Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Scheduling/writing blurb

Hey, PotD! As someone who has just done this for the first time, I was wondering about something from a noob point of view.

There are images scheduled that don't have blurbs yet. Is that an indication to other editors that the editor who scheduled that image wants to write that blurb, or would just writing blurbs be helpful? Or would you not want someone coming in here and starting to write blurbs who didn't have experience with the rest of the process? Or maybe you don't want people scheduling images without knowing they're going to have to write that blurb so they better take a look at the article first?

The reason I ask is that the blurb writing to me was the undaunting part of the process, and the straight writing of blurbs for images that have already been scheduled by someone else might be a way of luring in someone who is intimidated by the idea of figuring out that first step (which took me two fails and remedial instruction) but perfectly willing to try blurb writing, and then after writing a few blurbs, maybe they think, hey, I'd like to learn to choose the images! :) --valereee (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: POTDs can be scheduled or written by anyone. When I go through upcoming POTDs, I find pictures that were scheduled a long time ago by other users, but there's no guarantee that they'll be around or willing to write a blurb for the picture that they scheduled. It's completely fine if they do write a bit about the picture, and I do try to adapt what they've written if possible, but I will normally flesh it out or copyedit it to conform to conventional POTD style. Normally, when I schedule POTDs in advance, I choose a date that's meaningful to the picture – especially anniversaries or birthdays associated with the event/person, e.g. Jacinda Ardern on her 40th birthday in 2020. I normally leave blurbs to be written at a later time, in case they become outdated, in case someone else wants to write it and/or because I just can't be bothered to craft one at that moment. Also, having almost single-handedly maintained POTD for the past couple months at least, some help with scheduling or blurb-writing would be much appreciated. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
RP, that's exactly what C&C said when they were schooling me. I'm primarily a DYKer, but I'm definitely happy to help with PotD, too. 19:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
See WP:Picture of the day/Guidelines. —howcheng {chat} 07:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering how the POTD system worked, so the above explanation is useful. At one time pictures were chosen weeks ahead of time and I occasionally improved the connected articles in anticipation of their appearance on the main page. Maybe I could contribute to the image selection and/or blurb writing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: That would be excellent. Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I did a couple of blurbs and one whole process for 28 November 2019. The only step I omitted was step3 in the guidelines, because I wasn't clear about quite what was needed. Did I miss anything? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Actually, the POTD guidelines seem to be a little outdated – we've hardly (if ever) used the {{NotifyPOTD}} and {{UpcomingPOTD}} templates, for example. My standard POTD procedure is just (1) schedule an FP for a certain date, (2) attach {{Picture of the day}} to the local file description page and (3) write the blurb. Regarding the {{Picture of the day}} template, this goes on the local file description page, i.e. File:Lichfield Cathedral High Altar from choir, Staffordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: One more thing I've realised with your POTD choice: the Lichfield Cathedral article is tagged with {{more citations needed}}, which, in my opinion, makes it unsuitable to be bolded on the Main Page. While we don't require that the whole article be fully referenced, we should follow the typical Main Page convention that bolded articles be free of template messages indicating a lack of sufficient quality. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: Thanks. I have added the template to the file. I have found a source for the cathedral's history, so I will add some references to the article and remove the "more citations needed" tag. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: I have used a Snowy egret image for Dec 10th, with the intention of improving the article and removing the referencing tag. In so doing I found there was a massive copyvio which I have now removed, and asked for a revdel. When that has been done, I will bring the article up to scratch in plenty of time for its scheduled appearance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Workshopping a proposal for a new user group

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because in that case we would rather spend our time promoting queues than in organizing a large-scale RfC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

marsh fritillary

This was a PotD I worked on -- did I do something that caused the correct version not to be protected? --valereee (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't understand the sequence of events, but I have replaced the Marsh fritillary in the 15 December slot, from which it had vanished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, you clearly understand it better than I do :D --valereee (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee and Cwmhiraeth: Apologies for the tardiness of my reply, but I can answer what happened. I originally replaced the 13 December POTD (Flowers in a Terracotta Vase) with the 15 December one (marsh fritillary), because the former did not have an associated article for the bolded text to link to, as I stated in my edit summary. However, in doing so, I neglected to replace/update the day's protected version, which had already been created by AnomieBOT about 20 minutes prior. This discrepancy went unnoticed, until I realised my mistake when the painting was about to make its way onto the Main Page. I posted an error report at WP:ERRORS in response to replace the POTD on the Main Page with the butterfly, but it was hardly addressed and the painting thus remained the POTD for that day, with the butterfly returning to 15 December. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, no worries on the delay, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd done (or neglected to do) that I needed to make sure I did/didn't do next time! :) --valereee (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification sought

I have recently begun selecting pictures for POTD and writing blurbs. There are guidelines on how it should be done, with the oldest featured images taking priority. The first image I nominated for 12 December 2019 was disallowed because it did not appear in any article. Fair enough. The second image I nominated for the same day was queried because, although it appeared in two articles, there was no specific article Flowers in a Terracota Vase. I have now been told, in connection with another nomination, "It is highly irregular to create a POTD with no bold linked target article as you did in Template:POTD/2019-12-31. We usually skip these FPs until such time that an appropriate article is created to support POTD appearance". If we followed this rule, masses of featured pictures would be excluded from POTD, including most of the bank note images, coins, medals, engravings and many paintings. Even when a picture has a dedicated article, if it is a brief stub, an insufficiently referenced BLP, or an article with maintenance tags, I am told the picture is unsuitable.

