Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives 2004-2005

Contents 1 Background 2 ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed 3 Archives 4 Protection 5 POTD picture size 6 New Template Design 7 POTD Mainpage, remove "Nominate new image" link 8 Southward 9 Wikipedia:Today's_featured_picture 10 Image:Walschaerts motion.gif 11 Question regarding POTD's 12 {{picture of the day}} 13 whats with that 14 Wikipe-tan as POTD? 15 POTD not a Featured Picture 16 how to nominate a featured picture to be pic of the day? 17 Fallacy in text for Picture of the Day on 2nd November? 18 Not every FP should be POTD 19 Animated POTDs 20 Redlinks? 21 Text version template 22 November 26 picture 23 Wikipedia:Featured lists 24 Skipping a FP for POTD 25 POTDs for today and tomorrow 26 Protection of PotD row 27 Wierd 28 New system 29 New system breaks {{picture of the day}} 30 POTD protected 31 RSS feed broken 32 CBD's POTD method 33 Animation disconnect in archives 34 Commons POTY 35 April Fool's Main Page 2007 36 The Cache Questions. 37 Image:The_photographer_new.jpg 38 Template Troubles 39 POTD scheduling guidelines 40 Main page talk discussion about featured pictures

[edit] Background

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

[edit] ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed

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

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

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

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

[edit] Archives

I've created {{POTDArchiveHeader}} and {{POTDArchiveFooter}} and inserted them on all archive pages, to facilitate easy navigation. If this is agreeable, quite a few helper templates are deprecated and should be TfD'd. Zocky | picture popups 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

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

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

[edit] POTD picture size

In response to this request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] New Template Design

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

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

And without:

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

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

Primate#101 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POTD Mainpage, remove "Nominate new image" link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Southward

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Today's_featured_picture

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image:Walschaerts motion.gif

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

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

Just do it how a panorama is done. It's fine. (Go back to a recnet panorama for the code.) Wh does the animation matter?--HereToHelp 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding POTD's

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

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

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

[edit] {{picture of the day}}

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

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

[edit] whats with that

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

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

[edit] Wikipe-tan as POTD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] POTD not a Featured Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Not every FP should be POTD

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

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

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

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

[edit] Animated POTDs

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

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

[edit] Redlinks?

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

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

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

[edit] Text version template

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

• width
• border-color
• border-style
• background-color

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

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

[edit] November 26 picture

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured lists

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

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

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

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

Has there been any further discussion on this? I'd love to see featured lists start getting featured, if only once a week, on the main page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Well… I was kind of hoping somebody might come up with a draft of how this would look. It would be great to see this happen, are there any strong objections, and, if not, is anybody up for visualizing it in Wiki markup? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skipping a FP for POTD

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

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

[edit] POTDs for today and tomorrow

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protection of PotD row

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

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

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

[edit] Wierd

I find it odd that there is an S on the front of that U.S. penny. United States coins either have a P or a D there and never an S. The letter tells you where the coin was minted at. If it has a P then it was minted in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania, and if it has a D on it then it was minted in Denver, Colorado. Those are the only two places where coins are minted at so how could this coin have an S when the only letters it could have been are a P or D? Is this coin not a real one or model one? I don't know whether this is a point of concern but I don't find it likely that that penny is a real, spendable United States coin.
--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to United_States_Mint#Mintmarks S is the mark of the San Francisco mint, which only appears on proofs. --Dschwen 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New system

I have implemented a new template system, based on the one I created for the commons POTD. It is a more flexible system and should make adding new listings much easier. Each POTD is stored in five content templates:

Template	Content
POTD image/YYYY-MM-DD	filename.jpg
POTD size/YYYY-MM-DD	defaultSize (no units), if greater than 400 forces landscape mode on {{Pic of the day}}
POTD title/YYYY-MM-DD	Wiki-linked short title, as previously used on condensed version
POTD caption/YYYY-MM-DD	Full paragraph caption
POTD credit/YYYY-MM-DD	Image credit, including Photo:/Graphic:/Animation: ...

