Wikipedia talk:Photo Matching Service

Coordinating photo efforts[edit]

Hi - It seems you're thinking along rather the same lines as User:Gphoto and me who are trying to revisalize Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. Your idea is a good one, though place-level photo requests are already available via {{reqphotoin}}, with volunteers and their locations listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. The existing setup can certainly be improved, though, and in particular I'm hoping to get some way of grouping requests not only by location but also by subject-matter (nature, household objects etc) as well as by type of photo (close-up etc). That's being worked on by User:Doug Bell. How about joining forces for a team effort? --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gphoto sent me here from my talk page, great idea, I see it is already working. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about it too - looks like a great idea all right. There are already sensible ideas for coordination with other photo-related projects farther down. Sandstein 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My location photo requests at Wikipedia:Requested pictures have gone unfulfilled for so long that I figured there was no good way to get photos in a particular location. Now there is! However, all these efforts Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography,{reqphotoin}}, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, Wikipedia:Requested pictures , and Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service need to be coordinate and accessible from one location.--Jreferee 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

The locations of the requested pictures should stay as specific as possible, down to the town, or else people are not going to find this page useful. Could we put something on the page that says something to this effect? --Gphoto ^talk 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning behind this is that if we do not sort by town, people could still have to go up to a couple hundred miles away depending on what state and where in each state/province they live in, and then people would either not want go out and take pictures, or they would have to sort through the pictures until they found some in their vicinity, which is what we are trying to eliminate. --Gphoto ^talk 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Works for me.~~Rklawton 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific is good, but it also might cause folks to miss connections. I live in a small town, but I don't mind driving (or walking) to the small town next door. Rather than city, we might want to make this county-specific (at least in the U.S.). County-specific locations will also cut down on a lot of space that would be used for subheadings and labels. Rklawton 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this: 48°25′N 123°21′W / 48.417°N 123.350°W / 48.417; -123.350? Most cities already have the markup on their articles in the infobox. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one! However, that might be a bit less user friendly. Rklawton 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that a volunteer could fetch the info from the town's articles for one's that people did not fill in. Like all things wiki, people do what they can, and other do what they can't. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-friendliness, is, in my mind one of the most important things about keeping this going. --Gphoto ^talk 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a sentence to the instructions asking users to list themselves under the county or region where they can take photos and also to explain how far they're willing to roam briefly in a comment. I'm not convinced that adding coordinates would be useful since people are more likely to recognize a county or region name than latitude/longitude, but I don't think it will do any harm and if other users find it helpful than there's no reason to get rid of it. GabrielF 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could help if you wanted a picture of a mountain, hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the photographer place their name under the geographic location of where they are willing to take photos. If they are willing to take photos anywhere in Ohio, then put their name under Ohio. If it's only Cleveland, then put there name under Cleveland. If it's Ohio and Indiana, then suggest they put their name under both.--Jreferee 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redesigned Header[edit]

Also, here is a redesigned header inside the lines:

Header removed from talk page because of TOC issues. See Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service/header. BigNate37_(T) 18:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[snip]

Tell me what you think of it, and do whatever changes need to be done to it. If it is good enough, I'll put it up on the page. --Gphoto ^talk 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages[edit]

If this is going to actually see popular use, it needs to have subpages so that the whole list is not on one page. BigNate37_(T) 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, maybe per country? --Gphoto ^talk 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, better to do it now than down the road when a major reformat would be required. By country sounds perfect. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking that might be necessary. However, since we only have four countries at the moment why don't we wait a day or two for things to develop and everyone can be (literally) on the same page in terms of formatting. GabrielF 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a page-splitting plan could be created now, but not implemented until the ball is really rolling. I'd hate to see the fracturing of the page take away its momentum, at least not until the service reaches critical mass and can survive/flourish regardless of subpage splitting. GabreilF's comment is making me wonder whether splitting the page now would make each subpage too sparse and the whole thing would collapse out of a perceived lack of support. Maybe a subpage transclusion system like the XfDs so that nobody sees a subpage until they've edited one? BigNate37_(T) 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that sub-pages be organised by continent/region rather than by country. Hence, you might have a "North America" subpage fairly early in the piece, a "Europe" subpage a little later, then "Oceania", "Asia", "Africa", "South America" etc. when needed. In part, this suggestion is in recognition that some people will travel to adjacent countries relatively often and splitting them into different sub-pages at the top level might be counter productive. I'm even tempted to suggest a similar structure of sorting on the main page. --Athol Mullen 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about sub-sub-pages? First by continent, then by country? We can just list Turkey twice (but link to the same country page) :P --Thisisbossi 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I think we should also specify the difference between this project and the related request for photograph by location categories (is there one?). We should also add a notice to the request photography categories that point here so requestors can further the process. Rklawton 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In proposed answer to my question above, we might want to suggest editors use categories to request pictures and then visit this project to see if they can "assign" a picture to a specific photographer (and that's the difference). Locations not within a county or two of a photographer listed in this project should not be posted in this project. The state links in this project that point to their respective categories should suffice to aide photographers planning day-trips. Rklawton 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down![edit]

