Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

RSS Feed

The POTD RSS image feed is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.216.218 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is another feed, but this one appears to be working properly. Regardless, the RSS feed is done independently of Wikipedia. User:Skagedal wrote the script to generate the aforementioned feed. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

January 3, 2008

I strongly object to running the image of any political candidate the day before an election. Disclaimer notwithstanding, this is poor form. DurovaCharge! 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was thinking of complaining myself. I as trying to find out who's in charge, but a discussion here works too. —Random832 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, the disclaimer makes it worse! It's a good photo, but I think replacing it with a bunny or something, and running this at some point when we don't feel the need to footnote it, might be easiest for us all. Shimgray | talk | 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been replaced by the one from this time last year, which is suitably neutral Shimgray | talk | 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake -- totally did not realize it was the Iowa caucuses already. I guess the best time may be when someone has already clinched the nomination, which could be as early as Feb 5. howcheng {chat} 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I also raised this at WP:AN and it got taken care of very quickly. And I appreciate how this was an honest mistake - the elections get earlier every year. Yet it's the kind of quirky thing that just might get noticed in the mainstream press...and you know how they'd spin the story. Glad we didn't go down that path. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Pictures of the Day and the Featured Content page

The Picture of the Day for October 4, 2005, and October 20, 2006 (same picture) was deleted due to improper licensing (it was from stock.xchng). The Picture of the Day for October 28, 2006, has also been deleted (don't know why). These deleted images are causing redlinks to appear on the Featured Content page instead of images when it pulls up those dates. Is there some way to prevent it from trying to pull up deleted images or could we perhaps substitute other images retroactively to replace the ones that were deleted? Kaldari (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

March 15, 2008 POTD suggestion

is a relatively new FP. Since St. Patrick's Day is to be observed on March 15 of 2008 (to avoid conflicting with Holy Week), it might be an appropriate choice for POTD for March 15. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Size

Is there any way I could make the picture of the day with text and picture (default) appear smaller? wwesockssign 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you want a fixed size: [[Image:{{POTD/2024-11-24|image}}|180px]]. For a variable size you can replace the "180" with {{#expr:({{POTD/2024-11-24|size}} * 0.8) round 0}} (for an 80% size for example). Then for the caption, use {{POTD/2024-11-24|caption}}. howcheng {chat} 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

April 1?

suggestion... -Miskaton (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The POTD has to be a Featured Picture first. Discussion is (minimally) taking place at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Today's Featured Picture. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IE7 main page TFP issue

copied from Talk:Main PageNil Einne (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Today's featured picture section is a little narrower than the rest of the sections. Who can fix this please? ~RayLast «Talk!» 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (latest Firefox, 17" LCD, 1280×1024). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, too. Could you perhaps show us what your alternative is in the userspace, or something? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe he/she's referring to this Image:En.wikipedia.org.Main Page.showing FP issue.2008.04.08.png‎ which occurs in IE7 (but not FireFox 2). To be honest, I don't think I would have noticed this before, so I have no idea how long it's been like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that this problem occurs today as well, I presume it's related to the template not the picture. Would it be better to copy to the VPT instead? Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely the template or some right and left margins set on it. The title of this section is wrong since I've tested it with IE 6 and it still shows the problem. ~RayLast «Talk!» 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found what the problem is. It can be viewed from different angles. It's either that the featured picture section is narrower, or that the featured articles, did you know, news, and on this day are too wide. I would say the latter. This is the code that is currently being used: 

-------------------------Today's featured article, Did you know------------------------>
{|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;"
...
Notice the {|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;" instead of {|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px 0px;"

That makes the upper section wider. You could either edit it to be 0px, which I suggest, or changing the featured picture's section to be -8px instead of 0px. The last option would make the featured content to be wider (4px to each side) than the rest of the content. The result can be viewed in my Main Page sandbox.

There you have it. The dirty work is done. Someone please fix it? ~RayLast «Talk!» 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

With POtD having a policy (I think) about copyrighted pictures not being eligible for featured status, I'm a bit confused as to why and how Template:POTD/2008-04-17 has come to be. crassic![talk] 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just someone who created a POTD blurb on their own (happens frequently, I have to say). howcheng {chat} 06:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I was just curious. Thanks. ;) crassic![talk] 11:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for 15 May 2008

See also Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#March 15, 2008 POTD suggestion.

I don't understand how the pictures of the day are chosen, can users simply create an entrance?

I would like to suggest an image for 15 May 2008: Image:HerdenkingVuurgrensRotterdam1940 2007 edit1.jpg. It shows the commemoration of the Rotterdam Blitz of 15 May 1940. – Ilse@ 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given their frequent use as shock images, was a picture of a giant spider really appropriate for the main page? It gave me quite a scare. Vashti (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why 2 versions?

This is probably an FAQ, but why is there both a protected and an unprotected version of the Picture of the Day? According to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines#Protected version, "Having two versions allows non-admins to make updates to the POTD caption while it's protected, but prevents vandalism from appearing on the Main Page." At least in my case, I would be more likely to notice a caption change at WP:ERRORS than at the unprotected version. Every once in a while, someone fixes the unprotected version and mistakenly thinks he has fixed it, but the error continues onto the Main Page. The Main Page is the version everybody sees. So simplifying this duplicate system would stop a major source of Main Page errors. Art LaPella (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally late reply, but I have all the POTD templates watchlisted (since I create them) and I log in at least once a day, so I usually catch those. Also, since copyediting of Main Page content is highly sensitive, you might also think of this two-step process (editing the regular POTD template, followed by the copy of the change to the protected template) as a pseudo-flagged revisions. Also, having a subst'ed version for the Main Page allows us to do make Main Page–specific edits (e.g., "View the animation", "Need help viewing this video?") that don't fit into the structure of the template. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

request to remove Credits from all PoDs

I've brought this up before, but it's been a while, so here it goes again.