All current four template versions (text/condensed/row/main page) are created automatically from these. It is also possible to create your own customised version. ed g2s • talk 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what to do about the Main Page. One would have to create a protected template using subst: for each day. There's no way to do it automatically whilst enforcing the everything-on-the-main-page-is-protected rule. ed g2s • talk 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to be changed, please update Main Page/Tomorrow and associated templates to correctly show tomorrow's featured picture as well. Dragons flight 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. ed g2s • talk 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I underestimated the risk this proposed, and the image was indeed vandalised. I will set up a system to make copies for the main page asap. In the meantime the four templates for today have been protected. ed g2s • talk 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot should be able to offset this, once approved, but it is dependent on Main Page/Tomorrow being operational. Dragons flight 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

/Tomorrow works fine with new templates. ed g2s • talk

Why have four templates instead of one? —Centrx→talk • 01:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The system that we had was perfectly fine, why change it? Did you even discuss beforehand all of the users who actually maintain and edit this? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to change the caption, or anything else, you had to keep several templates in sync. This requires just one edit (and one admin refresh on the protected version now). I don't think anyone will object to the task being made easier? ed g2s • talk 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After examining your new modifications, especially after creating the separate templates for the main page, they look fine. One thing you overlooked was the fact that when the POTD is an animated GIF, we usually put a frame capture on the main page. There were complaints that the animated images slowed down the download speed of the main page. Compare Wikipedia:POTD row/January 8, 2007 versus Wikipedia:Today's featured picture (animation)/January 8, 2007. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I made these modifications: [1] [2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm stunned. Late yesterday (UTC), you commented here regarding the need to protect templates appearing on the main page. You then placed templates on the main page without protecting them. Now you say that you "underestimated the risk this proposed" and you commented on Centrx's talk page that you "didn't realise it would be such an immediate issue." You didn't realize that placing unprotected templates on the main page would be an immediate issue? What the hell?! —David Levy 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I probably should've protected the templates for the day (although that was not what I was suggesting before) as a temporary measure. I'm sorry if you find that so hard to believe, and I'm sorry I was proved to be a bit naive. It wasn't long ago that we had unprotected content on the main page you know. ed g2s • talk 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You "probably should've protected the templates"? Have you recently read Talk:Main Page (where this problem's severity has been discussed at great length)? If not, what business did you have editing the main page?

2. You noted the need to "create a protected template using subst for each day," so you obviously were aware that main page content should be protected. Why did you then place unprotected content on the main page? Were you under the impression that the "security through obscurity" theory applied?

3. Frankly, I'm about ready to petition the developers for a higher level of page protection to be assigned by bureaucrats strictly to admins who can demonstrate a basic understanding of the main page. Nothing personal, Ed, but I'm fed up with sysops wandering in, compromising the main page's integrity (to the embarrassment of the entire community), and pleading ignorance. As the number of admins increases, this problem is only going to get worse, and we shouldn't have to depend on bots to mitigate the damage.

I must say that I'm surprised to see this sort of rookie mistake from a veteran sysop. I'm not trying to mean, but this is a big deal, and your response has been rather nonchalant. —David Levy 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your pessimistic view, and I don't see what your continued complaints are going to achieve. ed g2s • talk 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, evidently, as you won't even answer my questions. —David Levy 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't asked anything other than various versions of "what the hell do you think you were doing?". I've explained my actions and made my apologies, so I don't really see the point of pursuing the matter. ed g2s • talk 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you haven't fully explained your actions. I'm merely attempting to determine what misunderstanding led to your error. If there's some sort of clarification that will reduce the risk of having 1 in 100 sysops make the same mistake, I want to know what it is. As I said, I'm not trying to be mean, but something has to be done about this. —David Levy 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, the protected template has been created. It's fairly straightforward, and can be updated with a simple subst. See instructions on archive page. ed g2s • talk 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

David, just drop it. He apologized for his mistake. We're all human (yes, even you), and we all slip up from time to time. The best thing to do is to learn from this incident and bounce back. I know I messed up with the protection on DYK last week on one of my first updates, but I learned from it, and I now systematically follow protection guidelines. Why try to enrage some fury over something like this? Nishkid64 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm desperately trying to understand the thought process that led to this error. To forget to protect a page is one thing, but I want to know why Ed consciously believed that it was okay not to protect the templates (in the hope of better discouraging such logic in the future). —David Levy 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

David, I agree with you, but I think to get across to ed g2s what has been happening here and why you are reacting so strongly, he needs to be directed to something more informative than the Main Page talk. I suggest he (and anyone else you want to bring up to speed in the future) use these four links from various archives:

• Main page talk from 24 December
• WP:AN thread from 24 December.
• WP:ANI thread from 24 December
• Follow-up WP:AN thread from 24 December

