Template talk:WikiProject Plants

Category for photo request

I noticed that many photo requests for "Acacia xxx" articles were appearing in the high-level category Wikipedia requested photographs, whereas (in my opinion) they ought to go in a lower-level category. I did accordingly alter some photo requests so as to make them more specific — for an example, see Talk:Acacia alpina. In that example, I was following the instructions at the top of the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject page. However, I see that there is an existing category Plant articles needing photos which is populated by use of this "WikiProject Plants" template. So, as I see it, there are two options:

Alter this template so that it puts things into a new Category: Wikipedia requested photographs of plants? This would be consistent with the naming convention that comes out of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject.
Alter the workings of Template:Reqphoto somehow (not sure how) so that it uses the existing Category:Plant articles needing photos.

Comments please! Thanks, A bit iffy 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I set up the template, I followed the example of another WikiProject. I don't think we'd need to change it to fit the "naming convention" as it wasn't meant to be a part of {{reqphoto}}, but an internal WikiProject assessment. If anything, we should change it to Category:Plant articles needing images to be more correct, since we often use non-photo images for plant articles, especially extinct plants. The second option doesn't sound plausible. The Acacia articles with the reqphoto template on the talk page seem to be the work of one editor, so the incident is isolated. I'd simply remove the reqphoto template if it's already covered by the WikiProject's template. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. I used BotanyBot to discard the {{reqphoto}} from the aforementioned Acacia articles and replaced them, if needed, with the "needs-photo=yes" parameter. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.--A bit iffy 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update to banner

On the sandbox is a proposed conversion of this template to use the {{WPBannerMeta}}. It would look very similar to your current banner, e.g.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The advantage would be that it is easier to keep up to date, as there is essentially only one template to look after which works for multiple projects. It is also extremely easy to change how it works and add new functionality - see how simple the code is. I haven't yet implemented SL-class, although that can be done. Are there any thoughts or concerns about this? Martin 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#MetaBanner and there didn't seem to be any concerns. I say go for it, if you'd like. Cheers Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are ahead of me :) Well I'll implement the SL-class now and create any required categories. I'm wondering if there is anything to be added? For example, it might be a good idea to add support for subprojects (e.g. your carnivores) in case you decide in the future to merge banners. Martin 13:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or would you prefer to do it? Martin 13:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say leave off the daughter project support for now. We can always add it in later. I'll leave the rest in your capable hands. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should all be ready for you to move across. Martin 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the delay. Should I just delete the sandbox now? --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

png → svg

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, the format of file:Nuvola mimetypes info.png is PNG. The same image exists in SVG format. Please change Nuvola mimetypes info.png to Gnome-mime-text-x-credits.svg. Nodulation (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the note. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change photo requests to image requests

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As part of a nearly-completed shift to distinguish requests for photos from requests for images in general, it is requested that this template be modified to place talk pages in "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories, rather than the old "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." categories. As such, please replace all references to "photo(s)" and "photograph(s)" with "image(s)" in both the template and its documentation. In particular, change "photograph or picture" to simply "image". Note that the "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories have already been created. Thank you! — s w p b ^T 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of replacing "photo" with "image". 20,000+ articles have "needs-photo=yes". That syntax needs to still be supported. Making "needs-image" the default in the documentation is fine, but "needs-photo" needs to be supported as a functional equivalent. Plantdrew (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Indeed, I've already had to fix some of these where swpb (talk · contribs) has broken existing usage, such as WikiProject Christian music or WikiProject Romance. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is right; backwards compatibility must be maintained. I am modifying the edit requests to clarify that. — s w p b ^T 08:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now allowed |needs-image= as an alternative to |needs-photo= and altered the displayed text to read "It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality." I've always thought it odd that the word "photo" was used, especially since botanical illustrations are commonly used in plant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plant articles needing images is now being used and will fill in the next day or two as Category:Plant articles needing photos empties. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and apologies again for the confusion! — s w p b ^T 13:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some subprojects that need fixing too, e.g. Template:WikiProject Banksia. I'll change these too. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category:Plant articles needing photos is now empty. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get a new photo?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Being bold with this request, as I don't know if I need to gain wide consensus to make this happen, but I think it's about time a new picture was chosen for this template.

I've found a few pictures that may work

I hope I did this right. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would seem the right place to discuss the project's pet plant, or at least the place to advertise this discussion. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an illustration without background foliage might serve the purpose better. Take a look at c:Category:The Royal Horticultural Society Diary 2004. Bazj (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the current photo, but don't object to a change. I don't think the acacia photo will work well when shrunk further. I do like the Ipomoea photo. Another source for potential replacements is Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers. Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo/image parameter

To show that an article lacked any images, historically |needs-photo=yes was used, so this is still by far the most common form. However, clearly it's not necessary for the image to be a photo, and the category name uses "images" not "photos", so the preferred form became |needs-image=yes, in line with other WikiProject templates. For a slight gain in processing efficiency, the template checks for |needs-photo= before |needs-image=, but this does not mean it's the preferred form. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: The problem with edits like these are that they make the doc page inconsistent, not only with itself but also with the template that it's documenting. In the template, the parameter is coded as

|note 3={{{needs-photo|{{{needs-image|{{{image-requested|}}}}}}}}}

which puts |needs-photo= at highest precedence (that is, it overrides both of its aliases) then |needs-image= and finally |image-requested= at lowest precedence. The Aliases section at the bottom describes that accurately:

The parameters |needs-image= and |image-requested= are recognised as aliases for |needs-photo=. If more than one is present, |needs-image= has precedence over |image-requested=, and |needs-photo= has precedence over both of the others: parameters with lower precedence are ignored.

but the phrase "recognised as aliases for |needs-photo=" isn't consistent with the General parameters section which doesn't mention that parameter at all, instead it has one of the two aliases, the one with middle precedence:

needs-image – set |needs-image=yes to request that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.
- This parameter populates Category:Plant articles needing images.

Now I agree that the copypaste blank at the top should use the same parameter names as are used in the General parameters section, but I also feel that documentation should be doubly consistent - both within itself and with its parent template. Some people just look at the parameter lists, they don't look at the Aliases section. If |needs-image= really is the preferred form, lets amend that |note 3= line (and the Aliases entry) so that it has highest precedence. Otherwise, you may get people adding an image (perhaps a drawing) to the article, adding |needs-image=no to the talk page (because that's the preferred parameter name) without noticing the presence of |needs-photo=yes, and wondering why the talk page is still in Category:Plant articles needing images. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's a bit theoretical (I do a lot of work sorting out project templates on talk pages and I've never seen duplicate parameters of this kind – the usual problem is that the absence of an image needs to be flagged and isn't). But if you think it matters, I'll alter the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of WikiProject banner templates with aliased parameters. You can find some of them (but by no means all) by checking Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WPBannerDoc/alias. As regards efficiency, there shouldn't be much difference in processing time - parameters are very fast compared to the interpretation of them; but also WP:DWAP. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]