The category links beside the states is not good! It is cluttering up the page, and we do not need links to the states themselves, so the categories can link from the states. It's great that there is so much new stuff going in, but if we are not careful with what we add, this page is going to become a mass of link and headers. --Gphoto ^talk 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I moved the category links to italics underneath the headings. GabrielF 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Could you pipe the links so that they are not as long? Thanks, --Gphoto ^talk 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded snappy about the links, we are just getting started here anyway. --Gphoto ^talk 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just putting the link in the state itself? It'll save a line per state, and I think we all know what "Alabama" is. If you don't like the naming, then we could just link "Alabama - Requests". It'll look redundant with 50 states, but so is the single-purpose line presently underneath. Rklawton 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I initially separated them was that it was inconsistent, some headings linked to the category, others to the article. If we don't need a link to the article than we can change it but a link might be useful. Someone might want to consult an article about a state or region in order to figure out which town is closest. I looked at the Provinces in the Netherlands article to figure out if a town was near enough to Amsterdam that it would be reasonable for me to ask someone from that town to take a photo of something in Amsterdam. GabrielF 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rklawton, we need to simplify as much as possible because we have so many different geographical locations. --Gphoto ^talk 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That note was a good idea. --Gphoto ^talk 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other side[edit]

How are we going to get editors to list pictures here? We are getting lots of photographers already, but no editors have come yet. --Gphoto ^talk 01:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about it. Photographers are easy to get because many have already agreed to take requests elsewhere. It will take a little while for other editors looking for photos to discover the page. I posted a note on the Signpost tip line so maybe they'll put a paragraph in the next signpost. GabrielF 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have 2 requests for Victoria, BC already, I am going to take the first tommorow morning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

What sort of archving are we going to do, if anything? If a photographer takes a picture, is he supposed to strike it out, delete it, or archive it in some way? If he does strike it out, how long will we let it stay up there, and will we archive it? If we do archive, will we have a plain list of pictures basically just for show, or will we organize by geographical location like the main page? These are just some question to be tossed around. --Gphoto ^talk 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Why not a link underneath Needed Photos that says something like Completed Requests? The link can point to a page of completed requests for that locale. Since they're photos we might as well display them on the completed requests page as a gallery. This will be a good way to track our progress and also recognize photographers who have completed requests. GabrielF 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be good for the page if we keep track of how successful it is, which will attract more people when they see that it works. --Gphoto ^talk 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could make it a bit more fun and call them "Quests" rather than "requests". Or we could call improvements to existing photos "ReQuests" ... Rklawton 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page length[edit]

The page is already getting long! Would it be a good idea to put in a show/hide type function like what they use on the commons for the category tree, or would it be better to use subpages? We could at least put show/hide functions for the countries right now so that people can get to their country quickly. Also, the lists of photos and photographers could be show/hide pages, but this qould probably take lots and lots of code, making the page too big. --Gphoto ^talk 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's fast becoming unwieldy. Perhaps subpages would be in order to help people making requests (especially those that would edit the whole page and not a sub-section). If it would continue as of now I can imagine the TOC would stretch down as far as the project page is long at the moment... Scoo 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetic sorting of Countries[edit]

I thought that the countries were supposed to be sorted alphabetically. When I or someone else sorts the countries into order, is 'The Netherlands' to be sorted under T or N? (I'm guessing N) --Athol Mullen 06:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go with N. --Gphoto ^talk 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It worked![edit]

It worked, someone made a request and I filled it, amazing! See Royal Theatre (Victoria). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Commons?[edit]

Hi there, what about moving this great idea to commons and linking to it from the Wikipedias? --Flominator 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing myself. This seems to be an effort duplicating ones that are already working on WP. Feel free to tell me if (and how) I'm mistaken. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed below, this page could be used to for timely requests of photos. Suppose there's a chance to take a picture of a famous person at a free public event (e.g. an election campaign event). Putting the person's bio in a "request" category won't get noticed for some time, and the photographer seeing the request, will have no idea of how to get a photo of the person. A page (like this one) has an advantage over categories, in that it can be put on a watchlist for monitoring. Our pre-existing system of categories has worked well for buildings, but not great for special events and people. At this moment in time, I'm not sure if this page will actually be useful, but I do feel it has potential. --Rob 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For effective watchlist monitoring, we'd need each region of each country made a subpage of this one (which may happen soon if the page gains popularity). To address the original post, many wikipedians do not use commons, and the "project page once-removed" would have a negative effect on attaining the goals of this page. Granted, it would also have positive effects—I don't think anyone is denying that. BigNate37_(T) 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a whole network of subpages splitted onto the various wikipedias? --Flominator 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your article will be overloaded soon[edit]