Hope that helps. Carcharoth 03:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold up a minute. I've been writing the PsOTD since last May and I'm don't exactly understand how this works here. How does this change the current system? Have the existing ones (currently done through January 31, 2007) been migrated to this new system? And what I do need to do to create new ones? I guess it's a good thing I never got around to writing instructions about how to update the PsOTD. howcheng {chat} 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I can figure it out. I do however see some other problems; besides the animation thing that Zzyxx11 mentioned, (1) the row version uses smaller sizes than the others so as not to take up too much space on the Main Page; (2) when it's a panorama, the layout changes drastically (see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 12, 2006 for example), and the image size is different for the column version in this case (because of its use in the Main Page alternatives where it doesn't go across the entire content area). I like having some of the things compartmentalized (caption and credit for example), but we need far more flexibity than this system allows. howcheng {chat} 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, generating the listings has never been particularly difficult. It's write-once, then copy-paste with minimal changes to create the other versions, thanks to the suite of templates starting with {{Generate POTD T}}. Maintenance of changes has been the only annoying part, having to copy-paste them to each version. Perhaps the best way to go ahead with this is to use a combination of the Generate POTD templates with these subtemplates. Lemme mull on this and maybe edit the Generate templates later tonight to see if I can make something work. Ed, while I appreciate the work you've put into this, a little heads up would have been nice since you don't have any experience with the en-WP PsOTD, or at least with the current system if you used to do it before Solitude and Solipsist. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did take time out to study the en POTDs, and I implemented the POTD system on Commons. The whole point of this system is that it eliminates the need for the generated templates. The only template that needs to be generated is the protected one. There's no need for the generating templates anymore so I'm not exactly sure what you are planning. In response to your two questions: (1) size can be passed as a parameter, and the main page templates use a 250x250 bounding box, giving the smaller images required (2) I did come across this, but I'm still trying to think of a way to do this neatly. I think some parser functions based on width == 500 might work nicely. ed g2s • talk 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - at the expense of one more varaible, although putting the size in with the filename was a bit of a hack. Just to point out, that as these templates exist to let people use the POTD wherever they desire (otherwise we'd just copy and paste out of the archive for the main page), part of the update was not only to make them easier to maintain, but easier for people to transclude as one-off POTD boxes can now be created to fit any purpose (for a simple example, see my user page). ed g2s • talk 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My idea was to keep the layouts in separate subpages at Wikipedia:Picture of the day, Wikipedia:POTD, Wikipedia:POTD row, and Wikipedia:POTD column (the various Generate templates would create those) but keep the content in Template:POTD image etc. (Just wondering, shouldn't those be in the Wikipedia namespace?) That way, if the layouts ever change again in the future, the older ones are unaffected by any such changes -- I can't say that there's any need to preserve what would be the old layouts, but at the same time, I'm not sure I want to risk it either because it might prove itself useful somehow. Or it could possibly be that what would be the new layouts look horrid when imposed on the older content because the older content would have been laid out with a different look and feel in mind. I hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrrm, could I suggest that rather than having five templates for the different 'variables' (image, caption, credit, size, and title) it would make alot more sense to have one template with the five 'variables' as parameters and a sixth parameter to determine which format to put them all in? That would still allow updates to the text or size or whatever to be made in one place, but transclude two templates instead of six to do it. See {{POTD/2007-01-10}} for an example of what each daily template would look like and {{POTD row2}} for the changes which would be made to {{POTD row}} to use that format... basically just accepting parameters instead of sub-templates for each 'variable'. --CBD 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New system breaks {{picture of the day}}

The template {{picture of the day}} is placed on Featured Pictures to indicate when they were POTD and links to their POTD subpage. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to link to the subpage anymore because none exists now. I've circumvented this with putting the POTD blurb on the image description page, but I'm not happy with this solution. See Image:India roadway map.svg for example. If anyone has a better idea of how we can do this, please let me know. howcheng {chat} 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution is to create Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 1, 2007 using {{subst:pic of the day|date=2007-02-01}}, but all this really does is create a page that exists only serve as a link target. Kind of sucks, but I still like that better than transcluding the POTD blurb on the image description page. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Including the blurb in the template is what is done on Commons (I think). Alternatively link to the relevant archive page. ed g2s • talk 06:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I came up with {{pictureoftheday}} and the sub-template {{POTDlink}} which creates a link to either the POTD blurb page if it exists or the archive page if it doesn't. Eventually I may go back and replace all instances of {{picture of the day}} with the new one, but it will take some effort to deal with the old PsOTD which were just on archive pages (and I created {{picture of the day}} before {{#time}} was implemented). I believe this works out the best -- the pages still look nice and now link to the right locations. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD protected

