Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Background

Is there any program that download and install picture of the day as my computer background? TestPilot 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed

The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

May I reccomend a redesign for the formatting? Have a new template for the actual picture, than have it fit into the box, the box and caption, and a boxless version. That way, you cut the work and we on the Main Page can juts use the last of those templates.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I noticed the templates for the pictures of the day are now on the main page. This makes it a vandalism target. Shouldn't we protect them? However, this means they will no longer be able to be directly edited by non-sysops. Seeing how the "edit" link is so prominent on this page, I was wondering if I should protect it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the templates are separate. But this means fixes usually have to be made to both. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

POTD picture size

In response to this request:

"POTD on the Main Page - Can we make it bigger, please ? We have room to display wider images now. -- 199.71.174.100 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If we use "thumb" instead of "213px" for the Wikipedia talk:POTD row, then it will inherit the user's thumbnail pref sizing. example: User:Quiddity/sandbox (my thumb prefs are set at 300px (max) which looks very nice indeed (what is default?)).

The only problem is the "thumb" variable makes an additional box around the picture (unsightly), and captions it with the alt-text (redundant duplication of title, but necessary for screenreaders...). fixes/thoughts? --Quiddity 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If we used thumb pref scaling, there would be problems with the layout for portrait pictures and other non-standard aspect ratios. Panoramas and animated gifs also need careful image sizing. -- Solipsist 08:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Understood and agreed. especially with today's panorama pic ;)

Essentially i guess i am asking/hoping for the usual small square thumbnails (of "POTD row") to be made just slightly bigger (closer to the "POTD" size). thanks --Quiddity 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks a lot larger today on the Main Page. Thanks whoever has been increasing the size in potd_row :-) -Quiddity 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

New Template Design

I was wondering if we should create a new template. The one we have now is quite boring, and the border is always light purple. I made my own template(User:Primate/Templates/4), and I update it everyday (a pain, but it's worth it). I usually change the borders (through parameters, however, a different color could be on every display of the template) to match an accent color in the image. Maybe we could add a similar template as an additional option for users, when adding the POTD to their User Page. If not, I have another template suggestion. Rather than just leaving the text normal, why not use the <div align="justify"></div> tags to justify it. It looks a little more planned. (Example in Template)

For Example, this is what it looks like with the "div" tags:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis tellus. Donec ante dolor, iaculis nec, gravida ac, cursus in, eros. Mauris vestibulum, felis et egestas ullamcorper, purus nibh vehicula sem, eu egestas ante nisl non justo. Fusce tincidunt, lorem nec dapibus consectetuer, leo orci mollis ipsum, eget suscipit eros purus in ante. Mauris at ipsum vitae est lacinia tincidunt. Maecenas elit orci, gravida ut, molestie non, venenatis vel, lorem. Sed lacinia. Suspendisse potenti. Sed ultricies cursus lectus. In id magna sit amet nibh suscipit euismod. Integer enim. Donec sapien ante, accumsan ut, sodales commodo, auctor quis, lacus. Maecenas a elit lacinia urna posuere sodales. Curabitur pede pede, molestie id, blandit vitae, varius ac, purus.

And without:

I am not using the above text because then it doesnt work. Does this make sense. I am tired of typing. Dummy word and you are funny. I am making no sense. Eight plus Eight is Eight. I am making mistakes. Me is hungry. I am making mistakes. Is you hungry. Me is making mistakes. Me am bored get. Grammer of me are decreasing. Almost there. Just a couple more sentences. I hope this works. Are you getting the feel for what I'm doing. OK, finally, I ammmmmmmmm done! Or is me done. Me doesn't know. Now me am don.

