Memory Alpha talk:Requested pictures

Unsigned Request
Do you guys think that the requests by should be deleted? The second one references a picture that no longer exists. Worse, the first one is obviously meant as a lewd comment. --Commodore Sixty-Four 18:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wanted: A Decent Bloody Jennifer Lien Image!
Does anybody have one? Could they upload it please?? Geez, that is hard to get!– Orr6000 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TNG HD Remastering
Any chance the high definition version of TNG will allow us to read details we couldn't before? Or do you think that when they make it HD, they will intentionally keep the text unclear? After all, many okudagrams and stuff used joke names that they may not want the viewer to be able to read. 174.49.50.161 10:30, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul
I've always found this page to be rather unhelpful, or at least not as helpful as it could be. We don't actually have links to these missing pictures, so they aren't on the wanted files list, which is pretty much what this page is suppose to be. I purpose we redo this page so each request has: Each request would be formatted as it's own subsection in the current ones, though I think having the top sections be "In-universe" and "Production" might be better than the current ones. As part of this, Memory Alpha:Fulfilled picture requests would be merged here, as it really serves no purpose. I can create a mock up for this if requested. - 23:30, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) the intended file name
 * 2) the episode where it could be found, if known
 * 3) why we need this and/or other pertinent info


 * I'd like to oppose this for now. I'm never sure how to word "why we need this", as it's a too general and open question to be easy for someone with my condition to answer (and I'm surely not the only one!) If we gave some examples of answers, it may help. And wouldn't merging the much longer Fulfilled picture requests page make viewing any of this info that more difficult for users with slow browsers? I still believe we should try to make MA as accessible as possible, instead of the opposite. --Defiant (talk) 11:41, June 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the addition of the intended file name and episode source. --Defiant (talk) 11:44, June 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now looked at the instructions which you clearly hurried to install, I'm happy enough with them (they're satisfactorily specific enough). Good work, IMO. However, I'm still wary of merging this page with the Fulfilled picture requests page, as it seems inconsiderate to a good portion of users who're not as speedy online as us. --Defiant (talk) 11:57, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

It's already done, and you had plenty of time to comment before I "hurried" to do this, so I'm not going to entertain another one of your "I didn't approve this so there was no consensus" diatribes. I suggest you cut the backhanded accusations right now.

With that said, you haven't given a reason we need a list of "fulfilled picture requests". It was merged here because it had become nothing but a vanity page, since images are/should be placed in articles as they are uploaded, so if you're going to make a case for it now, one that you couldn't make during the ten days this has been here for whatever reason, I suggest you keep in mind that I will not be unmerging the page histories, because this merge was done according to guideline, and that a long page full of episode links serving no real purpose is a strain on the parser function. - 21:39, June 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check the other side of the discussion, before you accuse anyone of "back handed accusations", especially in a tone that's completely inappropriate, given that I've complimented your work on quite a few fronts, here. I meant that you clearly hurried to write up the guidelines on how to leave the requests, as there were a few minor errors that I corrected today. A removal of the fulfilled picture requests list is completely different to what you originally proposed here – i.e., a "merge". I'm happy with the complete removal of the list because, as I stated, my only concern was that it would make the singular page overly long. Even if this weren't the case and you did refuse to unmerge the page histories, there are other admins who can do such things; you're not the be-all and end-all of this site (since none of us is more important than the overall community). Also, as I've attempted to point out in the past, no particular user should be expected to stay updated with all the pages on MA. Your attitude is doing you no favors, as I am not your enemy; I suggest you bear that in mind. --Defiant (talk) 00:24, July 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's stay on topic, please. Since there is agreement on the actual change to this article, further discussion not having to do with that should not take place here. 31dot (talk) 00:31, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with that also. :) --Defiant (talk) 00:47, July 1, 2012 (UTC)