You cannot place location photographer's names and location photographs requested on the same page! There easily are 10,000 locations in the world and the collective of Wikipedia editors need at least 10,000 images. This page should solely be a place for location photographer's to place their names under the location where they are willing to take photos. Editors should make location photo requests on that location photographer's talk page. Moreover, the photo should not be located in some archieve. Either the location photographer should place a notice on the requesting editor's talk page or add the photo to the article itself. The way you have it creates too many steps, expects the location photographer to monitor their own talk page and this page, and leaves the requesting editor wondering whether their photo request has been fulfilled. I really appreciate your efforts in this. -- Jreferee

Here's a thought. Since we've already got categories to make photo requests within article talk pages, it makes little sense to duplicate those efforts manually here (see the Missouri subsection within this article for an example). Along the lines you propose, it makes more sense to show where photographers can be found (location-wise). In that way, editors with urgent requests can come here and see if there is a photographer they should ask directly. I don't oppose posting requests here either, so long as it is for a location that has at least one photographer, but it makes more sense to post requests directly in the photographer's talk page. That gives the photographer fewer pages to monitor. As for a requests fullfilled count great, but related galleries should go as subpages. Rklawton 14:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with part of the above. Putting all requests on this page is generally a bad idea, and duplicates existing "request photo" categories. We should list the photographers here, and link to the local category. But I think *timely* signed/dated requests can be added here, in cases where they need attention, and don't fit neetly in a category. Example: there's a special event that's free, public, and outdoors, and there's request for picture(s) of the event and/or multiple notable people who will be there. Somebody could, if they wish, also post a note to relevant photographer(s) talk page(s). I want the casual/occasional photographer to be able to see such timely requests, even if they don't wish to list themselves as a photographer. --Rob 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we encourage users to only list time-sensitive photos and only with a deadline then we can easily keep the page clean. I do agree that archives are bad—just leave a note for the person who made the request, on their talk page. BigNate37_(T) 16:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

I've awarded Template:The Photographer's Barnstar, to User:HighInBC and User:AudeVivere, the two users who have contributed requested photos thus far. I suggest that we make this a general practice. GabrielF 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a nice gesture, it would get out of hand and lessen the meaning of barnstars in general if one was awarded for every photo. Those of us who take life to seriously (e.g. myself) would feel patronised for being rewarded for doing something they wanted to do. BigNate37_(T) 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would. 70.104.16.146 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would. I've contributed perhaps 200 original photos to Wikipedia. My user page would be a bit crowded if I received a barnstar for each one. Rklawton 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Service, USA[edit]

Do we really need every political entity within the United States? Machias Seal Island, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank, and Wake Island don't even have photo request categories, to name a few (of course that will change since I said that). Anyways, it is cluttering the TOC and we may never see a photographer for each one of these divisions. Can we cut the clutter, or do others think this is necesssary? (If so, should we be doing this for all nations?) BigNate37_(T) 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recommended county level - and only those entities with registered photographers already associated with them. Rklawton 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little cumbersome. I don't think counties (or municipalities where I come from) are necessary—the information is redundant when city/state or city/province information is clear. It is a longer table of contents, extra clutter, and another level of indentation with no added information. BigNate37_(T) 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant counties in place of cities and towns. This would reduce the number of lines necessary to cover the same geographic area. Rklawton 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for that clarification. The only issue then that I see is the potential for added difficulty in making a request. For instance, I'd like a picture of the brine spring in Middlewich however I don't know what county it's in. Of course that concern isn't very serious since I can look up Middlewich in a couple minutes if I didn't already know it was in Cheshire. Back to the point, though, are all the US territories necessary? BigNate37_(T) 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOS[edit]

Shouldn't the name of this page be Photo matching service instead of Photo Matching Service? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No opinions? I will change it tomorrow if nobody objects. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good pint. Rklawton 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages[edit]

Would probably be better to put the whole into continent-sorted subpages, as even with a TOC, this page is awfully unwieldy. Hope some of the regulars can do that, I don't feel bold enough in this case. MadMaxDog 10:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea gone stale?[edit]

This seemed like a really good Idea. But looking at the history it looks like one request got full filled in 21 March 2007. And nothing else happened. Is this Project bringing cameras and subjects together? Jeepday (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a failure. The job is somewhat done by the Wikipedia:Wiki Shoot Me web map, for objects that are entered in Wikidata with geocoordinates. Mostly, the job is not being done. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]