Template talk:Reqimage

Purpose and instructions on use
Template purpose:
 * Notification to image contributors that an image would help explain the topic of the article, or enhance the article.
 * Adds article to Category:Wikipedia requested images

Instructions to add template:
 * 1) Add the template to the article's discussion page.
 * 2) Add description of the requested image(s) on the article's discussion page.

Instructions to find articles for which there are image requests:
 * 1) Visit Category:Wikipedia requested images.

Please remove the template from the discussion page when the image(s) are added.

Discussions
I made a new Template message to put in wikipedia, Its kinda like in the way that its a request but this is for requesting articles to be expanded by including a image in it if possible.

As you may see in the message itself, it doesn't look good and needs rewording but if you don't mind improving this message for use in wikipedia then then go ahead ^_^

btw: I've only been here for a couple of months so I wouldn't know how to insert this message to any of the template pages (Template messages) so if some who knows how to make those fancy tables can put the template in there (Considering if this template is good enough to be used in wikipedia)

That all from me, Louisisthebest_007 18:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've made a couple of minor changes, hopefully you'll agree they are an improvement. :) -- FirstPrinciples 08:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

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)

As it stands, this template is not good for readers with poor vision - the contrast between the background and the writing is too small. Please consider using colour sparingly. Pcb21| Pete 11:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll tweak the colour settings. -- FirstPrinciples 23:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way to search all Talk pages to find pages which have this template in them? FrankH 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, just click 'what links here' in the left hand window. This will display a complete list of pages with the template. -- FirstPrinciples 00:15, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Or follow this URL: -- FirstPrinciples 04:23, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

reqimage parameters?

 * I suggest that reqimage should have a parameter to help in the explanation on why an image is needed in the article it is put on...

As example I think the template should go something like this; It is requested that this article should have image(s) of to help in its explanation, if appropiate. Please see the discussion on the talk page and/or the page's listing at Requested pictures for further elaboration on the request.

If anybody has any comments or might have a better rephrase of the above example, please do - Louisisthebest_007 22:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor points: 1) I prefer the phrase "to improve its quality" in place of "to help in its explanation". 2) Remember that changing the template syntax might mess up its current appearance in many articles. 3) Some image requests don't really need elaboration (on animal pages for instance). Still your idea is sensible and could be very helpful. -- FP 01:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, maybe reqimage can have another template with the syntax and the current one without? Similar to and its  ? - Louisisthebest_007 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How's about: To more thoroughly cover this subject, an image is reqested. For more info see Wikipedia:Requested pictures
 * --sparkit (talk) 21:10, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't need two templates to cover the same thing, as the Sparkit pointed out, the template currently refers the editor/reader to Requested pictures, which there they can clarify, if need be.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  21:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just came here to see about proposing a second, similar template with a parameter to allow a description of the image to be included. I changed the wording on this template to say "go see the danged list of requested images for details, fer pete's sake" (not an exact quote), but people are still deleting this message if there is any picture in the article, although not what was requested.  So we need a way to specify a description (plus I think it's smart to get people thinking about the specific image needed right away--who's really going to want to go to a whole 'nother page and scroll thru all the requests to see what's wanted?).  Soooo--I can create essentially a duplicate of this template (say, "reqimagewhat"--so syntax might be  ) or there is presumably a way to add a parameter by making it a secondary template that allows it to be left blank without messing things up--but I'd have to go look thru some other templates again to remember how to do it.  Elf | Talk 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea, its not that I totally ignored the request, I was just hoping someone would know how to do it better than I. I could not find a way to do it with its currenty config.  I would like to add that parameter though, I agree with knowing that the person wanted to begin with. I was originally thinking a version similar to the vfd and vfd2 (see here), where they would have an area to place it on the talk page.  But that would involve creating a second template as well.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  07:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is requested that an image or additional image(s) be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. The image requested is: More information may be available on this article's talk page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested pictures." --Theodore Kloba 14:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that a parameter is needed (probably in a second version of the template). I think we're dealing with two different audiences here:  There are some who regularly read Requested pictures and look for gaps they can fill in; there are others who, while reading an article, notice the message and decide to fix that particular article.  The second audience needs an immediate description of the missing image. How about something like:

Template:Reqimg deleted
After nearly 30 days, Template:Reqimg, a redirect to this template (and previously a similar template) was deleted. You can view the discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted (look here after April). -Frazzydee|&#9997; 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updating the Template
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)
 * After weeks of proposal 1, 2, 3, and no immediate complaints, I am changing the template to the "box" style" template. Please voice any concerns here. Thank you.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  22:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to logoff to update the template, so it looks like it was done anon, but it was me. Kept getting a Wiki error for some reason..  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As soon as I figure out why I get an error trying to edit the template, I will fix the it to match with (class="Talk-Notice" - see WP:TS) <> Who ? &iquest; ?  00:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The coffee-rolled version is nice, however, I proposed this template be changed and moved back to an article-template and not a talk-page-template. It's a bolder statement that encourages editors and readers alike to contribute. I down graded the image size, so not to take up so much room. Although it seems more of a photo request than an image request, I feel it will work fine for both, as most of the images are placed at top right. I will add a note in the instructions to place  where they would like the image added.  Feel free to discuss any comments and/or changes. Thank you.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  16:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages?

 * 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)
 * 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 Requested pictures. All the pertinent information on requests and instructions are on 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 ? &iquest; ?  00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 ? &iquest; ?  00:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I also still firmly agree that this template belongs in the talk namespace. -SimonP 01:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * See Template locations for discussion on this. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Design and Layout
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. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 08:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  08:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

talk standard or cleanup style
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)
 * If it goes on the talk page it uses CoffeeRoll. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is quite directive. Of course, I disagree with that generalization. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 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)


 * 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 Template messages/Cleanup, or tell me which ones they are and I'll fix them.  violet/riga (t) 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Deletion

 * Template:Reqimage1
 * Template:Reqimage2
 * Template:Reqimage3
 * are up for TfD deletion.

Where can people find out about this template?
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)


 * Templates are at 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)
 * 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)

User:Maoririder
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 Requested pictures for each of these tags, or is that optional? (ESkog)(Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why deprecated?
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)
 * 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. &mdash;Dgiest c 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I suppose if you really need that functionality, you use this:  which produces


 * "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)
 * You misunderstand. Look at the markup I used.  You can insert any text you want. &mdash;Dgiest c 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash;Dgiest c 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but "This image request is specifically for " is built into reqimageother, 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)
 * Ah, OK. I took out "specifically". &mdash;Dgiest c 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

I have changed the wording. Other is for categories of image exclusive of those listed. It is still deprecated though. I suggest we undeprecate it. We can leave the current note as it is, and perhaps have a parameter 'any' that would get rid of the note, for those who are making it clear that they understand that there are more specific templates available but they aren't appropriate. Richard001 (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Reqcover
Template:Reqcover 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)

Could someone please remove the reference to reqcover in the text of this template?

Or maybe we should delete this template, then it will not be used.

New format and category proposal
As people still insist on using this template even though labled with a request to use other templates, I would like to make the following proposal:-


 * change reqimage to be same as reqphoto syntax and functions with following differences:-
 * Places requests in categories based on naming convention subject articles needing images to match that generated from most project template requests (image-needed=yes).
 * additional field type with values such as photo, screenshot, cover, map. This could then also place the request in the categories based on graphic format.

This provides a simply way of making a request for occasional contributors, but is expandable for those familiar with the Wikipedia structure and projects.

The main advantage is that there would only be one place for people active in a project to look at current requests.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography for further discussion.

Upload photos or add photos?
The link from the word 'included' to 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)

reqimage and reqphoto
This is to let everyone know that we have changed the wording of the reqphoto template to say: -- to make it explicitly clear that reqphoto 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 reqphoto for non-photographic image requests! Tim Pierce (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)