Please consider removing all credits from PoDs. Just as there is no ownership of articles, there is also no ownership of images. I realize listing credits is an attempt to attract image submissions, but credits go against the very core of Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think it is important to note in any discussion like this that all images and articles are owned by their authors. Authors are required to allow modifcations and reuse, etc. in order to participate in Wikipedia, but that's not the same as saying their is no ownership. Dragons flight (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to be moderately bold with this issue, discussion is on Main page talk.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It ended up archived at Talk:Main_Page/Archive 144#Removing photo credit for the Today.27s featured picture. To my mind it remains as icky as ever to be crediting images any differently in TFP than anywhere else in the project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gadget

I created a gadget to add a POTD to Facebook, Hyves, iGoogle, AIM, Blogger, MySpace, Vista Sidebar etc. as gadget. Check this site: http://gadgets.videgro.net/?page=2#wikipediapotd Vdegroot (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synchiropus_splendidus_2_Luc_Viatour.jpg

Why this picture has not gone to "Picture of the day"?

It is yet "featured pictures"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lviatour (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still in the queue. There is currently about a five-month wait between promotion and POTD appearance. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thank you --Luc Viatour (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Italicisation

"Bibliothèque nationale de France" should be written in italics, because it is a foreign word. That's all. bsrboy (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Idea for wallpaper app.

Is there any programming genius out there who could design an application which users could install to automatically change their desktop wallpaper to set to the picture of the day? Its just an idea, but I feel it would be extremely popular and would gain a wider audience for each image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.135.72 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Template:POTD/2008-11-25, I thought that it would be nice to have a navigation bar where I could move to Template:POTD/2008-11-25 or to Template:POTD/2008-11-27. DRV has such a navigation bar (see, for example, the top of this page. -- Suntag ☼ 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done howcheng {chat} 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's pic

First of all, I want to say that I am okay with my picture not being picture of the day if that is the consensus, but it would be a shame if it was inadvertently skipped. My picture Knot Table, was promoted 6/11/2008. Today's featured pic was promoted 6/08/2008 and tomorrow's was promoted 6/29/2008. According to the project page, pictures of the day must be featured pictures already, and they are generally picture of the day in a FIFO order, with some exceptions. Now I realize that my picture might not be the most interesting, but I was hoping that some people that saw it might be interested and start learning about knot theory because of it. But whatever the consensus is, I will support that, I just don't see any reason for just randomly skipping my pic so far. If anyone could explain this that would be great. I realize this is a huge conflict of interest on my part, and so this will be my only attempt to try to get it on the main page, I will still argue my case but if consensus goes the other way, I will quietly step out of the argument. Jkasd 06:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Darwin portrait for Darwin Day

Although it's a recent promotion, I've tentatively scheduled a portrait of Charles Darwin for February 12, which is Darwin Day: {{POTD/2009-02-12}}. I hope that's okay.--ragesoss (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for April 23rd, 2009 (anniversary of Shakespeare's death and putative birthday)

The Cobbe portrait was recently announced as a possible portrait of Shakespeare, drawn from life. An image of this portrait was recently promoted at WP:FPC. I think this would be a topical picture for 23 April, 2009 (Shakespeare's putative birthday and the anniversary of his death). This is also the day the portrait will go on display to the public at Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Ronnotel (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2010

There may be some weirdness going on with the archive. Specifically, there's a page for Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 2010 with a picture. My guess is that this should have gone into March 2009, but as I'm not active in this area perhaps someone else can have a look? AngoraFish 木 09:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.
This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.

Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!

Maedin\talk 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for July 20

20th of July, or maybe July 16 (date of launch)

This is the 40th anniversary of the 1st moon landing. There don't seem to be any Featured Articles that are up to snuff for WP:TFA, so at the very least there should be a picture. Smallbones (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Picture of the day For March 4th 2010

I posted this image as POTD for the date march 4th 2010, as the date coincides with the festival Ayya Vaikunda Avataram. The template (Template:POTD/2010-03-04)is remaining undeleted while the schedule for the whole month(Which I created myself) of march 2010 ([1]) was deleted. Now my doubt is, Is my image remaining as the 'PICTURE OF THE DAY' for the date march 4th 2010 (or) the image was removed from that date too?. If removed, Is it possible to post it again? If so, what should I do to take it into the schedule? Any body please clear those thing, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You can leave it as-is. There's no need to have the monthly page for March 2010 yet, as it's too early, and that invites vandalism. howcheng {chat} 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
So you are telling that the image was still the "POTD for March 4th 2010", right? And shall I confirm that, that particular date was reserved for the image and anybody else creating a schedule in future will be aware of this one? - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible image for August 19, 2009

I would like to suggest that ths image

Medal of Honor recipient Admiral John Bulkeley

be the featured image of the day for August 19th. He was a Medal of Honor recipient and this would be his birthday. --Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed this. I can do it for next year, though. howcheng {chat} 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD credits

Another discussion at Talk:Main Page#Removing photo credit for the Today's featured picture has started regarding the removal of photo credits on the POTDs. Please join in. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a great idea for an upcoming picture of the day!

Can't think of a better option from the recent FPs.   Nezzadar ☎   04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this will make it to POTD in about 9-10 months when it's its turn in the queue. howcheng {chat} 06:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A long way off...

