User talk:PhotoCatBot

This bot will crawl Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. When it finds any article which has a {{reqphoto}}, {{photoreq}}, {{photoneeded}} or {{images-wanted}} template with no parameters, it will check for the following conditions and update the photo request as appropriate.

See PhotoCatBot for more details.

Source code can be found at https://github.com/qwrrty/photocatbot.

Tim Pierce 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if the bot needs some tweaking... because there's a couple of pages it did its work, and there were photographs present in the infobox on the page. Two of the articles were Serenity (porn star) and Michelle Trachtenberg. Tabercil 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the feedback. The bot doesn't try to figure out if the article actually has the photo that has been requested. I have thought a bit about how to approach that, but don't believe it can reliably be done by a bot. All this bot does is to better classify the photo requests. So yes, it's relabeling the photo request on a lot of articles that already have photos -- if you notice that, please feel free to remove the request entirely! :-) Tim Pierce 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've categorized near all of the times I've put a {{reqphoto}} on a talk page. Is there a way I can categorize it myself, or is that best left up to you Mister Bot? -WarthogDemon 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! You can add modifiers and qualifiers to the {{reqphoto}} template to put the article in different categories. For example:

• {{reqphoto|dogs}} -- adds the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of dogs
• {{reqphoto|in=London}} -- adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London
• {{reqphoto|parks|in=Ghana}} -- adds it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of parks and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ghana.

Try to choose categories that already exist, of course. :-) The whole goal is to make it easier for photographers to find pictures that they can contribute and to make it easier to navigate the crowded photo request categories. Thanks for your interest! Tim Pierce 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the bot please not change a {{Reqphoto}} outside of a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to a needs-photo=yes for a {{WPBiography}} transclusion within a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}? Doing this breaks the WikiProject banner shell, and the {{Reqphoto}} transclusion accomplishes the same function. If need be, I'll have my bot add the relevant sorted category to the talk page itself. But that needs-photo=yes parameter was removed for a reason.

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can make the bot not use {{reqphoto}} for {{WPBiography}}. This subject came up before on my talk page -- see User talk:Twp#PhotoCatBot and User talk:Severo#Photo requests and WikiProjectBannerShell. I'm sure I've seen other WikiProject banners that take a needs-photo or imageneeded parameter and don't have the same problem with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, so it seemed to me like a problem that can be solved on that end. Of course, I can't think of what other banners meet those criteria and I'm not sufficiently skilled to try to fix the problem myself, so I'm not in a good position to talk. :-)

The irony for me is that I'm coming to think that the needs-photo parameter is almost always inferior to a properly qualified {{reqphoto}} parameter, because you can add a location-specific parameter when necessary to {{reqphoto}} but not to the WikiProject banners. The main exception is {{WPBiography}}, which will add a photo to multiple photo request categories if more than one work-group is specified in the template. Maybe the best answer here is for {{reqphoto}} to support multiple unnamed parameters and multiple location tags. Tim Pierce 11:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I do agree that {{Reqphoto}} is better in almost all situations, except for when the work is sorted into work groups. I may have my bot add {{Reqphoto}} and the appropriate category/categories the WikiProject banner template would have added. Also, yes. As far as I know, {{WPBiography}} is the only one with this problem; they're insistent that the notice be visible in the banner shell so it can easily be spotted and the problem can be fixed. But considering their backlog (I don't envy them by any means), I think this is a good temporary solution. — madman bum and angel 11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background -- I didn't know that before. Anyway, the bot has categorized all of the generic photo requests that it presently can, so I will see if I can improve the {{reqphoto}} template before running it again. I'd rather like to reduce the number of extraneous photo request templates too, if I can. :-) Tim Pierce 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the {{reqphoto}} template to take up to three numbered parameters and up to three location-oriented parameters, in=, in2=, and in3=. So we should be able to replace all of the needs-photo=yes parameters in {{WPBiography}} articles with appropriately qualified {{reqphoto}} tags. Tim Pierce 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that your changing templates(not sure thats a good move) but can you place notices on obsolete templates and provide instructions to the new style of template. Gnangarra 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can. The {{reqphotoin}} template is not actually obsolete at this point -- I haven't filed a RfD request or anything -- so it didn't seem like it was appropriate yet to tell people to stop using it.

