Template talk:Improve images

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Suggestions for possible enhancement

[edit]

1) A camera icon such as may better illustrate the intent of this template than the current "w" puzzle piece icon (especially for casual readers who may not be regular contributors or editors).
2) The "issue=" parameter message could read This article needs images (or additional, more specific images).
3) The order of the two sentences in the "fix=" parameter could be reversed so that it begins with Please help out by adding images to it so that it can be better illustrated. (As is now stands, the enhanced message (i.e., "If in category|Living people") reads as if it is wedged in the middle when it appears.)
4) The wording of the enhanced message could be made more clear: If this article is about you (or pictures you or someone that you represent), and you wish to contribute a picture (or a better picture than the current one), please read this page. Thank you!
-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented (1) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Implemented (2) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Pending further evaluation (3) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done Sequence seems okay with the "Thank you!" at the end of overall message.-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Implemented (4) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About 3: I wanted the message to the subjects to be a little bit more attention-grabbing than the average tag text so I originally formatted it as a bullet, but conditional bullets are not really a thing apparently. @Jonesey95: Do you have any ideas for how to make the 'if in category' message (to the subjects) visually/format...-ly pop? —Alalch E. 15:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get used to the way it displays currently in BLPs (e.g., Hella Jongerius). Could be getting pretty close to "right" (or maybe I need a WP:WIKIBREAK). One function that might also be useful would be the ability to force the "enhanced message" to appear even when the subject is dead (i.e., not in category|Living people; e.g., Italo Lupi). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the box, and the "if this is about you" text stands out just the right amount. It uses a standard {{Ambox}} template, so it looks familiar as a maintenance template, and the bold text used for emphasis catches the eye. Any additional emphasis would IMO be too glaring and out-of-sync with similar maintenance templates. I think the version showing at Hella Jongerius looks good and gets the message across effectively. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About 2: I think the original This article needs additional or more specific images. was cleaner in structure than This article needs images (or additional, more specific images). Although in both cases, "more specific" doesn't cover cases where we're seeking better quality or more recent images, which is often the case. I'm not sure what a better wording would be for that - "This article needs additional or improved images"?
About 4: If this article is about you (or depicts you or someone that you represent), and you wish to contribute a picture (or a better picture than the current one), please read this page. could be made clearer again, and we should probably try to lose the WP:CLICKHERE style reference to "this page". If we can suggest "better picture" in the previous sentence, perhaps just If this article is about you or someone that you represent, you can submit a photo.?
Generally: Please help out by adding images to it so that the article can be better illustrated. doesn't flow that well when included after the "if this article is about you" sentence, on BLP articles. It seems like this should either be moved to be before that sentence, or omitted. Belbury (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Succinct and gets straight to the point:

If this article is about you or someone that you represent, you can submit a photo.