...but the attribution on the image for 15th August is probably wrong and I don't believe the original uploader is still active. "J. Cooper Sr" is probably James Cooper who was an engraver, not an illustrator. I'm guessing the "Sr" addition to his name is probably a misreading of the "Sc" after his name in the image which is short for "Sculpcit" ("he engraved"). I'm going to change it, but just bringing it up here in case there is some other evidence for a "J. Cooper Sr" as the illustrator. Yomanganitalk 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day photo credits requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifications

Many articles never make it onto the mainpage, but avenues such as TFP provide a chance for some articles to have their day in the sun. Having a great photo on the mainpage attracts a lot of attention for an article, unfortunately while the images may be of top quality the articles often aren't. Would it be possible to add a notification to the talk page of the article the picture is a subject of? This would give someone the opportunity to at least give the relevant article a proofread, perhaps drastically improve it. A day or two is long time when you're anxious not to present a crappy article to the public and to make the most of your opportunity. I noticed today that the Featured Picture on the mainpage is of Leeds Castle, a fantastic building and which many people might have been interested to find out more about as a direct result of it being on the mainpage. Unfortunately, today they were presented with this disappointment, with as much information on trivial details such as TV appearances as history. Leaving a notification on the relevant article's talkpage will not guarantee the article's improvement, but it at least gives someone time whereas at the moment it appears to be sprung on an article without warning. When a picture of Chapultepec Castle was in the TFP slot on 5 December 2009 the views spiked to 6,000. An increase of this magnitude is a massive amount for most articles and I think TFP is missing a trick here. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only caveat is that sometimes the POTD blurb is written only a few hours before its appearance on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 03:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikitext broken somewhere

{{POTD wikipedia}} is not displaying the image. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Everyone should install User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js

Hi all. Just dropping by to suggest that editors install the above script to their Monobook/Vector skin as appropriate. What is does is to highlight links to redirect pages, pages that are up for deletion and disambiguation pages by changing the colour of the displayed links from the standard blue. The last one is most useful, it identifies where a link does not go to the intended target and should be fixed before going up on the Main Page. This will help us catch caption errors BEFORE they go up on the Mian Page. I will be suggesting this to all editors involved in the FA and Main Page content processes. Regards. Zunaid 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

February 1 - Tue

I'm not sure what this is... Is it the first picture of the day on wikipedia? I think there should be something to explain its presence. Its just... there. --Usyflad10 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. howcheng {chat} 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

March 15

Is the Picture of the Day for March 15 really supposed to be File:Example.jpg? Sophus Bie (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone created a test page. It happens now and then. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PING!

June 12 is less then 30 minutes away. — Edokter (talk) — 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 16 has not been scheduled yet, and we're already 75 minuts in. — Edokter (talk) — 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Run my picture (and FS's) picture please?

I've never been on the POTD before, can we go with this at fullwidth or close to?

Map of North America showing the subspecies' specific ranges in different colors


TCO (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A terrible oversight(?)

What are the odds that the FPOTD on July 12, 2011 is a cartoon featuring a wounded vet being taunted by a capitalist caricature the same day the top line DYK is the Medal of Honor Award winning soldier Leroy Petry highlighting his being presented the award today? Tacky doesn't begin to cover it. If it's a simple mistake perhaps we should look at closer coordination of front page materials if not then I'd ask why is the DYK and FPOTD being used to editorialize? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it tacky? By coincidence we appear to have two items on the front page which show war from two different angles. Is there a particular reason not to have the two on the same page? bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is, it creates a terrible impression and undercuts Wikipedia's credibility. It screams editorialism, whether it's the case or not. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
How does it "undercut Wikipedia's credibility"? Wikipedia isn't required to portray an absolutely one-sided and consistent front page; nor should it. A good encyclopædia should contain contrasting content which considers different viewpoints. Like it or not, in reality - and in reliable sources - some people get medals, and some people oppose war. Wikipedia is not going to improve its image or credibility by quietly hiding one of them because it seems to disagree with the other. That way lies madness - today we also have a DYK hook about booze, seemingly incompatible with an OTD about mormons - which of those would you hide? Such contrasts are a daily occurrence. bobrayner (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Leave it as-is. This kind of thing has always been an issue: the difficulty veterans have in getting jobs once they come back. It was a problem following WWII, Vietnam and also the Gulf conflicts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
SO you support the front page's current configuration because you support the editorial picture is creates? You're advocating using DYK and FPOTD to advance a particular POV? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you advocating censorship? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Messages and ideas are censored. Is there a message with the juxtaposition of these two front page features? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Is there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There's either a POV being pushed and I'm censoring or there's no POV being pushed so there's no harm in changing the POTD. Can't have it both ways. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The third option is that it's just a happy coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Happy huh? If that's the case then swapping out the POTD won't be censoring anything, will it? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Happy" as in "funny" or "humorous". Just my opinion. I doubt the average reader would notice. I certainly wouldn't, if you hadn't brought it up. Meanwhile, your speech pattern reminds me of another editor, who was banned around the time you turned up. Be careful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise I'm late to this particular debate, but I wanted to encourage the POTD/DYK teams to specifically not make procedural changes to prevent such things as this from happening. Like others, I don't see any underlying message with these two items appearing together. Contrary to Tom's view that 'if there's no message then there's no problem with swapping out the picture', I would contend that doing so would create a dangerous precedent. If the argument 'two elements of the main page combine in a manner I find insulting' is accepted, it opens the door to a plethora of potentially 'insulting' combinations, such as an Israel-focused DYK with a Palestine-focused FA, or an Irish POTD appearing with an English ITN item. It's important that no such precedent is set, on the grounds of common sense, no censorship, and to expressly to avoid the slippery slope. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly removing one of the items an not the other, as TomPointTwo seems to be advocating, would have shown a very clear editorial message. APL (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Objection to Keep Calm and Carry On as POTD for 7th Oct

I think the Keep Calm and Carry On image is a very poor choice for POTD.

With the best will in the world, I really hate this rendering of the poster. The font weight seems just a little too much, and the letter spacing is completely wrong - much too close together. The colour is completely wrong. These things being the case - certainly the last two - it just is not the same as the original. I'd much prefer that we either had an accurate rerendering of the original, or simply use the photo of the original. We gain nothing, IMO, by using something so different from the original and passing it of as if it were the real thing.