FWIW, I first suggested merging these templates a few weeks ago, at [[Template talk:Reqphotoin}}, and got no feedback recommending against it. The reason for merging them is that {{reqphoto}} now does everything that {{reqphotoin}} did and more besides, so it gives us an opportunity to simplify the template namespace. If you know of a reason why {{reqphotoin}} should not be retired in favor of {{reqphoto}}, I would like very much to hear it! Tim Pierce 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until people are told to stop using it, your bot will be continually changing the template over. As for not a good move, its more to do with not obsoleting one template in preference for the other. I read the suggestion after seeing the bot operate, and agree with your position of no response being no issue. I think thats its really time you ran the RfD and standardised to one template, just to be certain that there are no issues. Gnangarra 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly put a more explicit notice on {{reqphotoin}} so that folks know what's going on, but I don't think it would be wise to file an RfD, at least not until the rest of the legacy templates have been changed. There are still several thousand articles using the old template and the bot is only changing one per minute; if the template were deleted too soon, I think it would break the What Links Here link that the bot uses to find {{reqphotoin}} references, and prevent it from fixing any of the rest of the articles. Does that make sense, or am I missing something? Thanks -- Tim Pierce 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot had some trouble here: diff. Might want to check on contributions around that time to see if others got duplicated instead of using the in2= parameter. Also, I was wondering if we could somehow alter the template you're dealing with to recognize Category:Plant articles needing photos, which is duplicated by the automatically created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants. Or perhaps have your bot alter its program to introduce the "needs-photo=yes" parameter into the {{WikiProject Plants}} banner on those pages instead of creating this duplicated effort. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. See also User talk:Twp#Bug report PhotoCatBot.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7 contribs.29 - this bug was reported before but I thought I fixed it. I'll stop the bot and try to fix it again. It's not a matter of other edits made around the same time but a question of having more than one {{reqphotoin}} template on a page. As for the WikiProject "needs-photo" parameter, I've wrestled with the same question in the WikiProject Biography and similar templates, and come to the conclusion that the additional flexibility of the {{reqphoto}} template makes it more valuable. There is no way to use the {{WikiProject Plants}} template to put the photo request in a location category as well as a plant category, for example. I'm open to hearing reasons why that does make more sense, however. Tim Pierce 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that. Indeed the reqphoto template is more flexible and I've been wondering about this for a long time. I could simply have the WikiProject template categorize pages into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants, but my superficial objection is I dislike the category naming scheme. But I shouldn't be so stubborn, I guess. Anyway, I was wondering what you think about utilizing both categories in different ways. Mostly, the pages that are in Category:Plant articles needing photos are ones that lack a photo entirely and just need something - an illustration, line drawing, botanical print, etc. The reqphoto category for plants could be used in such a way that users would need to specify what kind of image is missing (e.g. need image of fruit, closeup of leaf, or need photo of full habit). On the other hand, it does seem to entirely duplicate effort, so I'm not sure what to do. Easiest solution would be to change categories with the WikiProject template, since it appears as if the reqphoto template would be difficult to modify to recognize the Wikiproject category. Well, enough ramblings. Thanks for your feedback! --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim Good work with the bot. Thought I'd draw your attention to {{wine}} which supports the |needs-photo=yes| tag although I'd agree with you that reqphoto categories are now preferable to in-project tags - not sure if there's a reqphoto|wine category yet. The other Food subprojects have a right ragbag of project templates :

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer - {{Beer}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheeses - {{WP Cheeses}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Foodservice - {{WikiProjectFoodservice}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Herbs and Spices - {{WPHS}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Cream - {{WikiProjectNotice|Ice Cream}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks - {{WPMIX}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Soft Drinks - {{WPSD}}

Of course to further complicate things the Food project has a couple of aliases, {{WPFOOD}} is the most common, I think I've seen others. Icecream, herbs and cheeses are pretty quiet and could all reqphoto|food, there's probably room for a single reqphoto|drink for beer, mixed and soft drinks but Wine's probably busy and big enough to justify its own category.
On the mis-req'd issue, would it not be helpful for a bot to generate a list of all articles with reqphoto on their Talk page and an Image tag on the article page, so that people could easily check them? Even better, to count the number of Image tags on the article page and put that number in the list - an article with 5 Images would be a high priority to lose its reqphoto, an article with just one might well need the reqphoto still. You'd obviously need some way of telling the bot that the page had been checked by a human bot-slave, and then it wouldn't put the article back on the list unless the Image: tags got changed.
If you ever get bored of reqphotos, it occurs to me that there's some similar jobs to be done. For instance the Korea Project has a working group tag, it would be useful I guess for them for {{WikiProject Korea|wg=cuisine}} to be applied when one of their articles is already in the Food Project. And vice versa I guess. The Plants project has a {{WikiProject Plants|needs-cultivar-infobox=yes}} tag which in principle is quite similar to reqphoto - in fact there's scope for a lot of work in matching infoboxes to Projects, for instance I see a lot of articles with Company infoboxes that aren't yet in {{WikiProject Companies}}. Just in case you feel at a loose end..... :-)))) FlagSteward 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to add other change groups to the list, should they be requested on the talk page or added to the table in the article? Traveler100 10:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles containing...	Change photo request to...
{{SFBA Project}}	{{reqphoto|in=California}})