P.S. To see the template on a user page, see my user page

Prim a t e #101 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

POTD Mainpage, remove "Nominate new image" link

Ever since the POTD appears on the main page together with a Nominate new image link. WP:FPC gets flooded with sub-par nomination which do not stand any chance. The link lures people into quickly nominating a picture they deem pretty or shot themselves instead of checking out pages like What is a featured picture or the list of featured pictures. This hurts FPC, since writing verbose comments on each of the nominated pictures becomes much more work. Commenting on below average nominations also is a lot less fun since most often the pictures exhibit the same basic mistakes. So please remove the "Nominate new image" link and link to WP:WIAFP and/or WP:FP instead. --Dschwen 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#I'm puzzled. As I said there, I think it's a good idea. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It will be more helpful to more people to have a link to the gallery of FPs, and it will encourage people to look at them before nominating ~ Veledan • Talk 16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to disagree on the basis that the point of POTD and FeaturedPictures is to get people more involved with working on pictures. But I see that the other sections of the MainPage no longer encourage nominate new FeaturedArticles etc., so removing the nominate a new image link is probably the way to go. -- Solipsist 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

~~please move the link to~~ See the blue box in the top-right of Talk:Main_Page, where the other sections have "suggest" links :) -Quiddity 08:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the link, and made the box a bit more noticable. Template:Main_Page_discussion_header. --Quiddity 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That was step number one, but the "Nominate new image" link still has to vanish from the mainpage. --Dschwen 06:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh! whoops. i had assumed that would require an admin. but yes, that was only pt 1. ;) -Quiddity 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Dschwen. Removing the link on the main page will probably decrease the number of nominations that have no chance of winning (snapshots, cellphone pictures etc.), and which does not facilitate the work done on WP:FPC Glaurung 06:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was WP:BOLD and changed the links for the upcoming days from April 13th on, today and tomorrow are protected. I left notes on the discussion pages of these two. --Dschwen 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the protected pages (including today's). I just need to find the templates now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I have updated all of the templates. However, that won't fix the pictures that have already been put together on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 2006 (part of May also needs updating), so if someone wants to do those, by all means, go for it. I unfortunately don't have the time (or patience) to individually edit all of them. Thanks in advance, if someone does decide to do it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I already edited all those days, but only the row version which appears on the main page. --Dschwen 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooops I only checked the main listing. Good work. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Southward

Could somebody note that these are North American butterflies known for their southward migration? When I hear southward, I tend to think Spain, rather than Mexico. I'm sure other people tend to think India or Tasmania. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 23:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

...or Antartica since that's all the is south of me...--Midnight tonight 08:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_picture

Is there any reason for this page to exist? I don't want to put it up for deletion in case there's something important about it I'm not getting but it looks like it's not being used any more and that it should be a redirect. Edit: Oops. I posted this a week ago at Template_talk:Pic_of_the_day instead of here and was wondering why no one had answered me. Sorry. All these similar pages are really confusing. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 09:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, seems to have been some sort of test or proposed page, so I turned it into a redirect for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Something like that would be useful though so it might be worth working on. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I assume it was abandoned because it would have been sort of redundant to the picture of the day. Because after all, any picture of the day must have already been promoted to featured picture status. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant the archive but I then realised there is one here so that would be silly. Thanks for the quick responses. I just always feel a bit lost in the picture side of things. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Walschaerts motion.gif

I'm at a loss trying to figure out how to do the POTD entry for this image, an animated GIF. User:Janke specifically says on the FPC nomination not to resize it as the animation will break. As it's 549px wide, it's too large to fit in the standard templates. One option would be to get a static version and add a link to the animated one. Any other ideas? Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no responses, I guess the answer is that this just doesn't get to be a POTD. Oh well. howch e ng {chat} 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just do it how a panorama is done. It's fine. (Go back to a recnet panorama for the code.) Wh does the animation matter?--Here T oHelp 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding POTD's

Today's POTD, featured in the Calvary Cemetery, Queens article, struck me as being almost too beautiful to be taken 'naturally.' It's a great photo, and I don't wish to take anything away from it; I'd just like to know whether photographers photoshop/tweek their photos so as to enhance their quality. This may seem like a very naive question (it is), but I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me.

