Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 10

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

Date of issue

I asked this when it was on the main page. There is no year of issue on this, is that normal, or did I just overlook it? Jokem (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-02-24

Not a FP + created by a user since blocked for NOTHERE and socking. Someone with more experience with the POTD process than me should replace it with an appropriate picture. eviolite (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The page has now been blanked by Ravenpuff. eviolite (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Just a comment: The choice of a photo of a Russian spacecraft launch (albeit with one Russian and two non-Russians aboard; see Soyuz TMA-13) as today's Picture of the Day is grotesquely inappropriate and tasteless. Gildir (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of the day subjects

Why does my picture of the day widget overwhelmingly show Eastern European subjects? 2600:1700:5D51:C290:2CAF:751F:786C:F41C (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2022-04-01 does not exist - Fixed

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2022-04-01, I found that Template:POTD/2022-04-01 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have quickly scheduled File:Scotland-2016-West Lothian-Hopetoun House 02.jpg (ha-ha) as the April Fools' POTD, adapting its last appearance in 2020 – IMO it's too good (and funny) not to be featured again, and a forgivable application of WP:IAR if I say so myself. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Talismanic shirt

I originally created Template:POTD/2022-07-08 to schedule this image during the 2022 Hajj. I've just found out that other contributors created Template:POTD/2022-05-02 to schedule it for Eid al-Fitr. I expect this means that the 8th July template has to be removed; is that something I can do myself? @Sheila1988: obviously I'm grateful to you for highlighting an image I'd uploaded. I just wish you'd informed me about it and checked that it wasn't already scheduled. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Monument to Alfonso XII

Monument to Alfonso XII is scheduled for 6 June but the article is unreferenced. This needs fixing or a replacement should run instead. Schwede66 18:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @Amakuru: Pinging user who scheduled the image. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, thanks for the heads up @Armbrust and Schwede66:. It seems I scheduled this several years ago as this was to be the anniversary. Per POTD standards (or lack thereof) we won't need to cite the whole article, but I will see if I can rustle up some sources to at least get a decent blurb out by the 6 June. If I can't, then we'll swap it out. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-05-31

A similar problem as above: Federal Republic of Central America and Central American Republic real are both orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing. A replacement pic may be needed unless one of these articles can be fixed up in time. --PFHLai (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-05-30

File:Boats on Lake Oroville during the 2021 drought.jpg appears on Lake Oroville and Droughts in California. Does anyone want to update and expand one of these articles and address the orange tags there? (There is still a week to do so.) Or perhaps we should re-schedule this POTD, and choose a different pic as POTD for this day? Pinging Amakuru (talk · contribs) who picked this photo months earlier. --PFHLai (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@PFHLai: thanks for the message. In fact, per longstanding POTD conventions, as roughly codified at WP:POTD/G, there is no requirement for the article to be free of orange tags. This differs from other main page sections. (Obviously in an ideal world, the article would meet the same standards as ITN, DYK and OTD, but that would rule out the vast majority of POTDs from being considered and nobody is prepared to invest the time to properly sort out an article each and every day for the slot). The only major rule in this regard is that the text used in the blurb must be properly cited. Lake Oroville actually looks to have quite a decent amount of cited material already there, so constructing a cited blurb from that should be quite straightforward. If nobody else does it I'll see if I can find some time in the next couple of days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Amakuru. I was reading WP:POTD/G and it says ... if the article chosen to accompany the picture is not up to scratch (e.g. if there is a template message such as {{More citations needed}}), the appearance may be delayed until there is a suitable article to accompany the picture... If these orange tags are not really a problem, then never mind. Anyway, I have added the photo to California State Water Project, which is free of orange tags at this time. Maybe this can be another option. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Pseudatelus

Pseudatelus is scheduled for 5 July but the target article isn't up to scratch. It's very clearly a stub and it has a maintenance tag. Hence in its current form, we can't run it, but there is plenty of time to do something about it. I'll transclude this note onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects. Schwede66 22:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How about adding the pic to Pentatomoidea? --PFHLai (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

POTD Helper Tool

I wanted to give you a heads up that I have created a tool to help with submitting Pictures of the Day: User:Ahecht/Scripts/potd-helper.

You can run it from an image page, in which case it will suggest the articles that use that image, from an article, in which case it will suggest the images in that article, or from Special:POTDHelper, if you want to fill in everything manually. It can automatically retrieve an excerpt of the article as well as the uploader and nominator of the image, and will create the POTD template, update the local image description, and post notifications on the talk pages of the linked article, uploader, and nominator. It will check that the article exists and that the image is a featured picture on the English Wikipedia, but will not prevent resubmitting an already submitted image or submitting an image on the Unused list.

It's still in beta, but I've been using it for several nominations recently without issues and I'm looking for a wider range of testers. If you do encounter a problem, the script does extensive logging to your browsers debug console (usually accessed via ⇧ Shift+Ctrl+J on Windows or ⌥ Opt+⌘ Cmd+J or ⌥ Opt+⌘ Cmd+C on MacOS). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Just tested (Template:POTD/2023-10-29), and it worked really well. No issues as far as I can see. Thanks for creating this! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I have a suggestion. No idea if this would be possible, but if you could make it so that unused pictures are flagged somehow on Category:Featured_pictures_that_have_not_appeared_on_the_Main_Page, that would be very useful. For example, the unused pictures could have a red background so schedulers immediately know not to pick them (and don't have to bother checking the list). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever I think the easier solution is to have {{Featured picture}} not add images in Category:Picture of the day/Unused to Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page (since for former is a subcategory of the latter, having them in both is redundant anyway). I went ahead and WP:BOLDly modified {{Featured picture}}, but this will require making sure that images are added and removed from Category:Picture of the day/Unused as they are added and removed from /Unused. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Definitely a better solution— thought of it but wasn't sure if implementation was possible. Thanks! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nudity?