Articles containing...	Change photo request to...
{{WikiProject Automobiles}}	{{reqphoto|Cars}})
{{WikiProject Formula One}}	{{reqphoto|Cars}})
{{WPBiography}}	{{reqphoto|People}})
{{Mammal}}	add needs-photo=yes parameter to {{Mammal}}
{{MaTalk}}	add needs-photo=yes parameter to {{MaTalk}}

Edits like this one are simply introducing links to non-existent user categories. I don't see the benefit of this. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is that {{reqphoto}} is a more flexible and powerful template than {{reqphotoin}}. It makes it possible to classify articles more precisely into missing-photograph categories -- for example, in this case, editing the template to say {{reqphoto|roller coasters|in=Los Angeles County, California}} will add it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of roller coasters as well as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California.

I don't have a strong opinion on the fact that the template itself adds a link to Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles County, California. I didn't write that code. I think actually the best response would be to create the category page and encourage people to add themselves there, but if you feel strongly that the link should go away you're welcome to take it up on Template talk:Reqphoto. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot were adding Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of roller coasters that would be progress, of course, but it's not doing that. For months, I've been converting templates in the other direction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can arrange for that if it would help. Until today I did not even realize that there was such a category but I would be glad to add a rule to the bot to that effect. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not converting a {{reqphotoin}} to {{reqphoto}} unless you're adding a parameter other than in. Could you add that rule to the bot? --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to consolidate the photo-request templates as much as possible. Honestly, I'd prefer to delete {{reqphotoin}} entirely. I don't quite understand the objections to the redlinks, but I concede that the links to the Wikipedian categories are not usually helpful. I've stopped the bot from converting the {{reqphotoin}} templates for now and have taken up the issue on Template talk:Reqphoto. If those links were removed from the template, would you be okay with doing away with {{reqphotoin}}? Tim Pierce (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see the templates merged under those circumstances. Thanks for taking on this extra task. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else had an even better idea: there is template syntax that will only add the link if the category exists. An administrator made that change last night; there shouldn't be any more redlinks from the template. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The county name should be Cerro Gordo County, Iowa. clariosophic (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I just noticed this (and a few other counties that it marked this way). Thanks for the heads up -- I'll go in and fix them. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Abington Township, Wayne County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that when the bot modifies {{photoreqin}} to {{reqphoto}} for San Francisco Bay Area articles, it often adds San Francisco County, California as one of the in= arguments. I'm guessing it thinks that San Francisco County = San Francisco Bay Area. However, there are at least nine counties in the Bay Area, only one of which is San Francisco. Thus, this edit is erroneous about 90% of the time. Please stop the bot from doing this and go back and fix these erroneous edits. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did think that the {{SFBAProject}} template translated to San Francisco County, and programmed the bot accordingly. I've corrected that in the code and will go about fixing the affected articles. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed about 25 articles that were improperly tagged in San Francisco County, and think that all of the articles remaining in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco County, California belong to be there. I hope that helps. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick remedy. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This bot recently marked the talk page at polyethylene with a cat to check if the photoreq is still necessary. So I looked into it and it is a legit request so I removed the cat. This bot then came back and remarked it again. What do I have to do to stop this bot from remarking the article? Wizard191 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. This is a new feature and I haven't had time to provide full documentation on it (but I'll do that right away). The answer is that if you add an "of=" parameter to the photo request template, the bot will assume that someone is asking for a very specific kind of image, and that therefore the photo request is still valid even if the article has images on it. I've updated Talk:Polyethylene. Thanks for your patience. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Wizard191 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the info I was looking for. Should it be in the "Articles which may no longer need images" category documentation? (John User:Jwy talk) 15:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appropriate way to handle the situation where there is an image, but not the one requested? I can spot an answer here. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's perfect! Good point on adding the documentation to Category:Articles which may no longer need images -- I'll update the category. Thanks for the suggestion! Tim Pierce (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

