Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Images

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Worth of this page[edit]

If this was a stupid idea, please say. If not, please say, and I will add more images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done![edit]

I would like to add Done to the notes section of done items, and leave the items there. I think this will show newcomers that the page is being used, and show what sort of articles have been done. It will give a sense of activeness to the page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to perhaps improve on this suggestion. Instead of removing the

Done articles, how about moving them to another section of the page where they would stay for perhaps a month before being removed from the page. I wouldn't keep the table format in this section, but rather format the entries like so:

Example, created on (insert date here)

Your thoughts? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 11:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep a list on a subpage, like Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images/Created or some similar name? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up fixed items[edit]

I don't know how this page operates, but I noticed the "Byron Bay Lighthouse" red link (currently first item on page) and did some investigation, followed by this edit which removed the red link (the article already existed, but had a different name). Should I manually delete the entry here? The item is also mentioned at WP:Requested articles#Images needing articles. I guess a bot is needed to periodically check "what links here" for each item? Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks very much for pointing it out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as this, I notice that both "Androctonus bicolor" and "Callangate" have bluelinks and a check of "What links here?" for both of them reveals one incoming Wikilink for A. bicolor and two incoming wikilinks for Callangate. At what point should these images be manually removed from the list? Is only 1 in-article use sufficient or are we going by a higher standard like WP:ORPHAN's former 3-incoming-links standard? -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to say that this page does seem like a good idea but I agree with Johnuniq that a bot could provide valuable services here. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a bot could automatically remove bluelinks. If one can, fine.

I don't understand what is meant by "...Is only 1 in-article use sufficient or are we going by a higher standard like WP:ORPHAN's former 3-incoming-links standard?..."

I will now remove all bluelinks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, are we trying to increase usage of already-used images so instead of 1 article using them we have 2 or 3 or something? Or is it sufficient to have only 1 use within 1 article? Judging by the fact that you removed ANDROCTONUS_CRASSICAUDA.jpg from the list and it is only used once on Wikipedia, I guess 1 usage is sufficient. Right? -Thibbs (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, it's about seeing topics represented with articles where none presently exist. Image usage is secondary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "Images needing articles" is sort of misleading. More precise would be "Requested articles that have images". I just thought that sounded confusing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of created articles[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this. I might be the only one to find it useful. I want to see what becomes of these. Of course, these may have become articles because of being redlinked at other pages.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably going to discontinue adding items to the list. It's hard to keep up and the list doesn't really serve much of a purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers welcome[edit]

If anyone is interested in repopulating the list from time to time, your help would be appreciated. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to make an attempt, I just assumed that the articles were populated by a bot. I'll keep this in mind when I come across redlinks or neat images on Commons that don't seem to have articles. --TKK ^{bark !} 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! The help is most welcome. When considering a new item, please google search for synonyms and then search any synonyms at Wikipedia to ensure that the article doesn't already exist. Thank you so much. It's great to see someone taking an interest in populating the page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enoplometopus antillensis[edit]

Took a whack at Enoplometopus antillensis, but it's only a stub. I don't have a JSTOR subscription so I apparently can't access the sources I would have liked to.--TKK ^{bark !} 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job! So good in fact, that the species is now very famous in the Ocean, and the specimen in the article is treated like royalty. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New images needed[edit]

I'd like to invigorate the page by swapping in some fresh images. So, if you find nice images that need articles, please drop the link here and I'll look after the rest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is backwards... We should not start with an image and then write an article in which to place it (one reason is that the subject of the image may not be notable enough for its own article) ... you start by writing an article (or adding content to an existing article), and then go out and find appropriate images that illustrate the content of that article. Start with text... then add images to illustrate the text. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Enoplometopus antillensis. I started life at English Wikipedia via Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images along with many others. I also have an article at de.wikipedia.org, ko.wikipedia.org, no.wikipedia.org, nv.wikipedia.org, sv.wikipedia.org, uk.wikipedia.org, war.wikipedia.org. Thank you. I.L.A. (International Lobster's Association) Motto: "Dip that in butter!". Main spokesperson: Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to English Wikipedia, Enoplometopus antillensis! Fromia indica is attempting to join you! There seem to be more references. I'm replacing some of them I found at first with better ones. I hope it's not too bad for my first article. —PC -XT + 05:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PC-XT. And well done on your first article. It's wonderful! I followed your lead by starting Fromia ghardaqana but found only a single WoRMS ref. 09:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm having fun, and considering looking into Fromia polypora next week. I haven't looked for references, yet, but it's worth a shot... —PC -XT + 04:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found another ref for Fromia ghardaqana while I was starting User:PC-XT/sandbox/Austrofromia polypora. (Fromia polypora is now classified as Austrofromia polypora.) —PC -XT + 07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template[edit]

Template:Article creation sure does make a lot of white space. Options:

Leave it.
Remove it.
Make a bottom, horizontal version.
Use the white space to post a big, "recommended" image needing an article.

Thoughts? More options? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak Well I did wonder about that when I added it, but I decided to be bold. I'm perfectly happy for you to remove it, on aesthetic grounds perhaps it's not great. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]