Questioning whether or not there is a consensus regarding nudity appearing on the POTD. Specifically this image. Does nudity fall under Unused, like File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg or File:Nadar - "Hermaphrodite" (Seventh Gallica image).jpg, or is allowed? (My take: While wikipedia isn't censored, the main page isn't specifically searched for, so the 5 million readers will not expect to be subjected to nudity. Clearly we censor POTD to some degree, curious what the line is?) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Coordinating POTD and TFA

What do people think about coordinating POTD and TFA, e.g. by picking POTDs that would somehow match or complement that day's TFA? Had this been discussed or attempted before? Is it doable and if so, is it desirable? Levivich 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

As an extraordinary example, 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing was coordinated across all sections of the Main Page: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 July 21. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes! I remember how awesome that day's main page was, and ever since then, I've been wondering why we don't do that every day. Coordinating all sections, as was done for Apollo 11 anniversary, is unrealistic to do every day, but I wonder if at least the featured content could be matched. Levivich 22:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
We definitely can't do that every day since POTD's are supposed to be first in, first out. It's definitely a cool idea to try to match them more, but how often does a given TFA have a suitable accompanying featured image that hasn't been used yet? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Good question. I would volunteer to investigate and find out if other editors felt like this was a useful exercise. Levivich 00:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is a good crossover between pictures and articles, that is definitely worth looking into. Schwede66 00:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at June 1-7 TFAs and then tried to find a suitable accompanying FP that hasn't already been a POTD:

June 1 Don Dunstan (Australian politician) File:Sandy Shores of Moreton Bay.jpg (Austalian pic)
June 2 Loev (movie set in Western Ghats) File:Areca and Vanilla DSC 1306.jpg (pic of Western Ghats)
June 3 Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (a Japanese video game) File:2006-02-15 Piping.jpg (the game involves plumbers and pipes), or a pic about Japan, or about video games
June 4 Banksia canei (a shrub) File:Banksia spinulosa - flowers, Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg (a similar shrub)
June 5 Four Freedoms Any of the Four Freedoms pictures ought to be an FP, and so any of them could be the POTD, but as an alternative, the famous File:Joseph Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, in Teheran, 1943, edit.jpg
June 6 David Scott (walked on the moon) File:AS15-88-11866 - Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin - restoration1.jpg (a photo David Scott took on the moon)
June 7 Lake Estancia (in New Mexico) File:New Mexico territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg

I think it's doable, mostly because you can make a lot of connection by geographic location. Levivich 03:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is creative thinking and gives more opportunity than I had thought. Maybe invite the good people who watch WT:TFA to comment here. Schwede66 04:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
All of these seem very loosely related, except for the David Scott one. I don't think it's really worth the effort to coordinate a TFA that is related to a country with a picture in the country etc. Will readers really notice any correlation? I don't think so.
Also, what articles are planned to be linked to from the POTD (all POTDs need an article). It wouldn't make sense to link to the TFA, and you couldn't anyways, since they're so loosely related and the image has to actually be present in the article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Each of the POTDs can link the article about the thing the picture depicts. For the above week, in order: Moreton Bay, Western Ghats, Piping or Plumbing, Banksia spinulosa, Tehran Conference, Apollo 15, and New Mexico.
As far as "loosely connected"... well, yeah, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, but the TFA pic would be the pic that was "closely connected", where as POTD would be in the same theme. I do think the reader will notice (they'd notice more if we put the TFA next to the POTD, which we should do if they're connected, but that's for a later discussion), particularly national connections. Like for June 1, the Australian reader will probably notice. For June 2, the Indian reader will probably notice. Etc. Other readers would notice too, even if not all readers noticed; although if we did this as a regular thing, readers would catch on, and more readers would notice; eventually, they'd come to expect it.
I think the "tie-in" could be strengthened by choosing TFAs and POTDs that relate in some way not only to each other, but also to the date for which they are chosen--which is another way of saying TFAs and POTDs and OTDs, too. (That's significantly tougher though, and may also be a discussion for another day.)
In terms of "the effort to coordinate", I found this to be rather low-effort; it took less than an hour for me to fill out the week above, and that was my first time trying to do this. Maybe I got lucky with a particularly easy sample, but I would volunteer to spend the time to do this myself... if there was consensus that it's a good idea in the first place.
Even if the coordination couldn't be done for all days, we could still do it for the days where it could be done (which I think would be most days). Levivich 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of POTD and OTD tie-ins: some portraits are scheduled way in the future on birth dates. For example, Template:POTD/2022-04-16 (Main Page archive) was scheduled 2.5 years ahead of Richèl Hogenkamp's 30th birthday. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that when looking through scheduled POTDs; if not birthdates, sometimes they're scheduled for other important date tie-ins (like the date of a significant event). I think it's a good practice and an example of the sort of coordination that is possible. Levivich 18:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines, "The image must appear in the article.". We can't use Western Ghats, Piping or Plumbing, Banksia spinulosa, Tehran Conference (not the same image appears, even though it is simillar), nor New Mexico as articles since the images aren't within the articles, although they do appear in Moreton Bay and Apollo 15. I definitely think we should coordinate it when possible, for example, the David Scott one would be a perfect match and look amazing. But in my opinion, it can't become a common occurrence unfortunately. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I really badly wanted to schedule the David Scott image for Template:POTD/2022-06-06, but it turns out that the currently scheduled image was put in place 3 years ago, and commemorates the exact 100th anniversary of the Monument to Alfonso XII, so it would be uncivil to change it. Darn! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Another problem is that TFA isn't scheduled that far in advance. And, of course, it somewhat makes POTD subsidiary to TFA if we always take the lead from them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Duke Humfrey's Library

{{POTD/2022-07-11}} is a nice picture all right, but I think {{POTD/2022-01-31}} is a better one and it's been less than 6 months since it was used. Maybe find something else for July 11? (No reply needed; do as you see fit.) --174.95.160.48 (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we can't be too ready to hold things back for things months previous: it becomes a bit of a scheduling nightmare. Especially given how much money there is to get through. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#POTD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates § POTD. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-12-08

Shanghai is not the most populous city proper in the world. The city proper of Chongqing has a greater population. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom: This seems complex, since Chongqing is also in China. The text is from the article itself, so should probably be corrected both places. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lights and freedom Chonqing claims to be the largest city proper and the most populous Chinese municipality, but not necessarily the most populous city proper. I'll just go ahead and soften the language in the blurb. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht If it is a city proper (which I'm not completely sure about), then it's surely the most populous one, being more populous than Shanghai. Anyways I think you're wording is better; as Chongqing says, it is about the size of Austria. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-06-21

This POTD contains one of a number of images unilaterally removed from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused and queued up for POTD by Adam Cuerden. This particular image is a caricature by Isaac Cruikshank showing a woman pissing in the street. Commons has literally hundreds of other images by Cruikshank which do not feature pissing women, so this is hardly the ideal example of his work. The image was previously suggested for April Fool's Day in 2009 and 2011. It was rejected both times.