probably you can check for file extensions too. normally, photos are not saved as svg, but maps are (at lease expected to be). Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been wondering whether there's a good way for a bot to distinguish between maps and other kinds of images. Thanks for suggesting this -- I had not thought of checking for a .svg file extension. I'm not sure it's the right answer, as I've seen some drawings and diagrams encoded as .svg on Wikipedia. But I'll look into it a little more and see if it makes sense for this application. Thanks again. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is probably the right way to go, at least for now, and have made the change. Thanks again for suggesting it. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bot did it again, and this time it tagged an article on the Withlacoochee River (Florida). This too just has a map, not a photo. ----DanTD (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Florida State Road 50 neither has a photo nor a map. ----DanTD (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Both of those articles include PNG images and not just SVG images. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any images on Florida SR 50 other than the shields, nor do I see any for the Withlacoochee River. Granted, I took some pictures alng SR 50 and posted them in the commons, but the focus of these pictures was more on sites along the road, rather than the road itself. And none of them are in the article. -----DanTD (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this comment slipped my attention earlier. Florida State Road 50 includes Image:Florida's Turnpike shield.png which technically qualifies as an "image" for these purposes. If it were a SVG it would not have been recognized as one. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the Autocar Company as possibly not needing the photoreqest tag. This article does need photos, preferably of modeles like the Autocar DC-Series. I can't find a free image anywhere, and I'm not 100% sure where the nearest model can be found, bur hopefully when I come across one I'll be able to snap a shot of one. ----DanTD (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -- the bot applies that category to any article it encounters with a {{reqphoto}} template but which also has images linked from the main page. It will, however, skip articles that have an "of=" parameter set. I've updated the photo request on Talk:Autocar Company to be more explicit about what kind of photos are required. Thanks for your feedback! Tim Pierce (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just completed a tool which lists articles that might be mis-categorised as needing images. You might want to investigate (or not). Anyhow, it's here. It's got an only-jpg rule, which is a little stricter than yours I think. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Thanks for your work on that. Yours has the advantage that it will check not just {{reqphoto}} articles but also any WikiProject templates with 'needs-photo' or 'imageneeded' parameters set. On the other hand, since mine is based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Reqphoto, it's not limited to analyzing one category at a time. I decided there were enough good reasons to go ahead with this project, even though you had already gotten the ball rolling with your imagechecker. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might find WikiProject open to the idea of letting the bot (and I don't know how easily it could be recoded for) running off the output of the tool, rather than the general pool. To move them into that handy category, I mean. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here doesn't lay out the algorithm this bot uses. I noticed a couple of false positives on my watchlist. And I checked its recent history, and found other false positives: [1], [2], [3], [4] Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The algorithm is described on the bot's main page. I'm sorry I haven't had time to upload source code yet, but I'll do that tonight now that the code has settled down a little.

The four examples you give are not really false positives; each one of them has an image linked from the main page. They're certainly not the images that were intended to fulfill the image request, but that's not something the bot can decide. That's why the articles are added to Category:Articles which may no longer need images rather than Category:Articles which definitely no longer need images. :-) Feel free to remove the category from those articles, but I don't see this as a bug, as the bot is definitely doing what was intended. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not something the bot can decide, why is it running? This basically requires someone to follow it along and make sure it isn't wiping out a ton of legitimate requests. This really needs to be stopped as this old issue is still happening.--Crossmr (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot isn't "wiping out" anything. It's marking articles which appear to have had a photo request filled. You are correct that it requires human followup, but that's not a bad thing. It's substantially reducing the work that we have to do finding articles with photo requests that no one ever bothered to remove after providing a photo. Tim Pierce (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Do you have concrete stats on how many legitimate removals vs false positives there are? Unless you've checked every removal you don't know how many false positives its removed at all. Especially on low traffic articles where someone might not notice.--Crossmr (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoCatBot doesn't remove anything at all from articles or their talk pages. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and checked a whole lot of photo requests, and, having done so, undid the bot requests. This seemed logical. It was therefore very bloody annoying to see this bot go through and retag them all again. I managed to find the "add an 'of=' parameter" instruction hidden on the bot's user page, and have implemented that now, so hopefully your bot will stay away this time.

I flatter myself that I am not much more stupid than the average Joe, and that a great many more people will shortly be coming here to complain about the same issue. I humbly suggest that the "add an 'of=' parameter" bit is crucial: ultimately, checking is ineffective for people who don't know about it. You need to advertise it somehow; maybe in the edit summary?