FLafaire 00:50, 19 Sept. 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case, I don't know if the original photographer did anything, but noise and contrast were adjusted during the picture's nomination discussion. IMHO any enhancements made to the image are still part of the creative process. Ansel Adams wasn't just a great photographer, but a master in the darkroom as well. howch e ng {chat} 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I created this template to place on the description pages of images that are featured as POTD. I'm using the Wikipedia logo in it, much as Commons:Template:Picture of the day has the Commons logo in it, but I'm not too keen on it. If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd like to hear them. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice. I just modified the logo so that it isn't transparent in places it's not supposed to be anymore. --Dschwen 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

whats with that

Why does it say "That is absoloutly sick!"--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just vandalism, which is now removed. howch e ng {chat} 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as POTD?

I've been looking through the POTD archives and I've noticed that Wikipe-tan is to be POTD on October 2. I know this is a consequence of POTD being the list of FPs in the order they get promoted, but this is a Self-reference which I would rather not see on the Main Page. Personally I'd like to see it replaced with another FP, I'm not disputing Wikipe-tan's status as an FP, but think it is inappropriate for the Main Page in the same way Raul has said Wikipedia will never be Today's FA. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, POTDs are supposed to represent article topics, and Wikipe-tan does: she represents Moé anthropomorphism and her image is used in the article. If it's a self-reference for her to be featured on the Main Page, isn't the inclusion of the image in the article also a self-reference? But to summarize WP:ASR, it's OK to write about Wikipedia as long as it's in the proper context. The only thing I think could be removed is the link to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. The other link to m:Wikipedia mascot is only on the POTD template that's used on user pages; it's not included in the template that will appear on the Main Page. howch e ng {chat} 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the question was raised when the image was promoted for "featured" status. As long as the blurb makes it clear that it is an example of Moé anthropomorphism, I don't see the harm. Wikipedia is now a Former featured article, so that question does not arise. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess this takes care of the Main-page version? Melchoir 04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with Nilfanion. While I'm not all against self-references, and feel them acceptable in articles if justified, putting a self-referencing picture illustrating this subject is way too much. First of all, Moe Antropomorphism is a subject of obscure otaku interest, not known or interesting to vast majority. Second, we only have a poor quality article on it, which is unlikely to become FA or GA. So neither most readers are informed or interested in this subject, nor we have a good article on it; therefore I don't think this reference is justified. OK for an article, not for the main page. For a normal reader it is just another self-reference. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I support having this as a Main Page POTD, provided that it is used to illustrate the anthropomorphism, not just the ENC project. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the image is good enough to be a featured image. It is being used to illustriaght Moé anthropomorphism (other versions are being used for other things). In areas where other free images are hard to come by there is nothing wrong with useing a series of user created images with a common theme.Geni 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is not about featured status. It is whether a self-referencing image, useful only as an illustration of a particularly obscure subject, which we do not even have a good article about, should be featured on the main page. Well illustrating a subject of wide interest is one thing; such images are the best. Illustrating subject of a featured article is excellent as well. However, this image would be... just out of context. It is not interesting out of the context, and leads to one of problematic article we surely won't be proud to show the visitors. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been that long since a picture of the day resulted in a red link being on the main page (it was Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 12, 2006 and the redlink was Craugastor lineatus).Geni 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

POTD not a Featured Picture

Quite a few recent POTD selections are not Featured images. Some editors are simply posting their own images as POTD, without any peer-review, while others are posting images which have failed as FP candidates. What should be done about this? --Digon3 17:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, thought this was the commons. --Digon3 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Do you have any examples? To my knowledge (and I'm the one who's been writing the blurbs since April) there has never been a POTD that is not also a FP. Perhaps you are thinking of the recent few which were not promoted recently (e.g., Martian sunset, Ajanta paintings, animated horse) -- these were for some reason skipped in the normal scheduling process. Or maybe you are referring to those which are repeats (plasma lamp arc, wakizashi) -- these are necessary because we have 7 PsOTD per week and we don't promote 7 new FPs/week, so without repeats we are going to reach a point where we have exhausted the supply of FPs. howch e ng {chat} 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On Commons, not all PsOTD are FPs. I don't remember where it's so stated, and I don't know who schedules them, but that's just how it is over there. howch e ng {chat} 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

how to nominate a featured picture to be pic of the day?