In view of this, I think it a very poor choice for POTD. Why on earth are we giving prominence to what is, frankly, a faithless rendering of the original? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's simply that image's turn in the FP queue. I make no judgments on the relative quality of the image when making the schedule. howcheng {chat} 04:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, for 7th Oct 2011 the POTD is an Indian glass house (File:Glasshouse and fountain at lalbagh.jpg), but on the glass house image page it says
"This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for October 9, 2011."
For the Keep Calm file, it says on the image page
"picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for October 7, 2011.".
I'm not sure how the error crept in. Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 2011 and the image pages need to be updated.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User:J Milburn moved the Indian greenhouse to October 7 from October 9. I've fixed the notices. howcheng {chat} 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Aussie wildlife

I have nothing personally against the fauna of Australasia. Much of it is pleasing to the eye. But the proportion of POTD that comes from this category is extraordinary. Is this reflective of the content of the list of Featured Pictures that have not yet been posted to the main page? Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One of our most prolific contributors takes photographs of those species. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Unhappy!

Hello All,
I have been editor on Wiki since only few months from now. But have never dealt with pictures. But many of my friends, including me, feel that the POTD isnt interesting anymore. They of course dont know how a picture becomes a Featured Picture, the criteria required for it. For curiosity, i have been through few evaluations. Looking at the comments there, the technicalities discussed liked colour tones, cropping, resolution, lighting, noise, etc. stand valid for featuring a particular picture. But making it a POTD doesnt really get justification. I am unaware of the selection process and also would not be very interested in getting involved. But just that i have heard many disappointed comments recently, i though i should put them here. Few recent disappointing images were Africa 15 Dec, Anscombe's quartet 11 Dec, Desargues' theorem 2 Nov, Hawker 30 Sep, & so on..... -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The POTD is selected from the Featured Pictures on a first in, first out basis, roughly in the order of their promotion (accounting for anniversaries or other relevant dates, and also to make sure we have a variety of subjects). That means almost all Featured Pictures will eventually get a turn as POTD (with a few exceptions). There is no "voting" system like for TFA, it's simply a queue. I'm sorry that you have found some of the selections to be disappointing, but they are interesting to others. FPs on Wikipedia tend to emphasize the encyclopedic value of the image, meaning that in addition to being technically well done, it needs to be relevant to the article(s) in which it's included. If you are more interested in just the visual impact of the image, might I suggest the Commons picture of the day. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

April 1: discussion initiated

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

March 11

Why was this picture chosen as POTD so soon after it had been promoted. Was it international mushroom day or something? God EmperorTalk 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Picture of the day|<insert category here>}}?

Is there any support for having POTD categories? It wouldn't need to have voting, since that would take up a lot of time, so it wouldn't be a featured picture. Instead, how 'bout just a random picture greater than, say, x days old (to attenuate the rif raff) from each category (Space, Natural phenomena, People, etc.)? I really just want to see an astronomy picture of the day style template and thought others might want the same or something along those lines :) Tom.Reding (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad Layout

The layout seems to have gone squiffy in the last couple of days. I get a large area of white at the top of the page because of the contents and tools boxes on the right, I need to scroll down to see the POTD.--Light.olive (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe it happened at the same time as the fix to the template but the layout has been fixed too now 194.201.250.209 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:POTD wikipedia is broken.

Template:POTD wikipedia is broken.


-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it's been a whole 32 minutes. Why does the TFP show "(Check back later for today's)"?? That makes no sense given the huge one-year backlog discussed above—is it possible for non-admins to create this using a photo that's already been approved and have admins post it on the Main Page (or maybe there are no approved images ready?)? ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, now what? Also the POTD wikipedia template hasn't been edited since 2008, so why is there a syntax problem? ~AH1 (discuss!) 01:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the problem was this space. But things are cached, so I'm still trying to get it to work. Prodego talk 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually it was both that and this - [3]. Prodego talk 04:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The vulgar, repetitive and solescistic use of "via" must stop! It must only be used in the geographical sense, not as a substitute for "from" or "by" or any other preposition! Furthermore, it must not be used as a substitute for a prepositional phrase, such as “by the agency of.” Let's leave crude journalese to the journalists and the manure spreaders they work for. Let's aspire to a better, clearer and honest prose style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodidact1 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncited claims in today caption

I have made this edit to today's caption. One of the claims is entirely unsourced. The other is either unsourced or badly worded, depending on how you interpret a claim of the heaviest armed ship vs the one with the largest calibre gun. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy sentence

"Two samples of crystal bars of pure zirconium on a white glass plate showing different surface textures, made by the crystal bar process, and a 1 cm3 cube of it for comparison."

Better would be:

"Two crystal bars and and a 1 cm3 cube of pure zirconium on a white glass plate. The bars, made by the crystal bar process, show different surface textures."

Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

"Picture of the day" of the day before

I was thinking of having a gallery of three pictures, including as the first one the "picture of the day", as the second one the "picture of the day" of yesterday and as the third one the "picture of the day" of the day before yesterday. But I have no idea how to code it. Getting the picture of the day for a specific date is explained but it isn't the problem.--Razionale (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll want to use the {{#time}} parser function. For example, {{POTD|{{#time:Y-m-d|-1 day}}}} for the previous day's POTD. —howcheng {chat} 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not working for me.--Razionale (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Now it is! You have to use {{POTD|date={{#time:Y-m-d|-1 day}}}} for yesterday and {{POTD|date={{#time:Y-m-d|-2 day}}}} for the day before yesterday, etc.--Razionale (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI being deployed to Main Page on April 15