Hesperian 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in case it helps, the false positives that I undid were all plant articles where the article had a distribution map but no actual photo of the plant. I expect this will be a fairly common false positive for you. Hesperian 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yipes, I'm sorry about that! It's not supposed to return to an article for at least six months after modifying it. That's definitely working most of the time (at least) but I'll look into it and see if I can tell why it was not doing that with these articles. I appreciate your forbearance. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i don't like this bot crawling around in my watchlist. Seems like spam, not helpful. I'd like to request a bot to remove reqphoto templates to avoid this bot coming around again and again. Reqphoto has never worked to get anyone to take any photos, ever, anyhow. doncram (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing mention above of your bot being based on searching around in one category at a time, could I ask that you do not process categories of National Historic Landmarks and of National Register of Historic Places? I seriously regret helping get reqphoto installed into the NRHP new article generation system, and now it is in thousands of articles. Seriously I would like a bot to rip it out, everywhere, if there is going to be yet more overhead involved in checking and rechecking, driven by a bot. For now, at least, I would appreciate if you could prevent your bot from visiting list-articles and articles within Category:National Register of Historic Places and all subcategories (which includes National Historic Landmarks. If you want to discuss with the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, I would be happy to open a discussion at its Talk page (wt:nrhp), or you could open it and I will join. doncram (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the reason that {{reqphoto}} has not been useful in the past is that, for a long time, there wasn't a useful way for people to find out what articles really needed photos. {{reqphoto}} just dumped everything in one huge category and no one ever got around to sorting them out. A lot of the work I've done for Wikipedia in the last couple of years has been to help enforce some structure around the {{reqphoto}} templates and their associated categories so that they can be used that way. It's now a lot more useful than it was, say, 18 months ago, and I have ideas for taking advantage of that structure to improve WP's photography and image coverage. I'm happy to talk about that if you're interested, but let's concentrate on the issue at hand:

I'm sorry that this hasn't been helpful for you! At the moment the bot is not actually category-driven -- it's following all articles that transclude {{reqphoto}}. I'll be happy to make that change if the NHRP community wants it, but I'd like to have a discussion first about what would really be best for the articles. If it turns out there's a feature I haven't thought of that would really be perfect for other editors, I'll want to implement it. But if there's consensus that this is just plain bad for NHRP articles, I'll add some kind of exclusion rule.

I'll go ahead and open the discussion -- thanks for suggesting it.

P.S. FWIW, I have been taking lots of pictures of NRHP sites lately, based on articles linked to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just see your edit, another false positive, unhelpful edit. I went to hit the big Red stop the bot button but it won't let me. Please stop it. doncram (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped the bot for now. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it tagged Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Vermont. It would be nice if it could exclude those. Ah, but i see that one is rated "Start" rather than List. Fine if u r excluding the ones rated List. doncram (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's skipping articles whose titles begin with 'National Register of Historic Places listing ...'. It hit the Vermont list (and Idaho, and Connecticut) because those articles are titled 'List of National Historic Landmarks in ...' Tim Pierce (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are only fifty-two (I think) of those lists, as opposed to at least hundreds of the others. National Historic Landmarks are a subset of the NRHP, just basically a higher designation. So, I don't know if it's worthwhile to program to skip the other 49 of those lists, or not. Lvklock (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to ask you to stop the bot. I haven't worked out how it is going wrong but it seems to be tagging articles with no infobox or main image (e.g. America (Judge Dredd story)), articles with no image in the infobox (e.g. Alan Davis) and those with placeholder images (e.g. Arthur Ranson). The only common link is that the pages all have other images but not a main one - hence there quest. From those I've checked it is wrong at least 75% of the time. (Emperor (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've stopped it. Seems it was tagging every article that had an image even if that image wasn't suitable for the infobox (like an example of an artists work when we are requesting a photo of him). It did spot a few that needed the request removing but it was tagging far more that shouldn't be tagged. (Emperor (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's correct: if an article has a JPG or PNG image, but also has an unqualified {{reqphoto}} template or similar, it will mark the article as one which may no longer be in need of an image. I am sorry that it's generating a high false positive rate in the comics articles. In general I think it has been pretty successful: see Category:Articles which may no longer need images. The bot ignores articles which have the "of" parameter set on {{reqphoto}} templates, and does not revisit an article for six months after modifying it once. I will be happy to discuss other modifications to bring the false positive rate down. Any suggestions? Tim Pierce (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only real suggestion at the moment is that this has to be semi-automated as you aren't going to know without checking the article - the fact that the article has an image means nothing and can't be a criteria for doing this automatically. The image request is a part of {{comicsproj}} and I'm not aware that users can adjust it directly. The only real solution from our end is if this was hardcoded into the template so (presumably) the bot wouldn't go near Comics Project articles. I still think the best solution is to check the article by eye - it can't take long to evaluate if there is an image in the infobox or not (even then it might throw the occasional problem if there are a number of infoboxes on one page and some of them need images - I saw it flag one such case). (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Suggestion: the bot should update an article only if one of the following conditions are met:

• There is an {{Infobox ...}} template on the page that has an "image=" parameter.
• There is no infobox on the page and the page includes at least one image.