Nielswik_(talk) 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All FPs, with a few exceptions, have been or will be the POTD. They are currently featured in order of promotion, with the newest ones being taken from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 06 (newest on top), with the reruns (Tuesdays and Fridays) being drawn from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 02. The exceptions are some animations which are too big to fit on the main page and cannot be resized properly. I also occasionally take special requests, such as July 26, 2006, which was Maldivian independence day. Which picture did you want to see on the main page? howch e ng {chat} 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I liked this It is a featured pic. I think the picture is really nice and meaningful, and it was taken in my country as well :) Nielswik_(talk) 17:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

oops, looks like it has been chosen as pic of the day. Thank you anyway Nielswik_(talk) 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy in text for Picture of the Day on 2nd November?

Picture of the Day for tomorrow, 2nd November 2006, describes 'view of the Earth rising above the surface of the Moon'. Okay if you're in an orbit around the moon. But, from the surface of the moon the earth doesn't rise. It stays where it is and changes phase. If you're were on the back of the moon , you'd never see Earth. If you're in the middle of the 'front', Earth's sits overhead. --Eddie | Talk 08:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the picture is titled "Earthrise" and the astronauts were indeed orbiting. I will add this to the Apollo 8 article, however. howch e ng {chat} 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every FP should be POTD

Alright, I know we're running low on new featured pictures to use as picture of the day, but please, at least check to see if an image still meets FPC requirements before you queue it for POTD. A couple of POTD images in the past little while went up for featured picture delisting -- successfully, I might add.

The current picture of the day, Image:Lugano_prokudin.jpg, will probably be heading in that direction too, seeing as how it doesn't meet the minimum dimension requirements (by a long shot).

Someone needs to go through all featured pictures listed before 2006 and make sure they still meet up to current standards. ♠ SG →Talk 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that size alone is not a sufficient criterion for delisting from FP status. If you are interested in going through the reruns, they are currently being pulled from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 02. howch e ng {chat} 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Animated POTDs

I see there are two animated POTDs scheduled for this month. Can we please make sure that both are represented on the main page with a small static version? Zocky | picture popups 02:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. I'm on it. howch e ng {chat} 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks?

Do we really want to link the usernames of image creators if they have no user pages? Wouldn't it be better just to leave them unlinked? November 5th and 6th are examples. Chick Bowen 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's only done for the userpage version. On the row version, which appears on the main page, it's linked to the user's talk page. howch e ng {chat} 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very smart. Sorry, I should have noticed that. Chick Bowen 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Text version template

Could we modify the template to allow users including this on their page to customize it so that it goes with their page style? We could do this with the use of variables. For example, the width statement in the template could be width="{{{width|600}}}". To make this change effective, we would have to change the following things:

width
border-color
border-style
background-color

Is this a good idea? I think it could be really helpful, and it wouldn't change the default at all. Thanks, Shardsof metal T C 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this will work. The only caveat I can think of is that the width shouldn't be adjustable, especially if someone wants to make it smaller -- because the image isn't resizable, then at smaller widths, the text will get squished into a narrow column. But I guess if they like it that way, I can't stop them. The other thing to think of is that panoramas are displayed at 500px across, so even the width were set smaller, it would still be a little wider than the image itself. howch e ng {chat} 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

November 26 picture

Image:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh.jpg

Someone replace this post haste. This is seriously embarrassing to have such a crudely doctored picture get featured status, much less "Picture of the day" status. How many people were asleep at the switch here? ~ trialsanderrors 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all featured pictures get to be POTD with some exceptions, so it was just this picture's turn in the rotation. I'll have you know that when I wrote its POTD blurb I scrutinized the nomination heavily to make sure it had been properly promoted. Having come to the conclusion that it was indeed proper, I respected the consensus decision and scheduled it to have its day in the sun. howch e ng {chat} 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured lists

I wanted to float an idea that had been raised before on Wikipedia talk:Featured content and Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates (and probably in a few other places too). We now have a technical means (through cunning use of include and noinclude, as I understand it) to display the top part of a featured list in a box, like the Main Page featured article. See, for example, the "Featured list" section on Wikipedia:Featured content.