This is a notice to let you all know that Today's articles for improvement will be deployed in just under twenty-four hours. For those who have not been following the developments of the section, it will be placed on the left side of the Main Page, beneath DYK, as at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. This should not affect POTD substantially. Comments and questions should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. As this may affect your project, I would encourage you to leave feedback and participate in the discussion.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You really need to address this sort of behaviour

Talk:Main_Page#Who_let_this_grammatical_atrocity_onto_the_main_page.3F Chaosdruid (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to report yourself, try WP:ANI, but I suggest as an alternative calm down and learn to politely report errors (which you yourself could have but did nothing about). Nil Einne (talk)
I did politely report an error.
I am not uncalm. The edit summary was totally out of order, and you know it was. How can I report something before I see it? Did you expect me to trawl through all pages everyday to find them?
A "fair enough, but please report this sort of thing on the POTD page", or something similar, and "please strike/delete (whatever was offending you)" would have been fine. Escalating things by trying to make me look stupid is not the way to do things, especially when someone is not familiar with every operating procedure from the main page through to each "of the day" group.
I would have fixed it myself if I had been able to find the page but, after trying for 15 mins, I gave up and posted that message. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Didn't your mother ever tell you that you'll get more flies with honey than with vinegar? Calling it a "grammatical atrocity" makes you look like you're ranting and nobody is really interested in helping the crazy person. "This sentence doesn't make much sense" would have sufficed, and if you really wanted to be helpful you could have suggested a replacement. Also, for future reference, at the top of Talk:Main Page there's the "Main Page toolbox" with links to the various Main Page pieces that can be edited. Most of those are protected, but the "POTD regular version" is not. —howcheng {chat} 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I will copy that link for future reference :¬)
To be honest, I only had 15 mins, as I was showing someone Wikipedia for the first time during a visit.
I could have been more tactful, that is true. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Unused FPs

File:Fredrik Pettersson.jpg is listed on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused with reason "No context available. Used only in one stub article." I don't know what the editor means by "No context" but i thought of informing it here that User:Resolute has expanded the article Fredrik Pettersson from stub. The image can feature on main page now, i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day - other Wikipedias

"salle Raidos" in the Paris underground mine tunnel network.

Hello,

I noticed that one of my images was promoted to 'Featured Photo' and was elected 'Image of the day' on August 19th, 2011 on Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this worthy of mention, and if so, how would I go about tagging it on English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? Thanks for any insight, cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I may have answered my own question: the template:Assessments. Unfortunately I can't link to the Hebrew FA Nomination Page using the 'henom=' attribute - I'm sure that it's my English input messing things up. Can anyone help? Thank you…THEPROMENADER 09:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You should ask at Commons:Template talk:Assessments. I'm afraid we are not very familiar with that template. —howcheng {chat} 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, done. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 05:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly disturbing pictures of the day

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Scheduled. As I have noted already, I will bring further such images for discussion at least a month before they are planned to be scheduled.
  • After a discussion with David Levy and a few other users at the main page last May, I am attempting to see if we can use some of the images at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. My plan, assuming the community goes with it, is to use these images only when they would be particularly significant to a date (i.e. on anniversaries) and never too close together. Is there any objection to using these images? An example follows:
Child with smallpox
A Bangladeshi child infected with smallpox, 1973. In ordinary type smallpox the bumps are filled with a thick, opaque fluid and often have a depression or dimple in the center. This is a major distinguishing characteristic of smallpox. The last naturally occurring case of smallpox was diagnosed on 26 October 1977, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared the disease eradicated.Photo: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Archive – More featured pictures...
Any feedback would be appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As we near the 36th anniversary of the eradication of smallpox in the wild, publication of this photo would be entirely appropriate as a reminder of what used to be–and still could be, since the remaining stocks of smallpox have never been destroyed, and the sequences of several variants are known. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as can tell, there are 5 images there which are flagged as too graphic (plus another 3 or 4 which are flagged because they would raise immature catcalls). Of those, the one for Death and Culture lacks a significant anniversary, as does the one for Lynching. Agreed that the smallpox image and the holocaust image should go out on some kind of significant anniversary, since both are topics of very subsantial importance, but I'm not sure that such an argument can be made for The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife or the pictures held back due to fear of catcalls. In general, I'd say raise the paticular pictures here as the anniversaries approach, and point out when one of pictures with a stubby article gets enough expansion to be featured. MChesterMC (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It must be some cultural thing with which I'm not familiar, but what is this "fear of catcalls"? A fear of something seems a weird reason for a global encyclopaedia to not do something. It doesn't seem very concrete. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is for file:DefecatingSeagull.jpg, file:Indecency2.jpg, and file:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg, each of which is on that list since it would invite excessively peurile comments, or comments implying that the picture was only chosen because the subject was hot. It's a subjecive choice, but for those three examples, it seems a pretty reasonable one. MChesterMC (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's safe to say that The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife or anything explicitly sexual has next to no chance of reaching the main page. I'd find my head on a pike if I suggested it (Wikipedia may not be for children, but "principal of least astonishment" is still a consideration, and two octopuses having oral sex with a nude swimmer is well outside "least astonishment"). The other "catcall" articles would have a better chance, though I agree with MChesterMc's suggestion that discussion be initiated here first for these potentially controversial images.
As for the lynching and suicide: the lynching one is certainly important to have (and we've had more explicit on the main page, see Lynching of Jesse Washington), so I was thinking something related to the first anti-lynching legislation passed in the US. The Japanese suicide image was taken after the Battle of Tarawa, so November 23-ish would perhaps be acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, why are some images on Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused censored? 109.158.9.48 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor who started the page, Howcheng, started that. Logically, it's consistent: if one is withholding an image because it is disturbing or sexually explicit, one does not parade it around the Reichstag building in a Spiderman suit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This picture is absolutely horrifying. But necessary. I was aware that smallpox is disfiguring, but I never understood until I saw this what it really means and why eradicating this disease was such a milestone. I think it's important to keep this image in place, catcalls be damned. Ronnotel (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I never understood why the Michele Merkin photo was held back. Was it the last name? Or the immense amount of leg? The photo would've been shown forever ago and no one would've remembered it by now, right? It's only on the page for 24 hours (I'm assuming) and sometimes a bit of eye-candy is a great way to skyrocket views on Wikipedia. Kate Upton was a hit; I don't remember any catcalls anywhere (granted, she's not parading around in a bikini). Anyway, I can understand the more grotesque images' positions in this debate, but a photo of a pretty lady on the Internet is absolutely nothing new. I see worse images on Huffington Post. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This disease was once the leading cause of death globally. While a case has not existed in humans since 1978 it still exists in the laboratory in the USA and the former USSR. Not something we should forget about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Userbox is broken