There will still be a few false positives; there are some edge cases where it is difficult-to-impossible to tell whether an article actually includes a particular template with particular parameters set. And there are some infoboxes which have their own image request syntax: "screenshot", "logo", etc. But this rule should catch almost every article which does have an infobox with an image, and certainly everything in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. What do you think? Tim Pierce (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just 2¢, but a fair chunk of the WikiProject Comics infoboxes sort articles into Category:Comics infobox without image when image and noimage are left blank. Might help the bot eliminate the cases where an infobox image really is needed. - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Greb is our image/template expert so I asked for his input and this makes sense - it would be possible to match things not in that category with image requests and then run some simple checks like you suggest (also worth checking for placeholder image requests as you mention because a quick look at that category shows those with placeholders don't go in there). A bit of fine tuning and that should work just fine - there are always going to be false positives but if we can minimise them then they are easy to deal with when they crop up. It is useful removing image requests because some people print off the lists for people and try and get the photos we need at conventions so it stops them wasting their time. (Emperor (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If the placeholder images are SVGs, they should not be a problem; the bot ignores them. It does not consider an article to have an image if it has only a ".svg", for exactly this reason. (SVGs are also often used for flags and maps, which presented similar issues on other articles.)

I can make these changes to the bot and run it in debug mode (where it only reports the changes it would make) to make sure it works as intended. Please let me know if you would be willing to unblock on a trial basis at that point. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the initial test came back promising. The bot looked at the A, B and C articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics, and concluded that most of the requests are valid because they have infoboxes which still lack images:

    skipping 100 Girls (comics): {{Infobox comic book title}} lacks an image
    skipping 1984 (magazine): {{Infobox comic book title}} lacks an image
    skipping 30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust: {{Infobox Film}} lacks an image
    skipping 8-Ball (Marvel Comics): {{Infobox comics character}} lacks an image
    skipping A Financial Fable: {{Infobox Comic}} lacks an image

etc. It recommended adding Crime Doctor (comics), Crimson Avenger (Lee Travis) and Crimson Curse to Category:Articles which may no longer need images. This looks like basically what you were asking for?

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Thanks for your help. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks good - as I say this will be useful if the accuracy can be improved, and it looks like the changes have done the trick so I'd say run it.

I was thinking about one circumstance - where there is no infobox and yet there are images on the page. We have an infobox for nearly everything and flagging it shows there is a problem that needs addressing, even if it might not be an image one (although in some cases we will be able to add an infobox and move the image up and kill two birds with one stone).

Thanks for the quick response and fixes. (Emperor (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you agree. Are you willing to unblock the bot so I can re-enable it? Tim Pierce (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - it should be unblocked now. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Instead of complaining about your bot, I'm actually trying to see if it's possible to lure it to certain articles. I've noticed that a lot of articles on METRO Light Rail (Phoenix) stations have Photo request tags that don't need them. Unless somebody out there is looking for a certain type of image, I don't think the tags on a lot of those articles are necessary anymore. ----DanTD (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to run it on that category right away if you feel like it would help :-) There are an awful lot of subcategories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and it takes a while for the bot to crawl them. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Nosey interjection:) Does the bot crawl "needs map" categories? It should probably exclude them, unless you've thought of a good way of judging against that criterion. A lot of those railway articles are tagged like that. DanTD, if you're looking for an up-to-date list (as opposed to the useful automated editing service this bot provides), you might like to try my tool. Just a thought. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just "needs photograph" and its subcategories. I agree that the bot should not confuse a map request with a photo wherever it is possible to distinguish them. Ditto for {{reqdiagram}} -- it is not my intention to try to update those requests and the bot shouldn't be doing that. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Just checking. FTR, which cat do you use? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one which has a sub-cat called "Wikipedia requested photographs of places" which has a sub-cat called "Wikipedia requested maps"? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yipes! Thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can figure out how to add an exclusion clause to keep the bot from stumbling down that category. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250, I just tried your tool. For some reason it claimed no incorrect tags are on them. I don't have too much luck with tools. ----DanTD (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just processing this PhotoCatBot-edit to Talk:Giovanni Michelotti.

I understand the limitations of the bot, but I could not see how to resolve this one without adding a new {{reqphoto}} first. The problem is that {{WPBiography}} includes a field for 'needs-photo', but does not (AFAIK) allow qualification in the manner needed to divert the bot. The article has one picture, of a tipper truck, but needs one for the article subject himself!

I brought this up here because I would have expected the bot to encounter this sort of problem on many project-banner-tagged pages, and it would need a more co-ordinated approach to all the projects to resolve properly.