Now the POTD guidelines state that pictures should appear on a first in, first out basis, but that the same "theme" should not be scheduled in close succession. The only exceptions mentioned refer to suitability of the image for main page display (not too wide, too salacious or too grotesque). Nothing about appearing in articles or having its own specific page. So could we clarify what rules apply, which images qualify for POTD and which don't, and rewrite the guidelines accordingly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

With no response to my request for clarification, let's ping some people who have been active here recently for their views. @Armbrust, Howcheng, Amakuru, Ravenpuff, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Valereee: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Many of the bank notes and coins were promoted at FPC as a set. We should feature them on the Main Page as a set as in Template:POTD/2017-07-01. For example, Template:POTD/2020-01-04 should feature all four coins in the set randomized using Module:Random. I can show you how to create that if you would like.
There are two solutions for FPs that are not included on any article: (1) include the photo in a relevant article; or (2) nominate at WP:FPC to be delisted.
FP without a specific corresponding article are difficult but skipping them for now is acceptable. You could also create the article if there is enough material to be written to get us to almost start level. This is not DYK. So we do not have a page size requirement per se. Any article about twice the size of the blurb will be enough in my opinion. As long as the reader can get a little more information by clicking through to the article, I personally can live with it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: First in first out is not intended to be strictly enforced. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A few observations from me, having done most of the scheduling from August 2018 to earlier this year:
  • First of all, the rules of WP:Featured pictures state that they must be "freely licensed or in the public domain, must be of a high technical quality, and must add significantly to at least one article on Wikipedia". So if a picture doesn't satisfy the last criterion, then it should either be delisted or added to an article, as C&C says, and should not appear on POTD until that's done. In most cases this happens because someone has replaced the image in its main target article at some point after featuring... sometimes with a "better" image, but more often with a less good image, which means reverting back to the featured one would be in order. In the case of the rosetta, it seems that it was featured as an image for Shah Japan, and C&C has since added it back to that article, so it could be listed for POTD again.
  • The flower picture is a slightly different issue, in that the target articles which led to be its being featured are not actually about the painting itself, but the two artists. Historically, such pictures have still been used for POTD, but there should still be a bolded article, which means using one or both of the artists. See for example Template:POTD/2018-03-02, which is about a painting but is bold-linked to the artist. I rarely listed POTDs of this nature myself, but precedent would suggest it's OK. All facts used in the blurb must be included in the target article and cited there though, so obviously make sure that's the case.
  • On the FIFO question, I broadly sought to follow that, but with plenty of wriggle-room for exceptions, in order to keep the daily output balanced and varied. Often I'd feature recently-promoted FPs if they were on a topic that hadn't been covered so much... and trends have changed over time, meaning whereas older ones tend to be a lot of coins, notes and paintings, more recent ones feature space and technology more. Balance is key.
  • As C&C says, sets of notes/coins/stamps etc. should generally be listed all at once, as they tend to be large sets, and there isn't that much value in having each individual one on a different day. Bear in mind, though, that unless the templates have changed this approach requires an admin to protect all images in the set prior to go-live, as the cascading protection doesn't necessarily apply to images which keep being swapped in and out of the main page.
Anyway, other than all that, I'll say thanks to Cwmhiraeth for stepping up to work in this area.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The protection part is theoretically fixed with the creation of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/On the main pages, which is cascade-protected and uses Module:POTD transcluder to transclude all the random choices. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, nice one, thanks for doing that.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Nothing specific to add, except thank you Cwmhiraeth for taking on this task. —howcheng {chat} 16:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all. I have listed a coin for the 4th January 2020. If someone wants to change that one into the set of four, I would know how to deal with such sets on another occasion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I have converted it into a multi-blurb. I could use your help in expanding each blurb seperately. There are located at:
I will create the protected versions when the date is close at hand. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Very good! I will do a some blurb expansion. Presumably some of the text can be the same while other parts vary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, can you find a source to cite for the engraver of the Louis XVI coin. I think it is Pierre-Simon-Benjamin Duvivier but can find a good source to cite. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is B. Duvivier as per this site, and have added his name to the Louis d'or article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2020-01-24 has unexpected content

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2020-01-24, I found that Template:POTD/2020-01-24 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2020-01-24/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2020-01-24 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Unused image as POTD

The current POTD File:Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord - Pierre-Paul Prud'hon.jpg does not appear in the linked article Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. Indeed, it is only being used in the article space at Before the Revolution, a 1964 Italian romantic drama film. See my comment at Main Page errors.[1] That seems somewhat unusual. It became a featured picture 4.5 years ago, but it wasn't there three years ago [2] so this is not a new situation. Theramin (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I sought advice on this and other points in the section above entitled "Clarification sought". POTD does not seem to have a strict set of rules in the way DYK does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There was some discussion at WP:ERRORS but that is lost in the history now. Here is a link: [3] To quote what Amakuru said there: "the image must appear in the bolded article for POTD, otherwise in what way is it illustrating that topic? Therefore I'd request those scheduling them to please check this before running. If the image has been removed, then we must either (1) reinsert it, (2) use a different article for that image, or (3) request that it be removed or replaced as an FP at WP:FPC." That all seems sensible to me. Theramin (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2020-02-09 has unexpected content - Fixed

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2020-02-09, I found that Template:POTD/2020-02-09 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2020-02-09/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2020-02-09 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@AnomieBOT: Fixed. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2020-02-22 has unexpected content - Fixed

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2020-02-22, I found that Template:POTD/2020-02-22 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2020-02-22/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2020-02-22 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: The POTD template is supposed to use "default" as the default for |style=. Why do you keep changing it to "row"? Anomie⚔ 12:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Anomie: Thanks for notifying me. I know full well that the template should read "default", but often temporarily replace it with "row" when editing just to preview the layout once it goes on the Main Page; I've obviously forgotten to change it back on occasion. My apologies. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2020-04-15 has unexpected content - Fixed

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2020-04-15, I found that Template:POTD/2020-04-15 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2020-04-15/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2020-04-15 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of interest

Watchers of this talk page may be interested in this proposal about creating a new usergroup for main page edits. This is the same proposal on which opinions were solicited here some months ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently promoted image

A featured picture that was promoted on 17 April 2020 is currently scheduled to appear on 29 April 2020, Template:POTD/2020-04-29. It was listed there by I'm Aya Syameimaru! who had nominated it as a featured picture candidate. As we usually operate on a "first in, first out" basis, and there is a large backlog of FPs that have never appeared on the main page, I propose rescheduling the Neo Geo CD image to a later date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I was the one who chose April 29 as the date; I was on a rush. You may go ahead about changing the date because I think the later date is more professionally done, I guess. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I propose we leave this to proceed as scheduled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and I'm Aya Syameimaru!: The bolded article is prominently tagged with refimprove, though, so I'd suggest rescheduling or removing it from POTD for now until the article is in better shape. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: Actually, that refimprove tag has been in the article since 2008, since when numerous sources have been added. I have removed one unsourced statement, and added a citation where there was a "citation needed" tag, so I reckon it is in good enough shape now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I've taken another look and it does seem fine now; thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Now it seems like that the article is clear for the image's appearance on the main page. «I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako» 15:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May 6 (Cuban silver certificates)