Userbox usage and {{POTD wikipedia}} are broken. This happened sometime in the last year, I assume something about the way templates work has changed... anyone know / can fix? ··gracefool☺ 06:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm unaware of anything that can be done to fix it. Perhaps Howcheng would know? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure what's causing the issue, but it seems weird that there's an extra space after the file name: [[File:4 cilindros y museo BMW, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 02.JPG |245x245px]] when there's no such space in the template code itself. Nothing seems to have changed with any of the relevant templates, so I have no idea what would be causing this. —howcheng {chat} 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The long queue to POTD on the Main Page

This thread is a shared transclusion.  CLICK HERE to edit. (Click here to view page)

According to Howcheng, we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the Main page, that is over one year long. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, this animation of mine took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Wikipedia-time. What to do?

Here are the options I see at the moment:

  1. Do nothing, pretend there is no problem, keep on promoting more than one FP picture per day until we have many years of a queue and no one even cares about hoping to see the picture as POTD on the Main Page. Even if we promote exactly one picture per day from hereon, the queue would forever stay one-year long. The advantage of option #1 is we don’t have to change course whatsoever. The disadvantage is—like burying our heads in the sand over the Social Security fund—there will be a day of reckoning where something will break.
  2. Promote only one picture on average every other day. At that rate, it would take over two years to clear out the queue. The advantage is that this wouldn’t mess with the current queue. The disadvantage is that there will be a period in the future where a picture won’t enjoy its day on POTD for over two years. In Wikipedia time, our grandchildren will reap the benefits of this option.
  3. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those at the front of the queue that are scheduled to appear in the next 60 days would advance to POTD. The virtue is this is simple. The disadvantage is the cut-off point is arbitrary and would result in many, truly outstanding FP pictures not appearing on POTD.
  4. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those that have 100% “support” votes would advance to POTD. The advantage is that all the truly outstanding pictures (as measured by the only objective measure of a totally subjective thing) would eventually appear on POTD. The disadvantage is that sorting through 400-some candidates looking for “oppose” votes would be time-consuming unless we elicited the help of a bot author.
  5. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but eliminate nearly all of them (except for a week-long buffer or whatever Howcheng things appropriate) from the queue waiting for POTD. The advantages are that this isn’t arbitrary (the minimum buffer is not arbitrary; it’s just the “minimum”) and it’s simple. The disadvantage is it is more draconian and everything—including lots of fine pictures that achieved 100% support votes wouldn’t be featured on POTD.
  6. Per Raeky, increase the rate at which Pictures Of The Day are displayed to four per day.
  7. Another spin on Raeky’s would be to have four POTD images displayed on the Main Page for the full 24 hours. The disadvantage of both these ideas is it requires messing with the look of the Main Page and I’m sure there are plenty of other editors who would view these two ideas as pissing in their corn flakes.
  8. A combination of #6 & #7, above, whereby there could be two FPs displayed that are changed twice per day. This hybrid has the virtue that visitors don’t have to feel like they are going to miss out on something by actually sleeping for eight hours, and we still get through the queue just as quickly, and less added space must be devoted to the Main page to accommodate the acceleration.
  9. If a new contributor gets one of their pictures featured, fast-track that picture to POTD (within a month or two of being promoted, at Howcheng's discretion)
  10. Feature two pictures per day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. [other]

I personally think #4 is the best option and think I know of a bot operator who could automate the sorting process.

I also suggest we have an automated script that displays, somewhere in the FPC header, the number of FP-promoted pictures waiting in the POTD queue. I think that number should always be in the back of our minds when we’re voting. There is simply no point promoting an average of more than one FP picture per day; we actually improve the quality of Wikipedia by being choosier so we ensure that supply meets demand.