I like it. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic: This article needs images or additional, more specific images. (without parenthasis). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor linguistic technicality: in theory, anyone could submit a photo, not just the subject or their representative. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapping Please help out by adding images so that the article can be better illustrated. to be before rather than after the "if this article is about you" would make that clear from context, I think. (The current BLP template wording has the same issue: the whole thing can be read as a plea to the subject and their representatives, rather than to all readers.) Belbury (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented much of what you suggest above (with some further massaging). It seems as if both versions hold up well under scrutiny. Please take a close look, as I changed quite a bit in one go with that last edit. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that This article needs images (or additional, improved, more specific images) is covering various bases ("this article has no images, or not enough images, or bad images, or insufficiently specific images"), but I don't think we need to say anything more than needs additional or improved images. Unless "more specific" is a very common use case on non-biographical articles?
If this article is about you (or someone that you can photograph), Wikipedia wants your picture, and it is simple to submit your work may be a slight misdirection on the link, as the Wikipedia:A picture of you target is written addressing the subject of the article, rather than Wikipedia photographers in general. I'm not sure what page we'd want to send a photographer to, at that point.
Please help out. Thank you! stands out as unconventional template phrasing. We've already said please a couple of sentences previously, and I don't think Wikipedia templates normally say thank you in advance, do they? Belbury (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Re: first comment, I'm indifferent. Perhaps another set of eyes would be helpful? As for who we are addressing, my view is that it is both the subject and/or anyone who can photograph them and make the photos available (see George Lundeen example in PICYOU), so it seems okay as written. Re: the perhaps uncharacteristically polite tone, as we're addressing non-Wikipedians, this makes sense (I picked up the vibe from Welcome to Wikipedia! in the first paragraph of PICYOU, and riffed some of the other clauses too). I'm spending too much time here. Maybe let it sit for a day to see how much traffic (and how many uploads) it generates? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Skeeter Reece example in By email section also relevant to second point. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added this template to Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup today, where it was missing, and noticed that while a great number of maintenance templates say "please" when encouraging users to edit the article, to the point where that's clearly the house style, none of them also say "thank you" (even though that's something we might equally say to a copyeditor or someone adding an infobox). Perhaps thanking the reader in advance is seen as inappropriate when most readers won't be in a position to act on the request.
So I've removed the Thank you for helping out! We couldn't really say whether it made any difference to the number of uploads without doing some A/B testing. Belbury (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, we don't have any hard data on whether saying "thank you" has a demonstrable effect in this case – although there is plenty of evidence that suggests it does no harm and affects people's willingness to help out in general. My logic in adding it was that we are potentially inviting non-Wikipedians to participate, so making the invitation as welcoming as possible seemed like a plus. Thank you for helping out! was also riffing on Welcome to Wikipedia! from the opening paragraph of WP:PICYOU (where we are directing these theoretical neo-Wikipedians). Personally, I like(d) it and would prefer to see it included (obviously, as I added it in the first place). Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Display on mobile devices

[edit]

The icon that displays on mobile devices is the default brush used by Template:Ambox (type=style–Style issues) rather than the camera icon . Can this be fixed? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option for "better images"?

[edit]

The current template text is:

This article needs images (or additional, improved, more specific images). Please consider adding images so that it can be better illustrated.

Would this benefit from a specific option setting (eg. "better=y") for when we're consciously in the dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary zone of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY? Giving a message more like:

This article has low quality images that should be replaced. Please consider uploading a better image.

(This is inspired by {{better image requested}}, a recently and independently-created template which I've just put up for discussion for essentially repeating the scope of {{improve images}}.) Belbury (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In my view, this would be a beneficial option (essentially folding {{Better image requested}} functionality into {{Improve images}}). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#what does the policy have to say on video screenshots?
Came her from the TfD on {{Better image requested}} to say: while I neither condone nor condemn, it is clear that template is/was intended for article space: The goal of this template is to point out the issue to more people, even regular non-registered Wikipedia users (readers, not editors).

Personally what I would find useful is a talk page template series mirroring the {{Image requested}} series, that is, a {{Better image requested}}, {{Better photograph requested}} and so on. Of course, if the {{Image requested}} series supported a |better=yes parameter, that would work. The crucial point is to acknowledge there already is an image/photo etc.

The need for an article space template I leave up to you. Personally I don't see an immediate need to ask the readers, and if implemented, should be a bottom-placement template or it will risk being mistaken for a "badge of shame" type of template. CapnZapp (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expandable template

[edit]

An issue I have with this template is that it makes readers spend time reading the template instead of reading the lead, especially for biographies, where the message is longer. One possible way to mitigate this issue is to just have a minimal message like "This article needs images", but something that can be expanded by clicking on the template to show the whole message, which would allow to give more details. I don't know if it's a great idea, just proposing. Alenoach (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. We may be somewhat limited by what {{Ambox}} permits, as well as accepted best practice and mobile interface constraints. Will do some further reading. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been implemented on the mobile version of the template and works very well. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the template behaves differently on the Wikipedia mobile app: {{Improve images}} displays below the lead (although it's placed immediately after the {{Short description}} template in the Wikitext), and it does not display the "Learn more" option (so the only link displayed is for WP:IMGDD, which isn't ideal). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, the icon is displayed in the app (whereas the default is still displayed on a mobile browser). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge of Better image requested