I am not offended by this image and I have no objection to it being used on in context on Cruikshank's page. Giving it featured placement on Wikipedia's front page is another matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should try to avoid shocking or upsetting people by running content like this when we have so many other options. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we should run that image. Plainly, it's too obscene for the Main Page, we have hundreds of FPs that haven't appeared, and no reason to rush to run this one. Adam Cuerden replacing an image that he removed from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused with a more obscene picture that he also removed from Unused is just silly, and WP:POINTy. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, so being bold and replacing the POTD entry with what was on Template:POTD/2023-05-29. To @Adam Cuerden:, the entry is still in the page's history, so if you really want to, move it forward like you did with Michelle Merkin, but please don't revert my changes. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There's literally never been a discussion against this one appearing. Never. It was arbitrarily pulled by a past POTD co-ordinator. In the absence of any discussion about it whatsoever, there's no reason not to schedule it. Merkin, at least, has an 8-year old discussion that I think we've long moved past, but am willing to discuss but dropping an image that has no discussion seems completely arbitratry. You also fucked up the move: there's notes on the image pages, notes on the article pages, all of these need to change if an image changes or the entire thing breaks. I'm willing to delay it, but if you don't want it to run, I'm not overturning any consensus at all; POTD/Unused is not a discussion archive, it's notes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I never said you were overturning consensus. It's just a bit of a common sense thing: if some editors were objecting to an image of a woman with mild nudity,which I don't even mind if it runs, by the way why would replacing it with a clearly more obscene, and more graphic image of a woman urinating on the street be any better? If there is a consensus for running the image here, go for it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Merkin was scheduled for the 13th. I considered swapping her to there, so that there's be a little more time for discussion, then thought better and moved her to December. Other than that swap, this image was put in at the same time as the others and no-one cared. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 03:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if no one cared or no one noticed when it was first suggested. I don't think this image is appropriate for the main page. PerfectSoundWhatever seems to agree. How do we resolve this? (And please Merkin out of this discussion - we'll discuss that somewhere else.) Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the first thing to do is to discuss what the merits and problems are with it, because, first of all, we might convince each other, and second of all, if we go to a vote, having each side stated clearly from the start helps frame the voting.
Merits:
  1. There's no real nudity. No private parts are seen. There's a hint of a breast, but the image as a whole doesn't appear to be sexualised at all, and we have had much more explicit drawn breasts on the main page recently.
  2. Artist is fairly important, and is noted for a certain amount of crudity; this image has been the lead image on his page for like a decade.
  3. Restoration is... maybe not the decisions I'd make, but justifiable.
  4. This isn't too far off from other examples of 18th century crudity. Rather less disturbing than some of the more extreme Hogarths. The 18th century was hugely fond of crude humour.
    1. Also, this artist was prone to fairly extreme artworks. Consider, for example, "Royal Recreation", or, even more so, "Opening the Sluices", which is rather more extreme (though arguably, the crudity has more of a point there, juvenile as the joke is).
  5. I'd argue it's educational, but mainly for the artist, as it does demonstrate his work fairly well. This is actually the selected Wikidata item for the artist at the moment, hence appearing on every page on Commons with his artworks, which... um... Okay....
  6. Avoiding unnecessary censorship is arguably a positive in and of itself.
    1. More specifically, though, censorship discourages further content in that line. We risk, for example, having people hesitate to restore Hogarth for fear of being censored.
  7. Since Durova no longer edits Wikipedia, she cannot defend her image, which means we have to at least attempt to argue for her.
Downsides:
  1. Does the joke land? ...It's observational humour from the 18th century, from that sort of humour based around "types of people you see around town". Relatable? Not anymore. Cat is kind of amusing. Censored curse word ups the crudity a bit.
  2. Durova was fond of extreme white point manipulation, so arguably the white point is a bit off. Text is a little blurry, which probably reflects that era of Library of Congress scan
  3. Though the point above about this not being the most extreme work by him stands this search will show quite a few examples of images, which (despite us having relatively low resolution copies) are available in much higher resolution. If the point is solely to cover the artist - and the encyclopedic value is probably from that - while still somewhat extreme (albeit much less so), this anti-torture one might be a decent choice, as the commentary is still annoyingly relevant. Since the artist is notable for his development of cartooning, we should probably include something with dialogue, e.g., not this, despite artistic merit.
    1. As a sub-point, if the main point is to promote the artist, this does mean there are many other options. That said, it's also quite a heavy lift.
Things I consider neutral, you might not:
  1. If the urination was being used as a kink thing, then I'd say that would at least make a strong argument against main page consideration, but I don't think it is. (For example, I think Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, while a famous artwork, would be... very controversial. Luckily the copy we have is so terrible that it's blocked on "almost certainly doesn't fit into FP standards".
  2. Image is intentionally crude. As I said, that's 18th-century humour, so I'm happy to dismiss that, but... well, I get modern sensibilities.
Anything to add? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I wasn't pinged on June 15, and I am not watching this page, which is why I didn't reply to the pro/cons chart until now.
A few points:
  • You are underplaying the nudity bit. I agree the image is not sexualized, but portraying it as a "hint of a breast" implies a bit of cleavage when it isn't. To me, the Michele Merkin contains less nudity: the side of the breast and a covered butt are seen, but that's it. My impression is that the nipple is generally considered the "nude" part of the breast, and the image has it clearly.
  • Okay, yeah, the urination isn't being used as a kink thing. But it's not exactly an objective scientific depiction of urination. It's an image a woman pissing against the wall into the street: something most people would generally consider gross and obscene. Maybe it's lost on me; I don't see how the image is humorous at all.
  • There is no policy or guideline regarding obscenity specifically on the Main Page. Clearly you and I and draw the line at different places. So discussing specific portions of the image is pointless, when in reality, we should be discussing in general what we should consider too obscene for the Main Page, and what we should allow:
    • Here's my position: The Main Page is a very reader focused page. About 5 million people view it each day, including thousands of children. While obviously Wikipedia isn't censored, no one expects to see obscene content while visiting the Main Page. Of course, it should be expected, if a reader decides to clicks on an article like Anal sex, Urination, or Indecent exposure, it's up to them to see those images. We should not show images people will find gross and uncomforting on the Main Page. Why should we subject millions of people to something they will likely gain discomfort from and didn't ask for? The Main Page Exempting a handful of images from appearing on the MP will cause no harm.
I will not continue to reply here, since it's clear doing so will not accomplish much. What is really needed is more opinions from other editors, and a proper discussion not just about this image (maybe an RfC). You've restored the image to POTD 6/21, even though there is no clear consensus whatsoever to run it or to not run it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever: While I see your point about breasts, File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, French - The Large Bathers - Google Art Project.jpg ran without controversy, and is way more sexualised than either of them, I'd argue. I mean, Renoir is a more famous artist than Cruikshank, but he's also a more realistic artist, and the breasts are also way more sexualised in his image. See also:
There really is no consensus that breasts block the image, even when very sexualised. We've been including them on the main page for years, and that's just what I found skimming the Art Featured articles. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, this isn't particularly graphic - no genitalia is shown. How is this worse than, say, that episode of Pingu? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata and PerfectSoundWhatever: Look, if you're going to unilaterally pull an image, you really need to be willing to discuss it. Because I'm willing to work with you, but you're pretty much the only ones objecting to this image, and if you don't actually care, then the sensible action is to put it back into the queue where it was, because once it runs, we never have to worry about it again. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: You appear to have already decided the outcome of any discussion and appointed yourself as the final arbiter. If you're not willing to have a discussion in good faith, why should I waste my time? Between your completely spurious accusations of censorship here and this "prudishness" bullshit, you have made it very clear that you aren't actually "willing to work with" people who disagree with you. My objection to this image stands. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you genuinely aren't interested in discussing it, that's fine, I suppose. But I don't see why you brought up the objection if, when I list positives and negatives, your reaction is to ignore the discussion for four days then give up on it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I don't know how you managed to draw those conclusions from what I wrote above, but your actions speak for themselves. You know that I object to having this image as POTD. You know that PerfectSoundWhatever objects to having this image as POTD. You know that it has previously been rejected as POTD. Yet, you unilaterally put it back to run in a couple of days. I am walking away from this because it isn't worth the aggravation of dealing with someone like you on what is supposed to be a collaborative project. Please leave me out of any further discussion here or elsewhere. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I put it back because there's no point delaying something when your reaction to bring asked why you're ignoring the conversation you started four days after I made a listing of every pro .com and neutral I could think of was to claim I had decided the outcome and you had no interest in discussing it. While a discussion is open, it's reasonable to delay it, but delaying it on the back of "I don't want to discuss my position"?! It's kind of bad faith to ask that a division's started, then just ignore it until after the date the thing was meant to have run is past. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 21:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-06-28