Greg L (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Change POTD to be like DYK, so that the picture is only there for 6 hours, that way you have 28 slots a week, at our current promotion rate we'll eventually catch up. Or, do nothing and accept as we increase content on the encyclopedia we increase the featured content creation rate, and we can never feature all the featured content on the front page for a whole day. — raekyT 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Picture's of the day maybe? I'm not really sure. I dont feel that changing the amount of pictures nominated would be a good move. If one month we have 50 pictures all outstanding and FP worthy, they shouldn't miss out simply because there is a number we have to stick to. JFitch (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking about this recently, and came to the same idea as raeky. I think it's the most obvious way to deal with this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a programmer, but to me, number 6 sounds like the best option. The way I would prefer to have it worked would be, instead of having an image displayed for 6 hours, or four images displayed at once, that a random one of the four loads when an IP opens the page. That way we preserve the format and offer all users the chance to see the image, regardless of where they live. Now someone will tell me this is impossible. Cowtowner (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • After thoughts: I believe FA has a queue, too, how do they deal with it? Are scrolling boxes possible on the WP home page? And it would seem unfair to quadruple Howcheng's workload, we would need a couple of other people to step up and start writing captions. Cowtowner (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. I’m going to a block party here in a few minutes. Unless someone beats me to it, I’ll alert Howcheng to this discussion and invite his input (which is pretty important). Greg L (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a POTD problem, not an FP problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see #4 or #6 implemented. If we had four featured pictures; one large with 3 others underneath, displayed as "Todays featured pictures", with the 'best' one as the larger, and the 3 others as smaller underneath. Rather than 4 equal sized ones. The benefit of having 4 pictures is that there's more of a chance of visitors clicking one of the images, and in turn, helping the encyclopedia. (by getting involved with the project) Also agree with moving this to WT:POTD. -- bydand•talk 02:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I doubt the community as a whole would go along with putting more pictures on the Main Page. I also don't think it's fair to any current FPs that haven't made POTD yet to remove them from the queue. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There are no easy decisions here, Makeemlighter. Defaulting upon option #1 isn’t sustainable, I don’t think, and waiting for years to see one’s pictures on POTD is no fun at all for a lot of us. So if #1 is your preference, what other option is your distant-second choice? Greg L (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Not sure. I don't like the idea of promoting less pictures either. And putting pictures up for <24 hours means not everyone sees them. If we could get 2 POTDs up, I'd probably prefer that. I just don't think that would ever fly. But really, a super-long queue is fine with me. I'm curious how they deal with it at TFA... Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • They use a point system at TFA based on age of promotion, relevance to the requested date, importance of the subject, etc. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Otherwise they just go by the queue I believe. Jujutacular talk 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Point system! Interesting. Wouldn’t that be fairly easy to implement for us by using something along the lines of option #4? Greg L (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think there's a queue. Apart from the requests, I believe it's just Raul654's choice, and he tries to pick them so that there's a balance of topics, subjects, and locales. This Signpost article describes the point system, but it never talks about dates where nothing is requested. Y'know, it's funny... four years ago, we almost reached a crisis point where the queue shrank to almost nothing and I had to start repeating POTD images. If we were to implement a TFA-like points system, it's highly likely that some images will be delayed for far longer than they are now -- insects, birds, and plants are what come to mind immediately, all three subjects being overrepresented. howcheng {chat} 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
              • FWIW I think things are fine as they are - a rough queue, but trying to keep things balanced and meeting the occasional request for particular dates etc. For the record, I'm also happy for howcheng to skip any of my own images, though someone with a handful of FPs might feel differently. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with having each image up for only six hours. They would still all be viewable after clicking the "archive" link. No main page redesign necessary. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, I solicited Howcheng’s input (∆ here). Greg L (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite initially sounding commonsensical, #4 would actually be a lousy choice. Many of the noms that go through with 100% support actually do so by drawing little attention to themselves and scraping through with a bare minimum five (previously four) supports, rather than because they are that damn good. Hardly "all the truly outstanding pictures". The old Photographic Masters' Guild used to have the criteria of 10 FPs (not relevant here), with at least one of those having "a minimum of 80% support with a minimum of 11 support votes or 100% support with a minimum of 9 votes". Something like that would probably make more sense. Maybe we could simplify and say if 5 supports gets you an FP, it has to have 2 x 5 = 10 supports to get into POTD. I will add that in as Option 9. That could easily be implemented by Howcheng once he has gone through the current batch he's already prepared POTDs for, as he'd just need to count the supports - if it doesn't have 10, then no POTD, applying his own discretion of course as he does now. Other than that, if it was easy enough to just display two POTDs, the queue would clear soon enough, but that would up the work for Howcheng and would have to be accepted elsewhere, such as the Mainpage itself. Personally I don't find it that big an issue, though it's true that it is becoming an awful long wait. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons I give below. A simple system that would hopefully put up most of the better images could be for only FPs with at least twice the minimum supports for FP to become POTD (i.e., currently that would be 2 x 5 = 10 supports for POTD). Sure you'd still get some pretty ordinary images, like the recently promoted cat one, but for the most part you'd be getting the best and most eye-catching. We could add a minor complexity to help further weed out weaker ones, like minimum 10 supports and 80% of votes being support, but I wouldn't want it to be too complex. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm not particularly keen on increasing my workload, thanks. :) howcheng {chat} 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted, but I am open to people doing whatever they feel necessary with the POTD queue, and potentially open to changes to the main page to allow multiple POTDs. The reason I am opposed to limiting uploads is that images should not be precluded from being FPs purely because of POTD reasons. As we all know, there are FPs which will never be POTD for various reasons, and POTD is essentially just a by-product of being FP. Yes, it's an incentive, but it is by no means the be-all and end-all. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Did you choose your words carefully, J Milburn, when you wrote I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted? Or did I truly misunderstand what jjron was suggesting? Because we aren’t talking about temporary or permanent changes to what FP candidates that get promoted. We’re only talking about shortening the queue of FP-award winners waiting to be shown for a day on the Main Page as Picture Of The Day (POTD). Pictures will still be promoted the same as they always have.

      Currently Howcheng is drawing from Group 19. How many ol’ timers around here remember when the pictures shown in Group 19 were being promoted? How many new participants remember? Anyone(?) Anyone? When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the next hundred: Group 20, and then Group 22 (another batch of 100 pics), Group 23, and Group 24. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into Group 25. (*sigh*) Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around.