@Cwmhiraeth and Coffeeandcrumbs: I recall that there was a plan to add the reverse sides of the banknotes to the POTD templates. While I'm not opposed to this, I think that it might be worthwhile that we create the protected versions early, so that we can see exactly how they'll look, considering that this would be a novel application of WP:IAR to POTD. Thoughts? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ravenpuff, agreed. I experimented with it and I think it is relatively easy to make it happen. I was waiting till the date was closer. I will create them now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, I think I got it. Please take a look and tell me what you think. I am not sure what we should do with the archiving. Since the unprotected version is the one that survives. Perhaps we should wait till after May 6 and overwrite the unprotected version with the version from the protected template before it is deleted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad it has been possible to incorporate the reverse sides into the day's templates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Sorry, I haven't gotten around to replying to this until now, but I presume you've noticed that I've managed to encode the reverse sides into the regular template and archive layout so that they display correctly in the archives. This hasn't been done for the "default" POTD layout, as that's under template protection (and, arguably, the archive / Main Page layout should really be the default). I've also tweaked the protected versions a little to provide some space between the two pages so that readers know they're actually two separate images. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, this is a solution we will need again and often. We should find a more permanent and reusable method. But this is beyond my skills. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I've tweaked {{POTD row}} such that it should properly generate dual POTDs when substed, which should obviate the need to create the protected versions manually. We can just follow the syntax for the Cuban silver certificates; the templates should be able to handle the rest. Is there anything else that would be necessary to make it more permanent or reusable? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, it would be good if the "default" template also showed image2. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: As above, {{POTD default}} is under template protection, but I've submitted an edit request to allow support of dual POTDs. You can check out the testcase with an updated sandbox version in the meantime. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record and convenience, subjects of the discussion:
—⁠andrybak (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Update to UpcomingPOTD and NotifyPOTD templates

I've improved the above two templates for consistency, and so that they use slightly better language and present the POTD blurbs in a more pleasing layout that mimics their future appearance on the Main Page. In particular, {{NotifyPOTD}} now automatically creates a section header like {{UpcomingPOTD}}, and creates a default salutation of "Hi [username]," when the first parameter is passed as blank. Please let me know if you have any concerns regarding these changes. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried them out today and they seemed fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: On further thoughts, I don't like your changes to the notify nominator/uploader template. Have a look at this page and you can see a previous version of the notification and the present version. I think the previous version is quite adequate, and even preferable, as a courtesy notification. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I'd argue that this is probably a matter of taste, but I'm very much open to amending the wording or layout. In addition, I'd also note that you don't strictly have to use the pre-prepared templates to satisfy the POTD notification requirement. Out of curiosity, what aspects do you think are not preferable as compared to the previous version? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: I prefer the thumbnail size image and the opportunity for the nominator/uploader to participate in the blurb without overwhelming their talk page by giving a full version. The photographer is probably more interested in the fact that theire image is to be the POTD rather than what the caption says. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's ask @Rhododendrites and Coffeeandcrumbs: which notification they would prefer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong preference. For most of us, POTD is relatively uncommon, so I'm not worried about taking up too much space on my user page. If viewing on my computer, I kind of like seeing the full blurb there, I guess? My one gripe would be that I first pulled up the example on my phone, and the fixed size of the thumbnail meant the whole blurb had to be displayed about 4 characters at a time, making for a very long (vertically) box. (Pinging Charlesjsharp and Adam Cuerden, two people who come to mind that would see this more often than I would). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I like it. However, the mobile issue should be addressed if possible. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, Rhododendrites, and Coffeeandcrumbs: As a sort of compromise, I've rewritten the templates such that they can now display both alternatives – |display=blurb (the default) will display the Main Page version with blurb underneath the message as it does currently, whereas |display=thumb will omit the blurbed version and display a thumbnail floating on the right (|size= can modify this). This is a little hard to incorporate into test cases, but you could try to preview them in a sandbox to check that they work. I've set up some test cases at Template:NotifyPOTD/testcases to try and illustrate this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I'll be honest, I'm probably going to ping over to POTD, so I don't mind either way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Prince James Francis Edward Stuart scheduled for June 10, 2020

I have made a small edit to the main article, changning "conception" to "pregnancy", for reasons explained in the the article's Talk page. I am mentioning it here because the edit will also show up in the text accompanying the POTD. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Subject: Template:POTD/2020-06-10. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Marchmont: Thank you. That wording sounds better and I have altered the POTD caption to match. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2007-09-01

The picture in Template:POTD/2007-09-01 has been deleted. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on File:Ana Santos Aramburo en la sede de Recoletos de la Biblioteca Nacional de España (crop 2).jpg

I have to say that I don't think File:Ana Santos Aramburo en la sede de Recoletos de la Biblioteca Nacional de España (crop 2).jpg is an especially great picture to use for the Main Page. It's a perfectly nice photo in the technical sense, but the portrait of a high-profile Spanish library administrator and the associated article is of very little interest to the average reader. I'm not too familiar with POTD, but if there's a basic criterion of interestingness, this doesn't seem to meet it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2020-07-10

Did you notice the picture says "Oedant arma toga", not "Cedant arma toga"? I'm not sure how to fix it, because "oedant" doesn't seem to mean anything, and the "cedant" translation looks consistent with Google Translate. But I don't see how you can say "The motto is Cedant Arma Toga", because it isn't. Art LaPella (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: I did notice. Could we add "(misspelt here)" or somesuch? It is apparently part of a quotation from Cicero. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Art LaPella and Cwmhiraeth:, for "misspelt here" there is Template:Sic, which I've added in Special:Diff/965766532, but it doesn't seem quite enough. A better wording, describing how the translated meaning is assumed with misspelling in mind would be helpful. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Cicero apparently stated "Cedant arma togae, concedat laurea laudi" which according to this source meant that war was about to give way to peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
In the Wyoming arms as depicted on a contemporary banknote (shown here) the phrase is correctly spelt "Cedant arma togæ", so the mistake in this image was apparently the engraver's. Andrew Dalby 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2020-09-17