POTD 2022-06-28 screenshot mobile view

As discussed at Errors, there was a problem with the display using mobile view. I've taken a screenshot so that it's easier to comprehend what this appeared as. That way, it might be easier to hunt for the cause of the problem so next time this trick is employed, the problem won't reappear. Schwede66 19:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66, the diff you linked is from a WP:ERRORS discussion about DYK, not POTD. Did you mean to link to some diff for the section Today's POTD? —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, correct old ID but wrong template. Try again: go to the heading Today's POTD Schwede66 22:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Schwede66, I think I found the root cause. At line 135 of Main Page's CSS – all links (tag <a>) are centered in first cell of a table. This is done, because usually, the first link in the POTD section is a file. See how in Special:Diff/1095181566/1095194138, the first cell was completely removed by Ravenpuff, which brought HTML layout, which is not expected by the CSS code. Ravenpuff, using a blank file, like File:Blank300.png is a common solution to keep a file "required" for the layout. See, for example, Template:POTD/2021-12-04, which also had a <gallery>...</gallery>.
POTD is going to change in an hour. Not sure if it is worth it to request an edit to fix the layout at Template:POTD protected/2022-06-28. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Great stuff. CSS is beyond me. Someone else can fix it. It doesn't really matter whether this gets done in the next hour or later; my understanding is that Adam wants to use this hack again so as long as it's done before the next time, all is good. Schwede66 23:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an unfortunate combination of Adam Cuerden's |size=1 hack and Ravenpuff trying to fix it. Yesterday, I've updated Template:POTD/2022-06-28 and the guidelines because the hack also caused an unrelated black pixel glitch. These layout issues in mobile version are a second reason not to use it. I recommend sticking to the tried and tested workaround for placing {[tag|gallery|open}} in |caption=. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Right. The next gallery is the small one on July 28. I don't suppose we could just update the POTD templates to have a "no image" option, for when galleries are getting put in the caption instead? There's already a two-image option for them, and I think working through money will need a gallery once or twice a month. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Minor side issue; the bombing of Hamburg would be appropriate (if that can ever be the right word in this context) for the main page on that date as it's the anniversary of the firestorm. But your query is, of course, of generic nature. Schwede66 02:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the hack used for that POTD breaks some of the functionality of the POTD templates:

  • {{POTD/2022-06-28|image}} should display the image name. It actually displays Blank300.png.
  • {{POTD/2022-06-28|caption}} should display the POTD text without the image. It actually displays the image too.
  • {{POTD/2022-06-28|title}} should display a link to the article. It actually displays a redlink Silver certificates.
  • {{POTD/2022-06-28|condensed}} should display a condensed view. It's really condensed, having no image and a redlinked article.