EdJogg (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct -- the "needs-photo" parameter that is used by some WikiProjects does not permit classifying the photo. There is not really a way to resolve this other than by adding a {{reqphoto}} template to the page. On the other hand, you can have both a wikiproject template with "needs-photo=yes" and a {{reqphoto}} template on the same page, to deflect the bot. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guessed the correct action then. I'll do the same in future to keep the bot happy. Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted a little problem with tagging articles that are using project templates to request images if the category name does not match the reqphoto syntax. To stop the PhotoCatBot from adding text you have to add a reqphoto with of parameter. This is fine but there may not be a useful subject category under Wikipedia requested photographs. This will mean that the top level will start to fill up with requests on many different topics. Just as example Talk:Railmotor. I think before this goes further a concerted effort needs to be made to change the category names of these image requests so that reqphoto can also place request in the same categories. Traveler100 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your worry but am not sure that it's going to pose a huge problem. So far it only appears to have led to a handful of new articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. I'm happy to run PhotoCatBot's original "add reqphoto category" task on these when the dust settles. Let's revisit it if we get, say, 50 new unqualified photo requests? Tim Pierce (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that this bot is producing a lot of false positives of the "this article seems not to need a photo anymore" type on mountain articles, when they have a pushpin/doton map but no photo. See e.g. Pilot Range. Can it automatically recognize these maps as not being photos? They are very common and have a semi-standard syntax, so that should be possible. Thanks. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, the maps of the form "XXMap-doton-XXXXX.png" have a very consistent syntax. I've modified the bot to ignore images with filenames matching that pattern. Tim Pierce (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Adrian Drida, the bot seems to be counting Image:Replace this image male.svg as an image for the purposes of adding pages to 'Category:Articles which may no longer need images'. At least, at the time the bot tagged this article's talk page, that's the only image present. As this is a placeholder image, the bot shouldn't be counting it (or any of its counterparts). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot adds Category:Articles which may no longer need images to the end of the page. But according to WP:Talk page layout#Categories they "should be placed after the last banner and before the discussion." Although I'm sure that it's much easier to put it at the end, could the bot be changed to add it in the correct place? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will see if I can make that change safely. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, look at this? The bot added its "may no longer need images" blurb before, which I removed because the only image present in the article is that of the coat of arms, yet the bot added this note yet again today. Does the bot keep track of prior notifications? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 13:07 (UTC)

The bot does keep track, and will not update the same page more often than once every six months. You can make sure this doesn't happen again by adding {{Infobox settlement}} to the main page; if an infobox is present and does not have an image in the "image" field, PhotoCatBot will assume that's the photo the article still needs, and will not add it to Category:Articles which may no longer need images. Thanks! Tim Pierce (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 9, 2010, this bot put a request-photo template on the article Academy Hill Historic District (Greensburg, Pennsylvania), which already had 12 photos, including a photo in its infobox. I've removed the request-photo template, but it seems that something is wrong if this bot is labelling articles that already have a dozen photos. Canadian2006 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the bot was just refining a photo request that already existed on the talk page. Looks like the reqphoto was not removed when the images were added to the page. Thanks for removing it now. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are bad. In this case, PhotoCatBot decided that the mayor of Nashville Tennessee lives in Pennsylvania rather than Tennessee since that's where he was born. This would be an acceptable mistake if the 'in' parameter had been blank, but it already included the correct location which was overwritten. I've seen this same error on numerous articles on my watch list. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if it's possible to get the bot to fix these mistakes or should I just revert the ones I find manually? Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Thanks for pointing this out. The cause here is that the bot is improperly loading a library that I wrote when it was specifically targeting Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Pennsylvania and so was specifically looking for articles that mentioned Pennsylvania towns and counties. I've removed the old library from the bot's toolset. I'll take responsibility for searching for and fixing the bad edits (though I wouldn't say no if you wanted to revert a few :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll unblock the bot now. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think about not letting the bot overwrite the 'in' parameter if it's already specified? Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little trickier: it is actually the purpose of the current run. Right now it's recategorizing photo requests from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tennessee into by-county subcategories, to make the categories a little more manageable. It's an important task for the really huge picture request categories (Tennessee had close to 1,100 requests when the bot started) but it essentially requires making the bot change the "in=" parameter. I'm certainly open to suggestions for how to improve the process... Tim Pierce (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Maybe it should just exclude biographical articles (since the location of a person's birth is rarely the same as where they currently live). Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. My thought is that many of these articles include relevant current information, e.g. "Micheal R. Williams, born February 6, 1955 in Knoxville, Tennessee, is a Tennessee politician who formerly served in the Tennessee State Senate and was elected county mayor of Union County in August 2010." You raise a good point and I'll look into whether I can define a better heuristic for biographical articles, or whether it makes more sense to skip such articles entirely. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for taking the time to look into it! Otherwise, it looks like it's doing good work. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does PhotoCatBot also remove articles from Category:Articles which may no longer need images once the {{reqphoto}} tags are removed, or does that have to be done manually? -- Avocado (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that your bot, or perhaps the StalePhotoRequest(?) complementary bot, is adding some NRHP list-articles to the category of articles no longer needing photos. Perhaps because they have some photos already. But they need photographs, and it seems valid/good to let anyone actually using the state-level reqphoto system to find out about photos needed, that there are multiple photos needed for these. This came up in discussion split between User talk:We hope#reqphoto tags needed and User talk:Doncram#Re Montana list. Editor We Hope has been cleaning out the category Category:Articles which may no longer need images and encountering these. I object to the reqphoto being removed for list-articles that still need photos. Editor "We hope" points out the reqphoto tag could be revised to use an "of" phrase, but I think that should not be necessary.