I think it would be nice to get some of our featured lists on the Main Page somewhere occasionally, like the WP:POTD used to share a slot (was it WP:DYK?) before it became a permanent full-time feature. It would be tricky to fit a featured list into a small space like that, but it would naturally fit in the largish box used for the Main Page POTD. I wonder if there is any support (or objection) to WP:FL hijacking the POTD spot on the Main Page once or twice a week, say on a Sunday to start with? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the POTD takes up 100% of the width of the column, I wouldn't object to taking up only 50% of the space (like in some of the Main Page alternatives and giving the other half to FL. One question: Are there enough FLs to have one a day on the Main Page? howch e ng {chat} 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are over 160 FLs, although not all will be suitable, nor do all (yet) have the necessary tagging to make this work. About 10 are being added every month. Clearly there are not (yet) enough to have a different one every day; on the other hand, one a week would last for 3 years (or two a week would last for 18 months - by which time we would hope to have another 180 FLs, and so on). I suspect this will work best, at least to begin with, as a straight replacement, but I guess we could do a mock-up to see how 50% works. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any further discussion on this? I'd love to see featured lists start getting featured, if only once a week, on the main page. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Actually, it's not 50% -- the left column is slightly wider than the right, so maybe a 60/40 split. howch e ng {chat} 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well… I was kind of hoping somebody might come up with a draft of how this would look. It would be great to see this happen, are there any strong objections, and, if not, is anybody up for visualizing it in Wiki markup? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Skipping a FP for POTD

There is an image that is about to be awarded FP but a number of people have expressed concern that it may be off-putting to have it appear on the main page. Is there any way we can award this image FP status but skip it for the regular POTD rotation? (And you don't need to remind me that Wikipedia is not censored, I just don't think the welcome page should have "shock value") --Dgies 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now I count four people out of 31 expressing uncertainty whether the pic should show up as PotD, and two (count me in, that makes three) people explicitly in favour of the pic making it PotD. I'd find it very frustrating if such a high value picture would be deprived of the PotD honors. Sometimes people have to be shown unpleasant pics, you cannot wrap them in cotton and expect them to learn new exciting stuff at the same time. --Dschwen 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

POTDs for today and tomorrow

The POTDs for today and tomorrow are currently the same; see WP:AN#WP:POTD can be speedied? for the reason. There are two options, as I see it (well, three, I guess, including changing it back, but I think that would be a bad idea for the reasons stated at the noticeboard)--leave the picture for the 20th up for the extra day, so that it gets about 41 hours, or shift everything up, so that the spitfire image gets 17 hours. The latter, naturally, is more work. What do others think? Chick Bowen 07:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving it up for the extra day -- but the fact that the RSS feed for POD is still talking about the lake effect snow picture is very confusing. How about just adding a link to the reason discussion to the main page? Something like Were you expecting a lake effect snow picture? See this discussion. Rpresser 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, where exactly would you like that link? Sorry, I don't use the RSS feed and am not sure how it works. If you mean put a link to WP:AN on the main page itself, we don't do that. I've unprotected the image page, though, so anyone can put anything explanatory they want on that. There's got to be a way to purge the cache for RSS but I don't know how. Chick Bowen 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll just make a new one for the 20th. howch e ng {chat} 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection of PotD row

Please see Talk:Main_Page#Vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Main Page. Can those here who maintain the POTD please remember to protect the POTD pages before they go onto the main page. The 'row' pages are protected up to and including 11 January 2007. If there is no reason to have the ones that have already been created for after this date (the one from 12-24th January) protected, could they be protected now and the new ones protected as they are created? If you only want to have protection of the ones a week or a fortnight away from the main page, could you adjust the list here so that there is a "protect" link available for admins to click on as a template approaches the main page, similar to the "edit" link already available? Carcharoth 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should stay unprotected until close to the live date -- 48 hrs max. The reason is that they often get improved after I initially write them and I really would rather not discourage people from doing so. howch e ng {chat} 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should stay open until close to the live date. At the moment, a big futurelog of protection has been implemented, probably as a reaction to the way having one slip through allowed the Main Page vandalism we've seen. Hopefully, if any pages like this get forgotten again, the bot here will alert people. Carcharoth 01:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)