And of course the "row" mode doesn't display as a row, but that's the intention of the hack. Anomie⚔ 11:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2023-07-27

I want to raise an initial concern over the balance of Template:POTD/2023-07-27 as first proposed. The issues are:
(1) the film clip is labelled (quite correctly) as propaganda. That immediately puts the reader in the mindset that something is being said which is not true.
(2) whilst the narrative talks about the numbers killed, the mention of "devastation of war plants" is only given in the commentary to the video, which has already been labelled as propaganda. There is no coverage of the (a) intended (b) actual effect on the Nazi war effort – all we have is a bit of the scientific approach to destroying a German city.
There are probably deficiencies in the article that do not help in writing the summary to go with the pictures. However, in any of these controversial war events, it is important to explain why they were carried out and whether those aims were met in any way. In this particular case, we have Albert Speer's comments (quoted in the article) and also the massive reallocation of resources to air defence as the result of these raids – not really adequately covered by the article, but see for instance, in Overy's The Bombing War:
"Bombing, as Speer recognized, really did come to constitute a ‘Second Front’ by 1943, preventing German military leaders from using air power effectively at the fighting front as they had done in all the campaigns from 1939 to 1941." (p 406) and "The result was a substantial diversion of guns and aircraft away from the fighting fronts where they were needed more than ever by the summer of 1943. By late August there were over 1,000 fighter aircraft stationed in Germany, 45.5 per cent of all German fighter strength, and a further 224 in northern France." (p 336).
Taking from the article just the mechanism of destroying Hamburg, without the why, seems to lack balance.

As a further point, the still photograph shown is highly unlikely to have been taken only a short while after the raids. It is likely to be a photo taken after the Capture of Hamburg. Parts of the structure of the aircraft from which the photo was taken are visible. It is clear that it is a high wing aircraft with a diagonal strut. Such an Allied aircraft would not have been over a heavily defended city. This judgement may be accused of being WP:OR, but I suggest is the conclusion of an editor who has some understanding of the subject. So "after some cleanup had taken place" is somewhat misleading. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a year to get this right. I'd say work on the article and then the blurb's prose. I totally agree with your approach; the more context we can give this, the better. Schwede66 10:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-07-05

I read in the criteria that: "Linked articles must be up to scratch – at a minimum, there should be no maintenance or cleanup templates or major problems with the article. In particular, the content of the blurb should be fully referenced." Today's POTD does not appear to meet those criteria. And bugs is way outside my area of expertise, so I can't improve the article. Schwede66 01:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-07-29

Use Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 2022 instead of the 07-29 link above so you can see the Recently Featured line. That line says

Recently featured: [[Template:POTD/2022-07-28|]] Ice speedway Diamond firetail

The first link doesn't work, and it doesn't mean anything to readers. The same problem extends to July 30 and 31. I can't simply edit the Recently Featured line because it's buried in the template somehow. Art LaPella (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Art LaPella, this has been fixed: Special:Diff/1098542600. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I had responded. Basically, that's the bug that happens if a title isn't set for one of the previous day's POTDs. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 12:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Art LaPella (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Alttext

Please fix the template as discussed at User talk:Ahecht#Alttext, referring to this version of this picture. User:Ravenpuff has since solved the immediate problem (again) by removing the alttext, but I suppose it will keep coming back. Previous discussion at the 'Today's POTD' section at the bottom of this page.

Some answers to points made above: Does it work on Chrome? Not for me it doesn't (Windows 10). It doesn't work on Edge either.

Is this a problem for sighted people? That answer comes in two parts that shouldn't be confused with each other:

1. It's a minor annoyance when one sighted person sees an unnecessary description of something he can see. That's why alttext is ordinarily invisible to sighted people. If you disagree, my collapsed box below will annoy you with an unnecessarily detailed description of that very issue.

I warned you, this is very annoying!

Is it mildly annoying to read "Buzz Aldrin stands in a white space suit in front of a large picture of the moon. His helmet is removed and sitting on a podium to his right." if you can already see all those things? Well, imagine you are a reader seeing Aldrin's white space suit. Then you read that his space suit is white. Hmm, I'm pretty sure I already know that, so this information isn't new. What else can I learn from this text? Well, it says there is a space suit. But I already saw the space suit, so why is it telling me there is a space suit? I already knew that too. This is annoying. Now it says Aldrin is in front of a large picture. But I can already see the picture. This is more annoying.

Are you annoyed yet by this description of annoyance? You're annoyed because I'm repeating a very obvious point until you're sick of it. That's my point. Yes, alttexts are annoying for sighted people. That's why alttext is made to be invisible to sighted people.

Do you get the point yet? No? Oh dear, I haven't explained in enough detail!

The reader holds his mouse over the picture. Electromagnetic radiation in a pattern corresponding to a picture and the alttext propagates through the field in accordance with Maxwell's laws. It enters the reader's cornea, aqueous humor, lens, vitreous humor, retina, optic nerve, and the visual center of the brain. The wavelengths from the space suit are coming from all parts of the visual spectrum, so this is interpreted as "white". But the word "white" also occurs in the text. A recognition response occurs ...

NOW are you annoyed yet? You'd better say yes, or I could fill the whole page with this drivel! Just remember, it's annoying to be told something you already know!

2. When millions of people load the Main Page, a few of them happen to let their mouse hover over the picture, and the situation that occurred twice above continues indefinitely because it isn't considered a problem, then the minor annoyance is multiplied into a major problem.

