User:Image-req-proj-bot/archive/Wikipedia requested photographs of plantae

Redundant?
This seems to be redundant to the needs-photo parameter of WikiProject Plants. Thoughts? Wouldn't it be better to just stick with one system? Rkitko (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a work in progress. The intention is to move what is in WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Plants and Category:Plant articles needing photos into sub-categories of this category (based on order or family, depending on the quantity). Intention is to have more manageable numbers in each category so that it is easy to check for articles that do have images and search for images. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would disagree with that. I agree that subcategorization might be a good idea, but replacing needs-photo with the additional talk page req-photo template creates unnecessary clutter and changes the way editors are used to coding for photo requests. Yes, the categories are a bit large and unruly and a bit useless, but I imagine so will any subcategory scheme until you hit genus. Is that your goal? I long ago recognized that photos don't get added because people browse these categories, but they're useful for bots to scan, check Commons, and report back. I don't imagine reducing them to manageable numbers will increase their usage. Rkitko (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This was discussed on the WikiProject Plant page last year but new input welcome. The intention is to go down to a point where there is about a 1000 articles in a request category. That my mean for some areas down to genus but I think in most cases not. Now in previous discussions a number of classification methods were discussed but non work fully. In the end the only one that will work is the category tree in which the article has been placed in. As for the needs-photo parameter in many projects both this method and the Image requested method can be used, the result of either placing articles' talk pages in the same sub-categories. I agree the WikiProject parameter is better for those active in the projects but have found the reqphoto template is more often used by newbies and people not familiar with the many projects that exists. The other complication with the WikiProject parameter is that to define the correct sub-category either task forces need to be created, like with WikiProject Biography or WikiProject United States or a variable parameter must be set like with WikiProject Japan. These either break down as always needing more (like with Biography) or produce very complex template code (like United States) or people just input the wrong parameter (I am constantly correcting entries in WikiProject India). As for clutter many articlees are in more that one project. The Image requested template is then an advantage as you can then add additional options such as location or other subjects like food. Also sub-project templates (such as WikiProject Carnivorous plants) currently do not have the parameter. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Status

 * 2,447 article image requests copied from a list of 2,453 at WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Plants. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,830 articles remain after removing request from articles that have an image. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,644 articles remain after adding images from commons.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,623 articles remain after removing redirected pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,516 articles remain after adding images from flickr.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,498 articles remain after running through FIST again. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,498 articles moved to Category:Plant articles needing photos.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what you are doing
I missed the earlier discussion; I don't understand exactly what you are doing. Are you taking off yes from WikiProject Plants? Or just adding another template? If the former, I strongly object. If the latter, it increases redundancy and so the chance that when a photo is added only one of the two gets changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am currently doing is removing the list WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Plants as it was not being maintained. So far I have copied the list to this category and about to start removing those that do have an image; it is easier to do such tasks as a category list. Looks like there is about 500 that should have been removed from the list. I did not move them into Category:Plant articles needing photos as they would have just got lost; It is also not possible to use Image requested as the project category does not use the naming convention. It there was a need-photo parameter in WikiProject Plant template I removed it so there is no duplication.
 * Once the articles are removed that have an image there are a few possibilities. My current plan is to move the remaining in this category and Plant articles needing photos category into sub-categories based on division, family or even genus depending on the quantity. Aim is to have less than a thousand in each category so it is easier to do image searches and check for addressed requests. Current idea with the project parameter is to edit to place articles in this category then regularly check it and recategorise the articles in it.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that there was no point in a manually maintained list of plant articles needing photos, and that you are trying to fix this in some way.
 * But let me get this right. Your bot has automatically removed yes from the WikiProject Plants template if the article was previously listed at WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Plants. Is that right? Where did you get agreement to do this? It seems quite wrong to me for you to have done this.
 * yes the duplication has been removed, about 300 of the 2400 in the list. If the splitting of main category is not supported can always set back the parameter on the remaining articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't think I understand what exactly you going to do next. Let me take a specific example. Allium przewalskianum doesn't have an image. It has yes in the WikiProject Plants template. Do you intend to change this? (If so, until you get consensus, I will object and revert the change.) How exactly will you get this article into a sub-category?
 * Would need to scan for numbers but I would guess it would placed in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Asparagales. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the category name "Wikipedia requested photographs of plantae" should be "Wikipedia requested photographs of Plantae" or "Wikipedia requested photographs of plants". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If this method is supported then the category can be renamed. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if this method isn't supported, you can put everything back the way it was, except that you will have removed the articles which actually do have photos? If so, then fine; there's time for a "conversation" as you wrote earlier. My concern was that you seemed to have acted a little hastily. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Two general questions: Please accept that I do see the point of trying to improve the situation. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Even if you get down to say several hundred articles per "requested photo" category, do you really think that editors are going to work through these finding images? Surely running a bot looking at what is in Commons and tagging a page with a message like "Wikimedia Commons may have images at ... which can be added to this article" would be more useful.
 * 2) How are you going to get people who create new articles but don't have images to add to use the right "requested photo" template? As an example of what not to do, the "stub" templates are confusing; if there was a consistent rule, e.g. always use the order stub like Asparagales-stub, Liliales-stub, etc. it would be easier, but the set available has no such consistency and there's no proper list (Category:Plant stubs gives some but not all).


 * Thanks for bringing these questions up, Peter. I, too, missed the original discussion at WT:PLANTS. I would note that in that discussion, there was no link to the bot request or a specific mention of this scheme where the project parameter is removed and replaced by the separate template. While the bot was approved, there didn't appear to be any consensus among participants of our project for the change in how we manage these requests. And yes, while we don't own articles, we do get to decide how we manage our category structure, photo requests, etc.
 * Unlike Peter, I don't see much utility in improving the situation. Because of the sheer number of plants and articles that don't have images, this is a job that bots were made for. Many of our articles will go unillustrated for years, I'm sure, because of a lack of access to plants to photograph. There's no reason to expect human editors to waste time on searching for image matches when Peter's suggestion of a bot match and talk page flag or list dump would work just as well for one large category or the reduced category approach. I see no logic in this effort at the moment, combined with the fact that the bot has been making mistakes like overwriting talk page redirects or recreating deleted talk pages. Rkitko (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I carefully said that I see the point of trying to improve the situation. My preference at present is for Traveler100 to finish fixing those articles which do have images and then return the remaining articles to where they were, as closely as possible. Even if lots of subcategories for articles with image requests were useful, I doubt that article creators and other editors would be able to use them. But I'm open to discussion on these issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If people do not think the sub-categories would work then after cleaning this set of data I will move them into Category:Plant articles needing photos. What is the preference for addressing articles with Template:WikiProject Banksia or Template:WikiProject Carnivorous plants. Should Template:WikiProject Plants be added to the talk pages or should yes be added to these templates? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) I think you should restore them to Category:Plant articles needing photos, given that there isn't at present a consensus that multiple subcategories would be useful. Preferably do this by using yes on the WikiProject Plants template (in accordance with the Principle of least astonishment – this is what plant editors are used to).
 * (2) For WikiProjects that are subprojects of WP:PLANTS, there's no need for two templates, so add them to the subproject template.
 * Since you understand how to operate bots, could you think about my idea of using a bot to add a message to the talk page if there appear to be one or more images in Commons? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)