Please revise your bot to omit list-articles including, specifically, those named "National Register of Historic Places listings in ..." or "List of National Historic Landmarks in ...". And/or key off of the category Category:List-Class National Register of Historic Places articles which includes 2,245 list-articles (but not every NRHP list-article has yet be included into that list-article category). --doncram 03:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing some images from Category:Articles_which_may_no_longer_need_images, and I came across a strange one your bot tagged. This revision of James Fulton (researcher) was tagged as possibly having a requested image. But I see only one image there, and it's inside Template:Orphan. Is it possible that your bot sees images inside cleanup tags? If so, could you change it so it doesn't? Perhaps so that if an image filename is not listed in the template's parameters it's ignored? Thanks! -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, it's seeing a link to an image that does not display an image. Makes sense I guess. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is currently inactive? Would be great if it be active again. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5] emijrp (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Weakley County, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SBaker43 (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my largest frustrations with the general use of the {{reqphoto}} template is its failure to distinguish people requested images of people from places and requested photograps of places. As a photographer, if I visit a city, it's easy for me to look through the category, see which places are in need of photographing, and then go out and take the photos. That's not the case with celebrities, athletes or politicians from a city, which I'm unlikely to just run into. I've tried to create some Category:Wikipedia requested images of people from City X subcategories to clean up the base categories Category:Wikipedia requested images of City X but it's a lot of work. I made a request for a bot to do this but it didn't seem to get much support. Any thoughts on this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! The idea is to move pictures of people into their own category so they won't be cluttering up the main state/city categories for those photo requests? Seems like a possibility. I haven't personally found a need for that -- the existing location categories don't seem to tend to be so dominated by requests for pictures of people that it's hard to find something useful to photograph. But maybe there are some cities I haven't looked at closely where it's a real problem. Can you tell me more about the workflow you'd like to follow here? —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to vary by city, but to give you an idea, imagine Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Toronto if the nearly 700 people articles in the subcategory were in the main category. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London has a great number of bio articles included. I'm afraid I have no experience with bots, so I'm not sure what you mean by workflow. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "workflow" I just mean a description of how you go about using the categories to find subjects to shoot. My workflow usually looks something like this: when I know I'm going on vacation to Maine, I'll pull up Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Maine and click the OSM link to see a map of sites in that category. Then I can zoom in on where I'll be staying and plot a day trip to different sites to photograph. This generally works pretty well for me and doesn't require navigating a category that's crowded with people photo requests, so I asked about your workflow to find out if you're taking a different approach that makes this more of an issue.

Anyway, it sounds like some of the city categorie are just loaded up more heavily with people photo requests than other categories. I think this is a task that PhotoCatBot could tackle. I'm presently cleaning up some nasty old code and getting the bot to run better on a continuous basis, but let me see if I can put some code together to do this for other categories. If you know of any categories where this is presently a problem, let me know so I can start my testing there. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also use the mapping feature (or at least, I did when it used to still worked) but it's also nice to look through a list to see what *kinds* of things have images requested.

Interestingly, for whatever reason it seems to not be much of an issue in American cities (at least from a small random sample that I looked at) so much as cities in other countries though Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States could use such a clean-up. I imagine any "Wikipedia requested photographs in X" category with a very large number of articles would very likely contain a lot of bio articles that could be placed in a sub-category. If it's possible to scan for volume, that might be a good way to go about it. Otherwise, you might start with London or the United States categories which have 1,600+ and 600+ articles respectively. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hancock County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Lawrence County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Boone County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Shelby County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Morgan County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hendricks County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Jackson County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bartholomew County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Greene County, Indiana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]