So I propose that we use User:Ahecht's sandbox template or something similar. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

To explain further what my sandbox version at Special:Diff/1098886061 does, the current template uses the {{{alttext}}} text as the caption for the image, which means that it gets set as the title= parameter of the link in addition to the alt= parameter of the image. On the other hand, the sandbox version uses {{{texttitle}}} as the caption and the {{{alttext}}} as the |alt= parameter of the image, which means that in the HTML {{{texttitle}}} becomes the title= parameter of the link, which at least in Chrome and Firefox on Windows 10 means that sighted viewers will only see the {{{texttitle}}} when hovering over the image. Similar changes would need to be made to the other POTD templates as well.
Current main page template
Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender in Tokyo Bay

The surrender of Japan, announced by the Japanese emperor Hirohito on August 15, 1945, brought the hostilities of World War II in Asia to a close. In this photograph, taken by a soldier of the United States Army Signal Corps, Mamoru Shigemitsu, Minister for Foreign Affairs, signs the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on behalf of the Japanese government aboard USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945, formally ending the war. U.S. Army general Richard K. Sutherland watches on the left of the photograph, and Shigemitsu is assisted by Toshikazu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, on the right.

Photograph credit: Stephen E. Korpanty; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:
Sandbox main page template
Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender in Tokyo Bay

The surrender of Japan, announced by the Japanese emperor Hirohito on August 15, 1945, brought the hostilities of World War II in Asia to a close. In this photograph, taken by a soldier of the United States Army Signal Corps, Mamoru Shigemitsu, Minister for Foreign Affairs, signs the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on behalf of the Japanese government aboard USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945, formally ending the war. U.S. Army general Richard K. Sutherland watches on the left of the photograph, and Shigemitsu is assisted by Toshikazu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, on the right.

Photograph credit: Stephen E. Korpanty; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
While I don't imagine POTD is the most popular with partially sighted or blind people, if they want to read about the images, we should let them, and, as such, alt-text is valuable. But we don't need to have it more visible than that. I'd support the change. Any chance you could add an option to just skip display of the picture while we're at it? Would be useful for the money galleries, and it'd be nice if we could avoid the broken-on-mobile issues of last 28th when this month's money day comes up. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 18:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden Sorry, thought I had replied already. Template:POTD row/sandbox now allows you to set |image=no to skip the image display. I'm not sure exactly what the problems were on the 28th, so I can't really test it, but feel free to try it out. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues with the page associated with an image slated for POTD

FYI, see Talk:Laetiporus_sulphureus#Conflating_two_species_known_by_the_same_common_name After posting that comment, I noticed Adam's comment. (I hardly spend time editing Wikipedia; apologies if I'm breaking protocol.) 2603:6080:6440:D2E:A84F:798F:45B5:4BDC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • @Adam Cuerden: FYI. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    I’ve had a look and Laetiporus cincinnatus (Q107884533) has a Commons category but not an article. The first step ought to be the removal of the wrong photos and recategorisation. Secondly a little copy edit to mention the other fungus and all will be good. Schwede66 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's certainly an article problem. I suppose first question is if the image in question is caught up in it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 01:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter bot

Not sure if this is the place to plug, but the folks working on this project may find interesting a Twitter bot I manage which reposts the PoTD: @wiki_potd. Cheers!, & enjoy 😊 SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Siliconred! A bot posting of the Picture of the Day from Wikipedia every morning; just wanted to say that your morning may be another person's evening. Every "day", perhaps? Schwede66 23:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Good point, nice catch! I've fixed the bio. I think the only time I proofread that bio was when I wrote it 2 years ago 🤦‍♂️ SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
SiliconRed, for better compliance with licenses of the images (mostly variants of Creative Commons) I recommend that you include a link to the file page in the tweets. Either to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sphalerite_-_Creede,_Mineral_County,_Colorado,_USA.jpg or Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sphalerite_-_Creede,_Mineral_County,_Colorado,_USA.jpg. Quite a few of POTD pictures are in the public domain (including today's Template:POTD/2022-09-01), but some are published under CC licenses that require attribution. For example, Template:POTD/2022-08-27, license of which was violated by https://twitter.com/wiki_potd/status/1563476127624007681. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I had not thought about this. I am attributing with replies by linking the article containing the image (see: https://twitter.com/potd_context/status/1563476129758842881) but I'll also add a direct link to the image. Good point, thank you! I'll work on fixing this. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Fixed, starting today -- all posts are annotated with an additional tweet providing authorship credits and link: https://twitter.com/potd_context/status/1565726620618457094. If you have thoughts on a better way to integrate attribution, do let me know. (The project is open source -- so -- if you want to make a pull request please feel free 😊) SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. You might want to document on GitHub how the attribution works. Schwede66 19:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue with POTD 6 October 2022

Hi, I think that pictures depicting celebrities smoking cigarettes should not be candidates for "pictures of the day," as was the case with the featured photo today. This is because smoking is harmful to the health and featuring a high-quality photo of a noteworthy individual smoking, unaccompanied by a content warning, strongly resembles advertisement/endorsement. 108.18.207.147 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The guy himself is the health warning. His lifestyle killed him at the age of 62. Schwede66 20:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Recently featured

For Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 2022, scroll down to November 12, 13, and 14 (I didn't find a direct link that shows the Recently Featured problem). For example, November 12 says: Recently featured:[[Template:POTD/2022-11-11|]] Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt Apollo 4 Archive More featured pictures

That is, the first link says [[Template:POTD/2022-11-11|]] instead of a usable link and a description of the war poster. I didn't find an easy fix because it's buried inside of multiple templates. Art LaPella (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Art LaPella, fixed: Special:Diff/1120135849. Archives on the subpages of Wikipedia:Picture of the day are created by Template:POTD/Day; it uses parts of POTDs, in this case |texttitle= inside Template:POTD archive/footer via invocations of Module:POTD titletext. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

New Mexico coat of arms

The quotation--which purports to be a description of the coat of arms for the state of New Mexico--does not belong with this picture, which is the coat of arms for The Territory of New Mexico. The state coat of arms is slightly different, and so the quoted description does not match. Ed8r (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2022-12-09