The POTD scheduled for 17 September 2020 is Template:POTD/2020-09-17. Now I notice that the general rule is that images that have appeared as POTD should not appear again because of the backlog of images that have not yet appeared, and this image appeared in 2006. I would like to make an exception for it because it has been nominated, and the caption written, by User:FEMSmatt, who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. I would not like his only contribution to be rejected on a technicality, and as an electron micrograph of bacteria, this image adds interest and variety to POTD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, we have made exceptions before and allowed FP's to appear twice for especial occasions. I am not sure we should make an exception for not knowing how the system works.
However, if you feel that it adds variety, I do not think it would be outside your discretion to allow the re-appearance of an image that is more than 15 years old as an FP. I do point out that our FPC standards are much higher now, and the resolution of the image while still above the requirements are on the lower end. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
During my tenure as POTD coordinator I did sometimes schedule repeats, e.g. For the WW1 anniversary in 2018. Like C&C I'd say just use your discretion. It should be an exception, but if you want to grant such an exception in this case then go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm not in charge of POTD, nobody is, as far as I know. I have just been filling a gap, with Ravenpuff improving my efforts. So I don't intend to remove this image, but somebody else can do so if they feel it should not appear. Incidentally, I have worked through quite a lot of the backlog of earlier images, by expanding stubs and adding references to tagged articles, and now the older unused images are mostly banknotes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2020-11-02 (name of image is misleading.)

According to a comment on the Cassini-Huygens talk page, it looks like File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg will be the picture of the day for November 2nd. That's fine with me, but the name of the image isn't right. It does not show Saturn at equinox. The rings would not have been illuminated at equinox. As the text describes, it shows Saturn in July of 2008, about a year before the actual equinox of 12 August 2009. Fcrary (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Usage of POTDs on portals

First of all, thank you maintainers of POTD for their work. The POTD archive is a mother load of content, for which another use case has been introduced.

Portals are notoriously hard to maintain. To make addition of featured pictures to portals easier, two new templates were created: {{Portal pictures}} and {{Portal POTD}}. Both templates use subpages of Template:POTD for their content and need only dates of POTDs for input. I would very welcome feedback about these templates, especially their layout. Examples of their usage can be seen at Portal:History and Portal:Sports. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2020-11-20 has unexpected content - Fixed

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2020-11-20, I found that Template:POTD/2020-11-20 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2020-11-20/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2020-11-20 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2020-11-20 begins with {{POTD/2020-11-20/{{#invoke:random|number|9}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}, which fits the second variant, described by the bot, with N=9. All nine subpages exist. Seems like a bug. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the bot incorrectly expects a new line after the last closing brace. The first regex (and corresponding substitution) in subroutine "run" should not have \n at the end:
^\s*\Q{{POTD/$date/{{#invoke:random|number|\E(\d+)\Q}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}\E\s*\n
Here's a test for regex without the newline: [4]. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I've created Template:POTD protected/2020-11-20 manually. Subpages were created by Ravenpuff. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I've created it incorrectly (copy-pasted input instead of output from regex101.com)—it has been fixed by Anomie. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: the new line should not be used at the end of regex and substitution because per Wikipedia:Template documentation § Put documentation in the template:

Make sure the opening <noinclude> begins immediately after the last character of the template code or text and not on a new line, nor with any intervening spaces. Otherwise, extra space will be inserted below the template when it is used, which is usually not wanted.

And indeed, such line breaks have caused some issues with POTD templates before. For example, when there is a line break, then every caller of {{POTD image}} must trim its output, before using the filename. That's why I have removed the newline. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Bot has been fixed: Special:Diff/989440690. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

November 26th POTD

Why was this two images, nominated in two nominations, in two different styles, showing two different people? I could see it if the images were part of a gallery, but these images were also used on the pages of the people they depict, and, because they were combined, the text didn't show the actual subject - It describes the wrong performer for each image: Adolphe-Joseph-Louis Alizard is described on the picture of Gilbert Duprez, and vice-versa.

This was badly handled, and I'd ask they be rescheduled sometime next year as individual images. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 09:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably should do this as a broader discussion, so Talk:Main Page Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 09:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: When I first saw you had posted here I thought you might be going to ask the question that I was asking myself, "Why did today's POTD (November 28) get scheduled when it had only become a featured picture a few weeks ago, and other featured pictures have to wait as long as five or more years before appearing on POTD?" However, that was not the question you asked.
I see that @Amakuru: first listed these images together on 21 September 2018‎, with the single word caption Jérusalem, and both pictures have been included in the POTD schedule since then. When I expanded the caption on 14 November 2020 I used the opera as the lead article. The article Gilbert Duprez could have been used as a lead for one of the pictures if they had appeared separately, but the article Adolphe-Joseph-Louis Alizard is quite unsuitable in its present state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Ha, so it's all my fault then! In that case I offer my apologies to Adam - as I mentioned above, at that time I thought linking vaguely similar images with a common article was a good idea, but I now know better than that. On the point Cwmhiraeth raises about today's POTD, I personally think it's fine to throw in fairly recent ones occasionally, as long as you're steadily working through the older ones as well. At the time I was heavily involved with this, there was quite a significant imbalance in material, with a lot of coins and notes and artwork dominating the older entries, while the newer ones were much more varied. Thus it made sense to throw in some newer ones to give it balance.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

December 17, 2020 POTD

As we are poised to celebrate her birthday with a POTD, it's worth remembering that (at last report) Chelsea Manning hates her Wikipedia bio. So there's that. NedFausa (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Main archive page

Something that's consistently bugged me is that Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Archive (which is linked to from the Main Page itself) functions as a transclusion of the current month's POTD archive subpage. This renders the page effectively redundant, and does not really serve as an "archive" at all, especially at the beginning of a month – I believe that readers' expectations would conceivably be that they would want to see the most recent POTD appearances, not necessarily all those scheduled for that month (including those that still require further cleanup).

I've hence BOLDly amended the purpose of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Archive to now provide a rolling 30-day archive of the most recent POTDs, e.g. the 30 days from December 8 to November 9 inclusive when viewing the page on December 9. Please let me know if there are any objections to this. Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Wounded Knee aftermath5.jpg scheduled for POTD scheduled for 29 Dec 2020

Editor Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC), announced that the POTD for 29 Dec will include a photo of the Wounded Knee aftermath, while correcting the date of the image from 3 days after the 29 Dec 1890 battle to 3 weeks after the battle.