Once ProtectionBot gets going (and I'm assuming that the RFA will succeed), will it really be necessary to create and protect the "protected version"? I'm thinking we can just link to {{POTD row}} and modify that so it doesn't include the subst anymore either. howcheng {chat} 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Just use POTD row and ProtectionBot will detect and handle the changeovers in its components. Please also provide an equivalent to Tomorrow's POTD row on Main Page/Tomorrow as this will allow the protection to occur in advance of when it appears on the Main Page proper. Dragons flight 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

With the protected versions, you only need to protect one template, instead of four or five. ed g2s • talk 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... if you don't protect the sub-templates then they could be vandalized for the various formats/displays other than the Main page. Or even theoretically vandalized just before being substituted onto the protected version - though that would probably be noticed unless it was subtle. I'd really strongly recommend a {{POTD/2007-01-10}} style format rather than these sub-templates... that would also be only one page to protect, and not have to be subst'd each day. It really would just be easier to maintain and take up alot fewer pages/transclusions. --CBD 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but having the various subtemplates makes it possible to have custom layouts, which people have been asking for (see a number of discussions above and in the archive). I realize that with the protected version, only one page has to be protected, but if ProtectionBot is working properly, then it's not a problem to have to deal with the rest and that makes one LESS thing for admins to do to prep for the POTD's appearance on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The method I'm suggesting would also allow custom layouts... because it works exactly the same way except for setting the 'variable' values into parameters instead of sub-templates. If people are set on creating five new templates every day and then manually substituting those onto a sixth... ok, but I really think it would make more sense to just have the one new template per day and no manual substitution required. --CBD 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite getting your concept. Can you give an example of how you would transclude the template? howcheng {chat} 18:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See {{POTD/2007-01-10}}. That sets the 'image', 'caption', et cetera for the day as parameters which are then passed to a formatting template. The newly installed system works exactly the same way except that it reads the 'image', 'caption', et cetera into the formatting template from sub-templates. If I wanted to do a different format I'd use a template call like {{POTD/2007-01-10|style=column}}... which would then pass all the appropriate values to {{POTD column}}. Parameters set up front rather than sub-templates called on the back end... otherwise exactly the same logic. You'd have one template per output format (exactly as you do now) and one template per day instead of five... as demonstrated by {{POTD/2007-01-11}}. --CBD 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, you'd only end up having a set of pre-defined layouts. I'm not a fan of creating a ton of templates for every POTD, but it gives users a lot more flexibility to incorporate the POTD into custom layouts. See ed g2s' user page for example. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, give me some credit for having thought about this. The same results you describe could be achieved by creating a 'pre-defined layout' which just returns the 'image' parameter (i.e. {{{image}}} and nothing else), one which just returns the caption parameter, et cetera. Then you could call those layouts to do the same 'mix and match' style as on Ed g2s' user page. The difference being that you'd have one template per variable... instead of one template per variable per day as currently. There is nothing which is done with the newly implemented system which could not be done with the layout I'm proposing... it would just be done with alot fewer templates and manual work. --CBD 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, OK I'm game. Want to set it up? howcheng {chat} 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did so for January 1 thru 15. I also modified the {{POTD row}}, {{POTD column}}, {{POTD}}, {{POTD image}}, et cetera templates so that they would accept 'input' from either parameters or sub-templates. So, now if you do {{POTD/{{#time: Y-m-d}}}} you will get the default 'POTD row' format for the current day using the 'parameter method'... or [[Image:{{POTD/2007-01-14|image}}|75px]] would give you a thumbnail of just the image for January 14th. Note that the January 8 (animated) and January 12 (wide) main page 'protected' versions did not use the standard 'POTD row' format and thus I haven't duplicated them. Presumably there are either existing formats for those styles or manual setup of the page... either of which could be done in the same way with the 'parameter based' system. The essential (only) difference here is 15 days = 15 templates for 'variables' rather than 75 templates for 'variables'. Everything else works exactly the same... to the extent that I was actually able to just adjust the existing format templates to accept either methodology. --CBD 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So the only one to be replaced is {{pic of the day}}. I created a {{POTD default}} for testing and I will probably just move {{pic of the day}} to the latter to keep it working for everyone. I'll give it a closer look later tonight but it all looks good to me so far. As for the "wide" versions, ed g2s was able to utilize {{#ifexpr}} to good use there, so I'm sure that can be worked out. Nice work! howcheng {chat} 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