@HurricaneEdgar selected File:Tonga Volcano Eruption 2022-01-15 0320Z to 0610Z Himawari-8 visible.gif POTD on December 9 back in June, also notified in the talk page. But @Amakuru has selected File:William Bouguereau - Dante and Virgile - Google Art Project.jpg for that same date on December 1. Is there some mistake in the POTD? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: the volcano POTD had been moved by Schwede66 to Template:POTD/2023-01-15 ,to coincide with the anniversary of the eruption pictures, which seems sensible. I then later selected the Dante pic to fill the gap left behind on 9 December. Was there a particular reason for the volcano to be on the 9th? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Before I moved the item, I pinged HurricaneEdgar on the talk page. I waited nearly a week but didn't get a response. Schwede66 09:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I see, no worries. I just happened to come across the archived discussions and spotted the unexpected change. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

tall=yes

Please review Special:Diff/1127878920 and its edit summary. Art LaPella (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The Three Brothers

It’s too late for this to affect the use of this picture as picture of the day, but the picture is identified as a 1:1 representation of the jewel, but does not say what the actual size of the picture is. Of course, the picture will vary in size depending on the viewing device. It would be informative to say what the dimensions of the 1:1 painting are. Then the reader would know how big the jewel was. That information should be added to the description of the painting wherever it appears on Wikipedia. Wis2fan (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A few points

Can I just confirm that people active here are aware of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines? It might seem obvious, but I am coming across blurbs regularly that don't meet the guidelines, particularly "All facts mentioned in the blurb must be found in the target article, or in the description linked to the image itself, if it's a specific detail not relevant to the article topic" and "All facts in the blurb must have a citation to a reliable source". As an example I had to trim out almost all of the content from Template:POTD protected/2023-01-03 as the only thing in the original blurb that was cited in the article was the birth date.

I am reminded that when changing the protected version of the template I should also change the unprotected version. To be frank, my main concern is that the information on the main page is correct so I am not too bothered what the unprotected template says. However I am not sure why we have two versions anyway? This appears to be the only main page section to do so. Is there a technical reason for this? It appears to duplicate effort and is a bit of a hassle. If it has to be duplicated can a bot simply copy the information from the protected template at the end of the day?

Is there a reason only today and tomorrow's POTD is listed at WP:ERRORS? All of the other sections have tomorrow+1 also. I looked at adding it but there is some code I don't really understand. Appreciate I could look in the upcoming month's listing but it would be easier to access from WP:ERRORS, as I do when checking the other sections.

All the best, and pinging Schwede66 and Amakuru as we have discussed similar at WP:ERRORS previously - Dumelow (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Last discussed at Talk:Main Page/Archive 206#Discussion on WP:POTD template formatting. Schwede66 23:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the "why we have two versions" question, I think at this point it's mainly because that's the way it had to be done in the past and no one has been bothered enough to figure out what exactly would need changing to change it. The main differences I'm aware of are (1) the substed copy freezes the "recently featured" list while the normal copy always displays today's recently featured (and fixing that did not reach consensus) and (2) the main page's cascading protection would cascade to a few templates it does not cascade to currently.
Regarding "can the bot copy information back from the protected version", that's not very feasible. It would have to parse the substed output, which if humans have edited it carelessly may not even match the template anymore. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Dealing with a family situation right now, so a little slow. So thanks to everyone who kept POTD running. I'll try to get to the end of February done ASAP. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

2024-08-14

Template:POTD/2024-08-14 has been cut and pasted to Template:POTD/2023-08-14 (overwriting a near-duplicate of Template:POTD/2023-05-02). The 2024 version has errors, so should probably be blanked or deleted, but I'll leave it for a regular to decide which. Certes (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-05-20 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-05-20, I found that Template:POTD/2023-05-20 does not exist. Please create it! 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 May 2023 (UTC)

Who has got time to set this up? If nobody finds the time, what do we do? Do we rerun something that's already been up, e.g. Template:POTD/2022-05-20? May 24 and May 25 are also still to be set up. Ping UnpetitproleX and Ahecht – experienced editors who have recently created POTD templates. Schwede66 22:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Also ping Adam Cuerden – I mistook his item above for something recent. Schwede66 00:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it's sorted. Sorry, I'm going through some stuff. I'll check the month today and try to finish it up. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thyroid POTD

The image proposed is pretty similar to one published some years ago in https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/anie.201601116. Probably everything's cool, but some attribution may be indicated. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The above is missing a link: template:POTD/2023-05-26 Schwede66 19:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
In any case, User:Amakuru noticed that the proposed POTD was created prior to the article that I cited, so the problem is with the journal and the authors, not Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2023-06-06

In the article for that day's POTD, should the two infoboxes be switched? The article is about two paintings, but the second infobox is the one with the POTD. The other painting isn't even a featured image.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not really an issue for POTD. You need to ask that question on the target article's talk page. Schwede66 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2023-06-13

Greetings and felicitations. In Template:POTD/2023-06-13 the text

The three species most commonly grown for their seeds are J. regia, originating from Iran,

currently displays on the front page as

The three species most commonly grown for their seeds are (J. regia), originating from Iran,

The first is what should be there, typographically. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Template:POTD/2023-11-26

Just noting this discussion. I don't... think it's going to be a problem, but I promised to try and raise things early, and it does kind of require a discussion of domestic violence. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 23:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Picture of Monastery has a typo in caption

"wer" should be "were" Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Stuff that's going to hit the main page in the next three days should be posted at WP:Errors, Billyshiverstick. Schwede66 08:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks SC, but I'll never remember that, and had no way of knowing it. I find Wikipedia's system to be really hard to use. We should be able to edit stuff directly. I tried, but it didn't stick. It was already on the main page, which is how I saw it. I find it irritating that we can't fix typos in the Did You Know section too. But thanks for trying to help. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to edit the main page, you need to become an admin first, Billyshiverstick. Schwede66 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2024-03-19