I suggest verification of the corrected date of the image.
According to official records and newspaper reports, the US Army's burial detail conducted its operations on 3 Jan 1891, securing the site from looters and preparing the mass grave and retrieving bodies. Published reports state that 16 photographs were taken that day.
While acknowledging that the image is currently publicly available from the Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2007678212/ state that it is captioned "[Big Foot's camp three weeks after the Wounded Knee Massacre (Dec. 29, 1890)", but the LOC file also states "This record contains unverified, old data from caption card."
It is disputable that four bodies remained as depicted in the image after the burial detail operations on 3 Jan 1891. The 17 Jan 1891 date may reflect the date the photograph was published after film (or plate) transport and processing.

KVJackson (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

1937 Shanghai crying baby image up for deletion

The POTD from 28 August 2020 is up for deletion at Commons. Here's the POTD template: Template:POTD/2020-08-28. Here's the deletion discussion at Commons. I am especially looking for someone who is familiar with Hearst Corporation practices. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ERRORS page discussion from 9 January 2021

TFA spotlights a featured article, and it is reasonable to require all the information in the blurb to be present in the article and for it all to be well referenced there. POTD is different. You have to link the picture to an article in which the image is used, but the picture and articles may have different main subjects. Perhaps you could direct me to a page discussing the issues you raise above, because the only one I know is these guidelines. This should probably be discussed elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, when we finally got round to the idea that this was not Commons, there was a general drive to ensure that everything in the blurb was in the target article and referenced because, after all, this is an encyclopedia. But if that's not what we're doing any more, I'll just update my expectations. I thought Amakuru might have some light to shed on this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No, TRM is correct. Every piece of text that appears *on the main page* must be fully referenced and verifiable. It's true that POTD has traditionally been given some extra leeway, in that the article itself may contain unreferenced text, which is less than ideal but has sort of emerged as a compromise around the fact that FP nominators are mainly graphics bods and not necessarily article writers. It's quite worrying that the need to reference the main page content isn't codified in any POTD guideline, but ultimately this falls back to WP:V, which is an absolutely fundamental policy. Certainly when I was coordinating POTD, the need to source all text was the absolute first and foremost rule that I followed, and that still appeared to be followed even after I stepped away from the project in mid-2019. The last major discussion I recall around POTD was this one, initiated by Espresso Addict. And although we had somewhat differing views on what the underlying purpose of POTD was, I didn't see anyone question the central philosophy that the text must be verifiable. Anyway, I have added a couple of refs and pruned a couple of lines from the blurb, so hopefully today's issues are resolved. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I do still think everything in the blurb absolutely must be verified somewhere readily accessible. I have (reluctantly) been forced to embrace the view that the rest of the linked article can be treated as akin to the linked-but-not-bolded links elsewhere on the main page -- should not be horrendous, but doesn't necessarily meet the highest standards. (Though if that's the case, perhaps not bolding it would be consistent with the rest of the main page?) By the way, I thought you were still co-ordinating PotD, Amakuru? Who's doing that now? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure there is a dedicated lead coordinator any more, although it seems like Cwmhiraeth and Ravenpuff handle most of the workload, for which much kudos is given. I think there were some more editors around penning the blurbs during 2019-20 as well, though I could be wrong. I never formally stepped down from the role (and in fact I was never formally appointed to it in the first place either), it just gradually ended up that I was writing fewer and fewer of the blurbs as others stepped up to the plate and I found myself with less time on my hands. I fully agree with you on being forced to embrace that view about the state of the articles... it just doesn't seem to be practical to get the articles up to standard; in many cases I found it quite a full-on job just verifying enough of the text to form a blurb. I think IMHO the current status quo is probably better than unbolding the target or reducing the whole thing to just a glorified caption though. POTD does generate a significant hit for all the articles it bolds, and that's probably a good thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The guidelines say "The caption should be as specific as possible about the image itself. If there is not enough to fill the entire space, then you may take some text from the article." Consider the Template:POTD/2021-01-28 blurb I have been working on today. Most of it comes from the descriptions of the items of clothing that accompany the uploaded files, but the information is not stated and referenced in the article in which these images appear. So should it be removed, as per @The Rambling Man:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Personally I think it would be easier to write a concise caption, given how dreadful some of the target articles start out, but I agree there's encyclopedic value to be drawn from a longer one, if editors can be bothered to do the work writing and sourcing it properly. I recall I wrote a few around then, then wandered off in my usual on–off fashion.
To come back to the point in hand, is there any easy way in which the sources can be highlighted so that The Rambling Man can extend his checks to them? Hidden text? It's surprising quite how many errors turn out to be present in innocuous-looking OTDs, and I can't believe the PotDs are likely to be any better. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Before Amakuru did the captions, I used to check that (a) the text in the POTD blurb was found in the target article and (b) that the text was verifiable in the target article. When his lordship turned up, he used to do the job so well I only went into it sporadically and can't recall a time when there was an issue. Today I was amazed by the length of the POTD blurb so I checked, and, well, the rest is history. While it's nice to highlight a pretty picture, this is an encyclopedia and our readers should not have one section (just one!) where the claims being made are not verifiable using RS in the target article. Why should POTD blurbs be worse than DYK, OTD, ITN etc?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite so, and it's not actually that onerous to keep it ticking along, as long as everyone writing the blurbs is aware of the two rules above and cites/writes accordingly. Most POTD topics have enough sources readily available online to generate a passable blurb. E.g. Using art gallery websites for paintings, or picking a few snippets from Encyclopedia Britannica, if it's a geographical entity. If one is short of time or the sources don't seem to be there, then a short 3 line caption can also do the job. I don't mind stepping up again and doing some of them if there's a need for it, but we should make sure we're all on the same page about how this should work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the POTD guidelines (heading there now) but my position is clear: captions for POTD should be (a) reflected in the target article and (b) verifiable. That, probably, is all that is needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a fundamental problem here, highlighted by Cwmhiraeth's British soldier, that file data is the de-facto exception to the sourcing rules, probably because the material is located on Commons not here, and featured pictures are sometimes not much better than average in this regard. I don't believe the caption material for featured pictures is generally reviewed in detail. Relying on someone who has taken a decent photograph of, say, an insect to correctly identify it is also a problem, and one not limited to PotD. For example, to pick an example of mine that's appeared on the main page, I assert that File:39 Welsh Row, Nantwich2.jpg shows the listed building that it says it does, but that's just my personal research, with no source to back it up. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think we've had incidents of images actually not being what they purport to be. I have asked on occasion "how do you know it is what it says it is?" but that's normally just chuckled away. It is a general problem, but one would hope that the WP:FPC process would cover that. Surely? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the conclusions that two or three people seem to have come to, which go against the guidelines for Picture of the Day. Please look at the following statement from the guidelines, which is supposed to contrast a "bad" caption with a "good" caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Those two examples presented date from 2005 and 2006, which was really a completely different era in Wikipedia terms. The text you mention was added in 2007. The fact is, though, that this section of the main page has evolved over the years. As has our strictness when it comes to enforcing WP:V. POTD has always unfortunately been something of a neglected backwater - for most of the 2010s it was run exclusively by Crisco, and presumably he didn't feel the need to update all the guidelines as he went along, it's just that the way he did it became the accepted norm. Fast-forward ten years from the "good caption", to December 2016, and you find a very different story. Almost every blurb is about the linked article, not about the picture. And what's written is generally stated and cited in the article. When I took over, I maintained this status quo. Ultimately this fits with the purpose of FPs which is, as well as being high-quality images, that they must be used to enhance encyclopedia articles. The latter requirement is what separates our FPs from Commons FPs, and POTD should similarly use the image to illustrate an encyclopedic topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The December 2016 captions are quite satisfactory, but I suggest that if you wish to repurpose POTD in this way, you need to rewrite the guidelines. It would be quicker and easier to write short captions like this and not mention the particular features of the picture, but it is more interesting to the observer if the caption provides some guidance on the significance of the image. This one for example explains why the letters "HJK" appear on the star. You wouldn't get that from the linked article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If the text is informative and relevant to the image, why wouldn't it appear in the target article? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