People can vandalise a lot of quite high visibility templates, but we don't protect them all. The Main Page ones obviously have to be protected, but I don't see any reason why the others need to be. ed g2s • talk 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but one of the reasons you've implemented this is so that any changes only need to be made in one location, correct? It seems to me that having to update POTD protected as well as POTD caption (for example) kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? howcheng {chat} 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an unavoidable nuisance, yes, but unless we protect everything, we will always have to have two versions (protected/unprotected). The old system required 4 or 5 updates each time a change was made, and the need for each update was the reason why you couldn't develop new template styles. The new system requires just 1 update (using a copy and paste subst), and that will never increase, no matter how many more styles are added. ed g2s • talk 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:ProtectionBot, see the RFA for what happened. While I'm here, and before I forget, I recently looked through the alternative main pages (not sure how many people use those) and saw that that some of the designs at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives are now broken as far as PotD goes. Does anyone have the time to go in and fix them? Carcharoth 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is one more: Main Page alternative (tomorrow+today). Carcharoth 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, how'd I miss that? This is done now. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Might be a separate issue, but the picture isn't displaying for Main Page/Tomorrow or the one you just fixed, and isn't in Template:POTD protected/2007-01-13 either. Not sure what's going on, as I can see the picture elsewhere. Carcharoth 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK on a different computer. Strange. Carcharoth 09:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed broken

Why has the feed for this picture of the day broken? I received two Deleted Page posts in my reader for the last two days. Is it because of the new system, if so can I get new link? Jack 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds likely. How does one even get the RSS feed? howcheng {chat} 04:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out. Discussion moved to User talk:Skagedal. howcheng {chat} 05:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBD's POTD method

Decided to start a new section for this discussion. I was able to modify {{POTD row}} to do a different layout for a wider image (I also had to change the image size parameters from 250x250 to just numbers otherwise {{#ifexpr}} breaks), but there is one thing I couldn't figure out and that is how to have a different image appear, which is necessary for the Main Page when we have an animated POTD. Perhaps a staticimage parameter or something. Or perhaps continuing to make the POTD protected page via subst so we can fewer things to protect as per ed g2s' system (plus it allows for more custom tinkering like the static image and the "View the animation" link -- but I might be able to take advantage of #ifexists for that) I was also wondering how to do different sizes on the different templates (POTD row usually takes a smaller size ... 250 instead of 300 for landscape orientation and 160 instead of 250 for portrait), but I think I can use #ifexpr to do that as well. As the one writing the POTD blurbs I'd be happier with this system so I don't have a whole ton of pages clogging up my watchlist, but I'm not totally convinced this is the way to go yet. howcheng {chat} 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I modified some of the templates to accept more parameters, namely rowsize and colsize for the row and column versions respectively (can be left blank). Then I went and created the rest for January. There's a test version in my userspace at User:Howcheng/Picture of the day/January 2007. Not sure if we still need POTD protected ... we could potentially leave POTD row permanently protected since that's the template always appearing on the Main Page. Change that one to {{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|row}} and it becomes auto-updating. After using it for a little bit, I have to say I really like this method. howcheng {chat} 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the version that appeared on the Main Page should be permanently protected as a record of what appeared that day. There are other ways of finding this out, but this seems the simplest. Compare with what happens with the day's featured article blurb. OTOH, if people using this version want to use it elsewhere, that could be a problem. Carcharoth 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the 'non standard' formats, other than 'POTD row' used for most, there are basically two options;

1. Include additional parameters and conditional logic in a single formatting template to display all permutations used on the Main Page. Howcheng did this above for the wider images and similar adjustments could be made to handle static images for the animated items. If we went this route I would suggest leaving the 'POTD row' template for just the standard 'row' style and have a separate 'POTD Main Page' template which could handle all the different permutations. The drawback of this method would be that if we introduced new formats for display on the Main Page the single template would get more complex. Benefits would be that you'd have to protect 'POTD Main Page' and the 'POTD/Y-m-d' template for each day (which the new 'Main Page cascade' feature should do automatically) and that's it.
2. Have another page for each day onto which 'POTD/Y-m-d' is transcluded or substituted. The existing 'POTD protected/Y-m-d' templates could be used for this as they serve that function currently. Benefits are that you could transclude different formats as appropriate for the day or even substitute the template and then manually adjust it to a unique format. Drawback would be that you would need to protect 'POTD protected/Y-m-d', 'POTD/Y-m-d', and the appropriate format template(s). You could theoretically remove the need to protect the 'POTD/Y-m-d' and format templates by substituting them onto 'POTD protected/Y-m-d' every day (exactly as per the current system), but that would take about the same effort as just protecting the extra template each day.