I would like to ask someone's help with making a portrait of Józef Mehoffer POTD for 19th March 2024. That is his birthday. Unfortunately I do not have access to my account at the moment. Do hope someone will help. Thank you! 2A02:A31A:C33F:2E80:15F:4B0E:E881:CA5C (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, do I understand the instructions right that the template {{Picture of the day|YYYY-MM-DD}} gets posted on the en.WP page as opposed to the Commons page? I've done the former. The template now exists and you can edit it. Schwede66 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-08-29 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-08-29, I found that Template:POTD/2023-08-29 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-10-08 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-10-08, I found that Template:POTD/2023-10-08 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-10-15 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-10-15, I found that Template:POTD/2023-10-15 does not exist. Please create it! 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 October 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-10-16 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-10-16, I found that Template:POTD/2023-10-16 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-10-23 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-10-23, I found that Template:POTD/2023-10-23 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who works in this space apart from Amakuru. Is this under control? Shall I lend a hand? If so, how do I go about it? The particular issue is: where is the list of pictures one can choose from? Reading the documentation, this is unclear to me. Schwede66 08:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: thanks for the ping... and yes, I do seem to be mostly a lone wolf on this project right now - with a few created here and there by others... mostly this is fine, it's just that I keep forgetting that there are some days coming up that haven't been set yet, and away this weekend. Anyway, I've moved on a future entry to fill tomorrow so we're good for the next couple of days and I will remember to fill some more future days this evening. If the instructions for how to do them aren't clear I will try to improve them... I actually use a desktop tool I wrote myself to identify the ones that haven't been done yet, because it's not that straightforward to do it on-wiki. If I get a chance I might try to move the tool online because it would probably help others too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
As for doing it on-wiki, you could look at pages like Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 2023 and look for the "has not yet been chosen" message. It wouldn't be too hard to put a list of links somewhere so you could look for the redlinks, like this list for the next two weeks:
29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 [purge]
Anomie⚔ 13:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I can see in the "archive" what has and hasn't been scheduled. What I don't know where to look for it are Featured Pictures that have never been at POTD, i.e. the image candidates for this project. Schwede66 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no single list of not-yet-listed FPs... The "official" way to do this is I think to just go to the thumbnail pages, where they're listed in order of promotion, and then click through images one by one seeing which have run and which haven't. Current Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs/70 seems to be the set where some have been listed and others haven't. Like I say though, I ended up writing my own tool, which also enables easy filtering by category, because this process was altogether too cumbersome!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s not sounding very sophisticated 😬 Schwede66 07:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking for help to share what I believe is an artifact left by Spanish Explorer's in De Soto era. Retrieved from "Old Spanish Diggings" on our property in Garland County Arkansas, USA.
I have a pic of the artifact. 47.214.183.111 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nov. 15 POTD

Thank for giving the size of the crystal in the text. Thank you.Wis2fan (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2023-11-30 does not exist

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-11-30, I found that Template:POTD/2023-11-30 does not exist. Please create it! 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A degree 1 Bézier curve should maybe not be picture of the day

The first of these Bézier curve images does not demonstrate anything especially interesting by itself, is not a good illustration of the concept of "Bézier curve", and it is unlikely it would ever be a 'featured image' by itself. In my opinion it's not a great choice as a "picture of the day". Its use in Template:POTD/2023-12-13 is likely to be at least somewhat confusing to readers.

The purpose of this image is to show the first step in a process leading to the later images such as the third image also shown here. (Any other of which would be a better choice for picture of the day.)

However, if you really want a template box about this image, it should begin with discussion of linear interpolation as a bolded concept, only mentioning that it's a 1st degree Bézier curve somewhere near the end. –jacobolus (t) 15:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. A straight line by itself is a poor and confusing illustration of Bezier curve. Can't understand how it could have been chosen for POTD. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:8CA2:14F8:CF7B:BA58 (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Also agree. A straight line illustrates a curve?! Very confusing. Wis2fan (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the process dropped the ball here in choosing this pic rather than the main image from the set it belonged to. I assume that was simply because it happened to be the first image in the set. Kind of a hilarious embarrassment. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The process also dropped the ball by not responding when I raised this concern 5 days ahead of the picture running on the front page. I guess they don't have enough volunteer staff at POTD to keep tabs on this talk page? user:Amakuru posted a message at Talk:Bézier curve saying in part "If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day", but it's not clear what the point was. –jacobolus (t) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the ping and I will apologise for not spotting the discussion earlier than this - the page here is on my watchlist, but unfortunately so is a lot of other junk so I must have failed to see the conversation. I would certainly have engaged with the discussion had I seen it. However, I don't agree with the assertion that there's anything wrong with this. A linear bezier curve is still a bezier curve, and it is explicitly discussed in the linked article. Furthermore, the linked article is a featured picture and like any other, is entitled to a day on the main page. As it happens, the three curves that you guys have labelled "more interesting" already ran on previous days - in 2007, in 2018 and in 2022. We've just been spacing them out and now the set is complete. A different decision might have been to put all four on one listing, but I think this is an interesting topic, and we're bound to get page views at the article as a result, giving readers a chance to learn more, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Not every picture in a set of "featured pictures" is independently worth featuring on the front page. If we have shortage of good mathematical diagrams listed as featured pictures, maybe someone should put out a call to nominate or create more, instead of just recycling the weakest examples from 16 years ago. –jacobolus (t) 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you want to propose any particular images for addition or removal from the featured picture corpus, then feel free to go and make proposals at WP:FPC. In the mean time, we'll just work our way through the ones that have been approved, as per the guidelines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New editor

It's the second time that I find a completely new editor creating POTD templates. This one's first contribution is Template:POTD/2023-12-27; we have four films being nominated between 27 and 30 December. I've just wikified the Template:POTD/2023-12-29 draft. The other three still need to be tidied up. How come that POTD attracts newbies? Maybe the new editor can explain... Schwede66 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Wondering why my query produced a redlink, I see that Amakuru has just shifted the 29 Dec work to Template:POTD/2024-01-29. Schwede66 22:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Indeed, I've been shuffling them around a bit to create some balance and also working on wikifying a bit too. I'm not sure POTD is really the best fit for brand new editors to gain Wiki-experience, not least because it requires a lot of knowledge of WP:V, how to write prose, Wikiformatting and suchlike; it's not the first time it's happened though, and I suppose technically there's nothing in the rules against it; help is useful as long as fixing it up isn't a complete timesink. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_10&oldid=1204128541"