[edit]

@Izno, Primefac, Belbury, and Dan Leonard: Per this TfD the now deleted {{Better image requested}} was supposed to be merged into this template. However, I can find zero trace of the deleter of that template doing any actual merging. I made suggestions on its talk page, but as far as I can see everything has been simply thrown away. Did the merger simply delete {{Better image requested}} with no effort do transfer across any of its functionality or documentation? That wasn't the consensus of the TfD, was it? Or am I missing something? Is someone actively tinkering with this template and saved a copy of old discussions? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a |reason= which is what I interpreted the request to be and subsequently used it on the pages which had used the former template (two). If you would like to make other additions, it's a wiki. Izno (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me this is a wiki, with the implication "just do it yourself". Let me reciprocate by telling you something equally obvious, Izno; that style of conversation comes across as incredibly snarky and condescending, and it does you no favors. You would be well advised to cut that shit out, especially given your position as admin, or take a wikibreak if you suffer symptoms of burnout and your reply to me was just a momentary lapse in judgement. Assuming good faith for a moment, you probably weren't incredibly lazy and instead honestly forgot to update the documentation to include both a general explanation you can use this template to request better images, and specifically documenting the existence and usage of the |reason=. Since you have made it impossible to retrieve the documentation for {{Better image requested}}, I trust you understand why I now expect you to do this. Alternatively, please undelete the now "merged" template (actually, its documentation sub-page) for long enough for me to carry across the pertinent details. CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also please carry across the talk points made on the now deleted template's talk page, so we can tell how far the suggestions have come, if only for future editors (with template coding capabilities) to read. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say Assuming good faith for a moment immediately preceding you probably weren't incredibly lazy as if the hand-waving at AGF absolves you of the insult. Also, I'm not sure what part of the deleted template's documentation would be necessary for you to improve other templates; the deleted one was a simple {{ambox}} wrapper and essentially unused. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my POV, the so-called merge appears to essentially be a delete. A true merge would take the "I would like to request better images while clearly acknowledging that images already exist" use case (the use case of the now deleted template) and have the documentation clearly denote how to use this template for that purpose. That's what a merge is, infusing something with the essence of something else. But I don't see where a user unfamiliar with recent history would see "ah, this is the template to use when images exist but I feel they're sufficiently crappy that a template is still warranted."
As for what I can and cannot write, I find it curious that you completely ignore Izno's comment. It's as if you pretend to not understand where that insult came from. But point taken. CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. You may request further assistance from any other admin at this point. Izno (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reason parameter

[edit]

Currently, adding the newly-added |reason= parameter simply chucks on some text to the end of the template.

For instance, over at Raegan Revord, {{Improve images |reason=Blurry low-quality still from YouTube video|date=July 2025}} produces

This article needs images (or additional, improved, more specific images). Please consider adding images so that it can be better illustrated. If this article is about you (or someone that you can photograph), Wikipedia wants your picture, and you are welcome to submit your work. (July 2025) Blurry low-quality still from YouTube video

(my underlining)

Please change the template so that when |reason= is used, it 1) changes the initial sentence, 2) adds "Reason:" in front of the supplied parameter text, 3) removes the "Please consider adding images so that it can be better illustrated." part, and finally 4) replaces it with the reason supplied (in its position before the "if about you" blurb). For our example, that {{Improve images |reason=Blurry low-quality still from YouTube video|date=July 2025}} achieves something like

This article needs additional, improved, more specific images. Reason: Blurry low-quality still from YouTube video. If this article is about you (or someone that you can photograph), Wikipedia wants your picture, and you are welcome to submit your work. (July 2025)

(still my underlining, to illustrate 1 & 2)

As you can see, adding the parameter now transforms the template from chiefly requesting adding images, to requesting better images (while acknowledging existing images exist).