Which of these would be better likely depends on how many different formats are going to be displayed on the Main Page. If it changes all the time then the second option allows greater flexibility in formatting... but if it is consistently one of three or four styles then the first option is much easier to maintain. Either way you'd have a protected copy of the POTD for each day available for the archives. --CBD 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation disconnect in archives

If I view Template:POTD protected/2007-01-08 I get the static image that was on the Main Page on January 8th. However, if I then click the link to 'view the animation' it takes me to a page for any animation available today. Since there isn't an animation today I just get a message to that effect, but if there were then I'd get an animation of something completely different than the static image. Would it make sense to create 'dated' animated versions so that they would remain linked in the archives? Alternatively, after images come off the main page we could replace the static version with the animated version... though that has the same 'page loading' issues that led to the static versions in the first place. This is also relevant for how images will be displayed on WP:FC. --CBD 11:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that there are 'dated' animation pages, so I just updated the link on the static date page to call the corresponding animated date page rather than a 'today' page. If future animations use a similar link then the connection should be maintained for archival use. --CBD 11:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons POTY

The vote for Commons' Picture of the Year is going to be starting soon, and disucssion is curently being held at: commons:Commons_talk:Picture of the Year/2006. Please see that page for more information. Related to that, would there be any desire to supplement our POTD with the POTY (for a day) once chosen? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April Fool's Main Page 2007

April Fool's Main Page 2007 project affects all five changeable sections on the mainpage. To have an April Fool's featured picture appear on the mainpage on April 1st, some of the Today's featured picture mainpage rules may need to be bent. Thus, the project may need the approval and agreed upon cooperation from those running the Today's featured picture main page section. If would be great if at least one of the Today's featured picture administrators agreed to be a point person for the Today's featured picture aspect of the April Fool's Main Page 2007 project. Mostly, this would involve deciding which Today's featured picture mainpage rules could be bent, reviewing proposed Today's featured picture mainpage content to ensure it meets Today's featured picture mainpage requirements, and ensuring that this content made its way to the mainpage on April 1st. Please respond here. Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion has been taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#April Fools picture. However, I'm the one who schedules the PsOTD, so I'll be happy to be "point man" for this. howcheng {chat} 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the one who schedules the PsOTD, you are the right person for the position. Thank you for volunteering. Also, I'm glad to see there is discussion on the AF featured picture at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#April Fools picture. Eventually, all this will be under one approved Wikipedia project, which SteveBaker is working on. -- Jreferee 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cache Questions.

Hi, First time editing a wiki. Please excuse any guidelines i haven't followed.

Wanted to throw up a suggestion. Perhaps the main page can have a META tag whereby the page is not saved into the browsers cashe. (a nocache tag?) That way people who have bookmarked it wont see the same page again.

Best Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.16.134.162 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not seeing the same page again. Maybe your browsersettings are the problem. Which one are you using? --Dschwen(A) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The_photographer_new.jpg

It is uncertain whether the man is walking towards the camera or away from it. Image taken in São Martinho do Porto, Unless this man has backwards feet he is clearly walking to the camera (Gnevin 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Template Troubles

It says, "protect with {{subst:somethingsomething, but it doesn't have end braces. What's wrong? {Slash-|-Talk} 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong; that's deliberate. The closing braces don't appear until the very end, after all the template parameters. If you follow that "create protected version" link, you can see what I mean. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD scheduling guidelines

Due to a general increase in interest in writing the POTD by a number of different Wikipedians, I've created the POTD scheduling guidelines. Comments/updates are appreciated. howcheng {chat} 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page talk discussion about featured pictures

Not sure where to leave this note, so leaving it here and at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Tomorrow's featured picture about suitability of some pictures - kind of an attempt to prepare a response in case there is any reaction to the forthcoming eye surgery picture, and the later 'hawk eating vole' picture. Input over there would be appreciated, or pop over there and ask people to bring the discussion somewhere over here instead. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)