  --Stevage 02:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can people find out about this template? 

message: is a user I am trying to informally mentor, and he is a big fan of this template and uses it in a lot of places. Should he also be creating an entry at Wikipedia:Requested pictures for each of these tags, or is that optional? (ESkog)(Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Maoririder]] 

message: This template should not be deprecated as it is a request for any type of image, rather than one of a specific form.  If an article would benefit from any type of image then why force people into asking for a photo/diagram/etc.?  violet/riga (t) 11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many articles, it may make sense to request a photo, map, or diagram, so using the generic reqimage is ambiguous, like saying "please add stuff to this article".  If you're making a request of others, you should at least make the effort to say what you want. —Dgiest c 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if you would just like to say "Please add any kind of image" it should be an option.  violet/riga (t) 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose if you really need that functionality, you use this:  which produces 
	It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
 —Dgiest c 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This image request is specifically for Any image at all" sounds a bit silly.  I suggest we just reword this template to suggest using a more specific template.  violet/riga (t) 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand.  Look at the markup I used.  You can insert any text you want. —Dgiest c 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand - I was merely pointing out that you can't use the word "specifically" and then say "any image".  violet/riga (t) 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you said "I suggest we just reword this template", that made me think you did not understand that the text was a template variable, not the template itself. —Dgiest c 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but "This image request is specifically for " is built into , as you know.  If we reword this template we can have the best of both worlds.  violet/riga (t) 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK.  I took out "specifically". —Dgiest c 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't we make reqimage with a paramater a synonym for reqimageother? Deprecating this template essentially forces the general case to be called reqimageother, while it could just as well be called reqimage, which is shorter and just as properly named. Shinobu (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why deprecated? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Traveler100 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:reqcover}}]] 

message: The link from the word 'included' to Wikipedia:Upload seems to imply requested images have to not be available at present. What if you want to request that images be added to a page that sorely needs them, but where they might well be available for all you know? Perhaps a new template could be made for such occasions, or this one be modified? You might even be able to say where suitable images are located if you just don't want to do it yourself. Richard001 (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Upload photos or add photos?

message: This is to let everyone know that we have changed the wording of the  template to say:
                          
-- to make it explicitly clear that  is suitable for image requests even if the image you want isn't technically a photograph.  I hope that this change helps make more editors comfortable with using  for non-photographic image requests! Tim Pierce (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reqimage and reqphoto