POTD/2021-02-08

Surviving series of shrines on the west

Template:POTD/2021-02-08 caption has few errors. It says: The only surviving parts of the building are two toranas (porches) and four pillars. It is inaccuarate. According to article, Two torans (porches) and four pillars of the former central structure still stand along with western part of the complex used as a congregational mosque. There is a series of shrines which was part of the temple on the west surviving and are being used as a mosque. Also the name of Jayasimha Siddharaja of Chaulukya dynasty who completed the temple complex is missing. It should be there in the caption because it was the most important figure associated with the temple. Jayasimha Siddharaja and Chaulukya dynasty has nice articles as well. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Thank you, I have made some alterations. Is that better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for changes. After commenting this, I checked article and other references. Even though the article is GA-class, it has poor quality references and littered with inaccuracies. after checking images and texts, I found following surviving structures:
  • two double-storied porches (eastern and southern)
  • one ornamental gateway (Torana) on southeast
  • four pillars of central structure with two more pillars of upper storey on top of them
  • Mosque (Four complete and one partial shrines on the west, behind the central sanctum)
The article does not reflect this. It describes this inaccurately. So Apart from the mosque, the only surviving parts of the building are two toranas (porches) and four pillars. should be changed. My suggestion: Apart from the mosque, the only surviving parts of the temple are two porches, a torana (ornamental gateway) and few pillars. What do you say? The article needs to be rewritten in my opinion. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: I don't know about the quality of the article, but I have shortened the caption to be on the safe side. Is it incorrect to put "porch" in brackets after torana? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Torana and porches are different. Torana is an ornamental gateway while a porch is a covered shelter projected in front of the entrance of a building. It has two surviving porches and one Torana. Your changes to POTD are OK but the nominated image depicts one surviving porch and few pillars so previous description was more relevant. You can go with my suggestion above which is accurate. Please do whatever you find more helpful. Regards, Nizil (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Animated phenakistiscope disc - Running rats Fantascope by Thomas Mann Baynes 1833.gif scheduled for POTD

Maybe I'm just a little too sensitive about this, but I've always disliked the careless labelling of artifacts and artworks. For instance, it has always been clear to me that Girl with a Pearl Earring doesn't feature a pearl earring. I understand how it may be useful to keep the incorrect title that was attached to it long after the painter's death, because this title has become so well known. Something similar happened with "phenakistoscope" or "phenakistiscope"; these versions are too well known and I can only hope that one day enough people will learn to replace these misspellings of the brand name of a rip-off with the term "stroboscopic disc": one of the first terms used, coined by Simon Stampfer, who is regarded as one of its inventors and who was the first to describe the stroboscopic effect - in his proper explanation of the principle of this type of animation). Fantascope would also be fine, because its earlier inventor Plateau preferred it. But I can understand why the more common term "phenakistiscope" in the text for Picture of the Day might better be left as it is.

Inventing a title for the specific example chosen as picture of the day is actually less problematic than the bastardized name for stroboscopic discs, but I don't understand the need to do this. It can be simply described as depicting running rats, instead of suggesting that there is an authoritative title. This particular animated disc was one of six in the third Fantascope series published by Ackermann and Co. in London in October 1833 (advertised in The Literary Gazette. No. 874. of 19 October 1833 - I just added a slightly later ad as a ref in the Phenakistiscope article for which I could link to a useful url - while an advertisement of 19 September still only mentioned the Phantasmascope by Plateau). I doubt any title or specific description for any particular one of the animations was ever written down by designer Thomas Mann Baynes, publisher Rudolph Ackermann, any associates, or any contemporary writer.

Although the text for Picture of the Day is more or less correct and well written, I'd like to suggest some changes to the last line, for instance like this: "This animation shows such a disc, with lithographed rats scurrying over its surface and crawling out of sight over its edge. It was designed by Thomas Mann Baynes and published in October 1833 as one of six discs in the 3rd Fantascope series by Ackermann and Co.." Joortje1 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1er, Ier or I er

See Talk:Palais Galliera#1er, Ier or I er Art LaPella (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Synchronizing the article and the caption seems a good way of dealing with this. I wrote the caption but I will leave it to others to wrangle over the numeral if they wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

POTD/2021-04-19

Regarding Template:POTD/2021-04-19: What's with the "may be inverted"? If an image is sufficiently admired to become a Picture of the Day, shouldn't it be known whether part of it upside-down or not? --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have left a query on the WikiProject Malaysia talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

POTD?