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to supplement the |reason= parameter with a |better= parameter. If supplied (no value needed), the template acknowledges images exist by replacing "needs images (or additional, improved, more specific images)" with simply "needs additional, improved, more specific images". Either this is ignored as being superfluous when also supplying |reason= is my thinking, or the functionality to switch out "needs images (or additional, improved, more specific images)" with "needs additional, improved, more specific images" is removed from what |reason= does, so it only happens when |better= is also applied.
I would also like the template itself to be supplemented by a {{better images needed}} redirect, invoking this template with the |better= para supplied. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea, per your own comment above: requesting images on non-ilustrated articles is already a bit too much for the use of an article-space warning, and I think requesting "better" images on already-illustrated articles is completely unnecessary in article-space. Nearly every article has an image that someone theoretically could see as suboptimal for any reason, so allowing reader-facing requests both serves as a badge of shame for the current image and clutters the article. Image improvement requests should be done on the talk page only. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
check Partially implemented, see below
  •  Implemented (New parameter) I just noticed that the template already includes the phrase or additional, improved, more specific images so the ship has sailed there. I've added a new {{{type}}} parameter that inserts text before the word "images" right at the beginning. Try |type=less blurry or |type=biographical.
  • no Unnecessary A wrapper template is useless here and I don't think {{better image needed}} should be restored for that purpose. Having a freeform |type= parameter lets editors use "better" if they want but doesn't come with all the extra baggage of wrapper templates.
  • no Not bug The text of the |reason= parameter suffixes the date because it is passed to {{ambox}} as |info=. This is expected and standard behavior.
Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts, but having the template unconditionally say "Please consider adding images so that it can be better illustrated" still isn't ideal. For articles with few or no images, yes. For articles with enough images, just of crappy quality, not really. Remember the earlier #Option for "better images"? discussion. Still, I'll use |type= over |reason=. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making these improvements. At first glance, it looks like you've solved some of the nagging issues! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Any thoughts re: the upload camera icon bug (on mobile devices)? This one has me stumped. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know anything about {{ambox}}'s implementation. Try Template talk:Ambox or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Leonard: Would you mind adding a "usage example" to the Listed below are ... options for usage part of the template documentation so that it also shows the version with the wording This article needs images. Please consider adding images so that it can be better illustrated. If this article is about you (or someone that you can photograph), Wikipedia wants your picture, and you are welcome to submit your work. (I'd do this myself if I felt I was up to the task, but my level of knowledge here is still a bit shaky.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is handled by {{if in category}} detecting Category:Living people, so I don't believe it's possible to show an example in the documentation. I've added a plaintext explanation about this feature instead. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page link

[edit]

To my untrained eye, it seems as if a general talk link appears even if |talk= is omitted.

Except on pages in living people.

Am I correct to guess it gets replaced by the invitation to supply pictures?

(To be clear: This concerns usage where |talk= is not supplied)

If I'm wrong, please don't just explain it here on talk - the best is if you get our documentation to say the correct thing, and then you can just tell us here to go read that. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the |Talk= parameter to be iffy too (e.g., as it hasn't generally worked the way one would expect, I don't use it – although it would be a welcome improvement if it did work well). Along similar lines, it would be helpful to be able to toggle to the longer, more detailed version(s) of the template regardless of the subject being a BLP (i.e., notwithstanding the presence of Category:Living people in the article). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category name

[edit]

You might be interested in Category talk:Articles needing additional images#Category name. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thanks also for bringing my attention to Category:Articles needing additional images. Very helpful. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation wording

[edit]

Currently we say Do not use this template when the article currently has no images at all; consider using {{Image requested}} instead. I find this to be overly proscriptive and somewhat contrary to the spirit of WP:PICYOU. I propose revising it to read If the article currently has no images, consider using {{Image requested}} instead. Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Permission requests (curtesy link)

[edit]

Users who are interested in improving the quality of our photographs may find Commons:Permission requests useful too. It is a parallel approach to this issue that may also produce positive results. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]