The last two "picture of the day" have been rather mediocre images of notable people, rather than (I would expect) notable pictures of random people/places/things. Shouldn't a POTD be a good example of an image? Riventree (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Among Wikipedia's best?
Among Wikipedia's best?
Wow, nothing in two days? With sufficient apathy and such humdrum offerings, should we consider removing the POTD from the front page?
Riventree (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Riventree: I'm sorry your post got missed, you can see that posts to this page are few and far between. The pictures used have all been selected for POTD because they are featured pictures. The featured picture criteria explain that featured pictures must be freely licensed or in the public domain, must be of a high technical quality, and must add significantly to at least one article on Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO, and with appropriate respect to you and the subjects, I think the images at the following dates probably do not meet criterea #3: Among Wikipedia's best.
I mean, they're not BAD pictures, but they are NOT among the best. :)
Riventree (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Main page/Errors

Copying a discussion from the Main page/Errors page for the POTD on 29 May 2021:-

I think you will find all the facts are verifiable via the single reference at the foot of the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
oh cool, where are all the facts mentioned in the target article please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
A de facto problem, to be sure. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
What specifically do you think is unmentioned in the article? Some of the facts (e.g. the mottos) are directly verifiable by looking at the image. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
e.g. "Wisconsin's nickname as the "Badger State", while the cornucopias in ", e.g. "engraver Henry Mitchell in", e.g. "from fur trading". I don't know, perhaps I'm asking for too much to see material on the main page of Wikipedia to be (a) mentioned in the main article and (b) verifiable with sources in that target article. After all, we hold every single other targeted article to that minimum quality threshold but I guess this is all about a pretty picture so the encyclopedia can just be ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Are there not some standards somewhere which POTDs need to meet? If so, perhaps we could ensure that potential POTDs are held to them, or amend them, as appropriate. If not, perhaps a discussion could be started to come up with some. As TRM points out, no other part of the main page would get away with this sort of thing. I assume that POTDs' blurbs are, or are supposed to be, checked against their target articles? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: We seem to come back to this topic with great regularity, so it definitely seems wise to try to nail it down properly. There are some guidelines written down at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines, but they are for the most part woefully out of date, and don't correspond at all to the de facto set of guidelines that's been in play for the past few years at least. In particular, that page talks about focusing on the image whereas in practice we treat POTD more like the TFA in that the picture is used to highlight the encyclopedic article. Or at least that's what I tried to do for the couple of years when I was POTD coordinator. I fully agree that we should rewrite and formalise the guidelines, because this has caused disagreement several times in recent months. My baseline set of guidelines would be something along the lines of:
  • All prose mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article (or possibly also in the description linked to the image itself, if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic)
  • All prose used in the blurb, be it from the article or the image description, must have a citation to a reliable source.
  • The image must appear in the article
  • In terms of quality, the article doesn't have to conform to the same standards of sourcing and completion that we expect in ITN/DYK/OTD. (Although it must be more than just a stub). This one is regrettable, but probably has become accepted on the basis that the people who produce good pictures aren't necessarily good at writing articles, and they deserve to get their FPs featured.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we move this to somewhere we can have a proper discussion? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, a suitable location, like the POTD talk page, gets an average of one pageview per day, not really a suitable place to hold a discussion impacting the content on the main page. My suggestion is that someone is bold and updates the criteria right now to fix this overt anomaly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. I have done that. I am not sure who now monitors it. Is there a designated editor keeping an eye on the blurbs? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I look at POTD blurbs regularly and copyedit them for grammar and consistent style. Admittedly I haven't really been thoroughly checking that facts presented are referenced in the article, but I do my best to make sure that is the case if I introduce new material to a blurb. As I mentioned previously, though, blurbs occasionally contain information that's more relevant to the selected image in particular than to the article; in such cases, I think that it's entirely reasonable to resort to the file description page as a source – although I agree that this should be restricted to text directly related to the image (e.g. in describing it) and its immediate context. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, writing as the mug currently coordinating the TFA blurbs I sympathise, and for what it is worth agree that text directly relating to the image - which I realise will get subjective at the margin - can be reasonably sourced to the image description page. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yet in this situation that was far from the case. Text in the POTD blurb had just been made up, it would seem, as it appeared neither in the target article nor the image description. It's not good enough, and if people want to just focus on the pretty images, then Commons is the place for that. This is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Aesthetically, it seems a poor choice from the scads of FP candidates that willy-nilly get through the process at FPC.
– Sca (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think @The Rambling Man and Sca: do not understand the problems related to POTD. Every featured picture has the expectation that it will appear on the main page in due course, not like "on this day" when you can pick and choose and reject those that fail to pass muster. They also give the impression to people like @Gog the Mild: that there is a perennial problem with POTD, when there isn't (the last two blurbs were written long ago and are the first cause for complaint that TRM has made in several weeks). Take this particular image, [5], it became a featured picture in 2014 and is included in a single article, Seal of Wisconsin, which does not fit it well. The picture, as in this case, may be linked to a stub or poorly-referenced article, but there is no other option than to use that article. We really ought to discuss this matter in some other venue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is an encyclopedia. If the article isn't suitable, either make it suitable, or make the blurb shorter, or don't run the picture. This is a recurring problem, and it needs to be fixed. The only "problems related to POTD" are the selection of blurbs which are either not mentioned or not verifiable in the target articles. I think Cwmhiraeth "do not understand" that absolutely nothing has a divine right to appear on the main page. The main page is not a sandbox to feature sub-standard articles. If people want to feature pictures without clear encyclopedic value, Commons is the place for that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    WP:V going out the window entirely on the Main Page... that is the process you are defending right now, Cwmhiraeth. You said it yourself, we've had seven years to tidy up the article, and yet there was no push to do so whatsoever. Kudos to everyone calling out the mindless rubber-stamping. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    I do not disagree with what TRM says, but I am not sure that all information in the blurb needs to come from the linked page. For example, is it OK to state "This insect was first described by the American biologist E. O. Wilson" when the insect's page does not mention Wilson's nationality, but you can verify it on his page? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    The difference is that we're dealing with a tangible issue here, not a hypothetical one. See for yourself: there is no link to any page there that verifies the information challenged by TRM with a citation to back it up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    The answer to Cwmhiraeth's question is: no, it is not ok to use Wikipedia as a RS, that seems obvious to me and something an admin who selects material for the main page ought to be aware of. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    Ditto. – Sca (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    Hang on, in that sense the whole Main Page uses Wikipedia as a RS, since no references appear there, only wikilinks. Sure, it makes it easy for the reader to check a reference if they know that all can be found either by clicking on the bolded link or in the picture's own page; but it is also not dramatically more work to check also another of the links included in the blurb. In the example, it would be an obvious step to check the linked E. O. Wilson page if you needed a reference supporting the claim that he was American. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    The point here, which is obvious, is that claims made on the main page should be verifiable in the target articles, not some other article they may link to. That's fundamental. It applies to every target article on the main page except.... wait for it ..... POTD. And that shouldn't be the case. There is literally no excuse for it. I'm not really following your odd example at all, one of the many problems with the example here was that the blurb contained claims not present in the target article (and hence not verified) and even contradictions with the target article. It's pretty basic, to check that what's in the blurb is (a) in the target article and (b) verifiable in the target article. It's not rocket science. Why is this even a debate? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    Well I see the "target" of the POTD as the picture, not the article to which the bolded link points in the blurb about the picture. Thus I don't see a big difference between supporting statements in the blurb with references in the bolded link or with those in the non-bolded links. Would it help not to bold any link in the POTD blurb? Since the bolded-link article in the POTD is often sub-par by your criteria, perhaps this would suit everyone. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    What you see and what is the actual fact of the matter is clearly different in this case. What would suit everyone would be to (a) use facts from the target article and (b) ensure those facts are referenced in the target article. Just exactly the same quality threshold we apply to every other bold link on the main page. And yes, the linked article at POTD is often crap, but at the very least, do (a) and (b). This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a picture project (Commons is for that). Defending the indefensible is becoming a thing here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    I fully agree, of course, but as I pointed out earlier as well, the information in this case was not present in any linked article either. Why is this becoming a point when it's simply not true? Nevermind Wilson, we're talking about Wisconsin here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down

Conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down. Shubinator (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

POTD/ 11th of September 2021

Regarding Template:POTD/2021-09-11: 20. Anniversary of the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center is not commemorated, why? Can this still be changed in remembrance of those who was lost? Proposed picture could be: Twin Towers-NYC.jpg.

Frederik Glerup Christensen (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Twin Towers-NYC.jpg was listed in POTD on the 15th anniversary of the attacks in 2016. Images aren't usually featured more than once. Hut 8.5 16:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

POTD / 21 Oct 2021

I've made a couple of suggestions for POTD for 21 Oct 2021 (regarding mRNA vaccine, highly revelant to COVID-19). — soupvector (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The actual contents of the video are beyond our control here at POTD. The thing we can alter is the text or caption that goes with the video, so if you think that needs alteration, please say so, or make the change yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hayley McFarland

I have improved the sourcing on Hayley McFarland, so I hope the unused FP File:Hayley McFarland cropped.jpg can now be used on POTD. cityuser 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks cityuser. I have listed her on her birthday, 29 March 2022. She has had a long wait. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Broken Main Page formatting with very wide POTD

Moved from WP:ERRORS
I've copied this from WP:ERRORS - which isn't archived - so it's available for future reference. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Curious formatting on mobile (iOS 15, Safari). In mobile view, each Wikilinked item is centered on a new line, in portrait or landscape orientation. Desktop view is OK. Template version as I write this is also normal. 71.175.88.163 (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Same with me. Thriley (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it's very broken in Safari mobile. Looks fine on my desktop running Firefox. I can't see any reason why new lines are being generated for every link, nor why the MP is broken but Template:POTD protected/2021-10-13 looks fine. It must be something in the custom CSS for the MP. Modest Genius talk 11:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css does have some custom code for centring links in #mp-tfp . Is that related? Modest Genius talk 12:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good now. 71.175.88.163 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we have @Izno: to thank for this edit, though I've no idea how that worked. Modest Genius talk 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css does have some custom code for centring links in #mp-tfp Precisely the issue. The more fundamental issue is that the POTD template is crap (both generally and at mobile resolution -- it's on the to do list to fix it; TheDJ got started on it a while ago) and the main page works around that fact today by finding the first cell of the first row of the table (assuming a single image will be there) and styles it as a block element.
Because today's image was not a single image, it was moved outside the table by Amakuru in this edit. I don't know if Amakuru knew this would happen (I would suspect not; by luck, I surfed to the main page on mobile this morning and was myself surprised).
My hotfix was to add the first row and cell into the table with display none. The CSS accordingly finds it and then does nothing with that cell because it's set to display: none. Then the links in the now-second row are happy little clams who can go on being linky.
Just FYI. :^) Izno (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: thanks for this fix. How very annoying - I arrived at the format after discussions with Cwmhiraeth about how to deal with this POTD a few weeks ago. Of course, it passed the "looks fine on my machine" test, and even ran it on Chrome in my Android phone, so I thought all was good. Apologies to all the iPhone users for this!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative explanation! This probably deserves to be archived somewhere in case the issue crops up again. Modest Genius talk 18:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a fairly niche issue... this is the first time I've ever seen an image set connected together by a scrolly bar, but feel free to archive it somewhere appropriate!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POTD/2021-11-01

@Cwmhiraeth: As the photographer of the image proposed as Template:POTD/2021-11-01 I thank you for your nomination.

Due to my continued interest in stereo photography I am aware that a considerable fraction of fellow humans cannot fully perceive stereoscopic images - see Stereoscopy#Visual_requirements - even if provided with a stereo viewer. And even fewer are able to focus on stereo images arranged for "cross-eyed (R-L)" viewing, as nominated (as a matter of fact I am married to one), despite the fact that it is the preferred method for freeviewing, i.e. without any technical assistance (stereo viewers, colour foils, fresnel lenses, polarizing filters, interlaced images, and the like).
I thus propose adding a link to the caption that will point to a viewing method suitable for the numerous Wikipedia visitors that lack cross-eyed viewing capability, but have acess to a viewing device suitable for parallel stereo viewing. This link would refer directly to the "parallel (L-R)" version which I simultaneously uploaded to Wiki Commons in June 2019.
My proposed addition, within brackets:

Stereoscopy is a technique for creating or enhancing the illusion of depth in an image by means of stereopsis for binocular vision. This image of two Passiflora caerulea flowers is arranged as a stereo image pair; it can be viewed stereoscopically by using the cross-eyed viewing method (parallel version here).

- Franz van Duns (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Time limit on nominations?

Template:POTD/2024-03-29 and Template:POTD/2025-04-18 are at TfD for being "too early". Is there a time limit on future nominations? Those are the next available Good Friday dates. Certes (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: There is no time limit, as far as I know, and it seems entirely reasonable to me for these featured pictures to be reserved by a POTD regular for these Good Friday slots. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_9&oldid=1102532498"