      It used to be fun for some of us who were around in 2007 to see our labors appear on the Main Page for a day within a month. Now, our chronic over-promotion created a situation where we are effectively depriving newcomers—like college students—of that privilege because they won’t see it on the Main page until they married and working on their masters’ degree. Greg L (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

        • "Promote only one picture on average every other day." That sounds suspiciously like a "system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted", so that would be an example of one I would be opposed to. Simple. Further, I am opposed to the idea that we have some kind of "over-promotion"- if they are all worthy of being featured pictures, then good, more is better, so far as I am concerned. You'll note that I personally nominate any image I feel is worthy- not just images with which I am involved, or images from subject areas I care for. I'm "in it" to get more FPs for Wikipedia. With regards to the shortening of queues and whatnot, I've got no great opinion. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • 10 Supports is too much with the current level of activity - A rough count gives three promotions for July. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of higher bar for POTD would compound the over representation of some subject material either. I suggest that howcheng just skips overrepresented stuff with below say 7-8 supports, allowing a bit of leniency for contributors that haven't had POTD before. I think common sense will go further here than formal rules. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree. Where this seems to be heading is that there might be a way to set a voting hurdle of high total number of votes and low percentage of opposes to all those hundreds and hundreds of pictures currently in the queue waiting for Wikipedia:Picture of the day.

          Whatever that criteria might be, Howcheng clearly doesn’t want added duties (he’s a hard-working volunteer with daily duties, unlike some of us who just come here when we “wanna”). So I would propose that if we winnow the current queue to something like 45–90 days via a filter, that we could accomplish that with a little bit of help from a bot operator.

          With a bot, we could have a slightly complex rule-set for what passes the filter. We could, for instance, say “what advances to POTD must be 100% supports if 5 to 6 votes total” and “no more than one oppose vote for 7–9 support votes. Something like that. If someone likes this general concept, weigh in below and I’ll add it to the green-div, above. It would be awfully nice to take that queue and reduce it to less than one group of 100 pictures.

          And remember, everything that won FP-status keeps it. We’re only talking about shortening the wait for new FP award winners to appear on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

          • I don't think the queue needs to be that short, and besides, a bot wouldn't know how to tell that certain categories of images are overrepresented. I also would be concerned that not-very-supported images with good tie-in dates (anniversaries, birthdays, etc) would be omitted as well. If we are all agreed, then I can start skipping some of the less-supported images on an ad-hoc basis, just applying some common sense. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • A queue of up to three months is too short? You make good points about the exceptions that would foul up a bot’s first pass. But all a bot would do would sweep up pictures that purely passed the defined criteria. For instance, it could ignore nominations with more than one picture (where voting gets complex). All it would do is assemble a new, single folder with all the juicy, clean nominations that had the type of voting balance we define. Then we can all go back and snare any of the rejects that got passed over (or special favs or those that are linked to special occasions). Greg L (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Who the fuck is editing my comments?? That's highly in violation of WP policy. --jjron (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ‘Tis I, Mr. Fuckhead, who did the fuck so (∆ here). The green-div is part of my original post. Now, granted, I wrote The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8. But I do reserve some editorial control over the green-div and I don’t think it could possibly be more obvious that the green-div is reserved for proposed remedies; not arguments, opinions, and debate, which all belongs down here. And a post that begins with The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons… clearly belongs down here. As you can see, I didn’t delete it or “edit” it in the sense that term is commonly understood; I moved your 14:41 post to where it properly belonged and placed it chronologically in the proper place and with the proper indenting. If you want to copy the entire green-div and paste a new, updated version below with a mix of proposals and debate-style narrative all stirred together, be my guest. If you want to add something to the above green-div, please try to keep it a genuine proposal, or rule, or boolean algorithm that is narrowly intended as a specific alternative for others to consider. Greg L (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to put this in, so I'm just adding to the bottom. I am strongly opposed to removing pictures from the queue. Those pictures earned their spots. They've waited this long; why should newer pictures get to jump ahead of or even replace them in line? More recent promotions are no more deserving of POTD than older ones. I do remember the pictures from Group 19. I voted on many of them. I look forward to seeing them on the Main Page. It would be unfair to those photographers/restorers to remove their images from the queue. In some cases, it would actually undermine work they've done. I'm referring to the work that Durova and others have done in securing releases of images from museums and archives. When they approached a museum (as I understand it), part of what they said was "Hey, this might end up being on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Think of the exposure you'll get." It sure makes them look bad when their images stop appearing as POTD. Which leads me to another point - some of the older groups have great variety, more so than the current group. (I didn't count or anything; that's just my impression after a quick glance.) Finally, I'd just like to say that I don't think the long queue is really a problem for the project. We should be proud that we have so many FPs and that we promote more every day. I, for one, wouldn't mind waiting a year or more to see something I nominated/created make POTD. The waiting would just make its eventual appearance on the Main Page that much sweeter. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to add a bit more...I'm not crazy about having POTDs change every 12 hours either. I'd prefer that they get their full 24 hours on the Main Page. That's what FA does, and it ensures that everyone, everywhere gets a chance to see them. But I would accept the 12-hour change if that's the way things go. In contrast, I would not support the idea of having some sort of minimum number/percentage of supports in order to qualify for POTD. As far as I'm concerned, an FP is an FP: they're all equally worthy of POTD. Also, the number/percentage of supports can be deceptive. Some nominations take a runaway support train where everyone starts supporting. This sometimes results in a groupthink or in potential opposers shying away from the nom. I know that I often don't vote oppose on something that has a ton of support (unless I feel very strongly about it not meeting the criteria) since consensus is already clear. On such a nomination, then, the actual number/percentage of support may not be completely accurate. Similarly, some nominations may not interest users who would be inclined to oppose them or those users may simply be absent. Another concern is that many of the insects/birds that fill up the current queue, for example, passed with unanimous or near-unanimous support. These images, in my opinion, would be far more likely to pass the proposed POTD test. They just don't get the opposes that other noms get (a testament to our photographers!). With some standard in place, the queue would probably be filled with insects/birds and not much else. Part of the problem now is that we have so many of them; this would exacerbate that problem even if it does shorten the queue. (I have no problem with insects/birds, btw; just pointing that out.) These are not huge issues, I suppose, but they make a POTD test seem like a bad idea to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change. Of the options we're given, we're not even allowed to decide this isn't a problem; we can only pretend that there isn't one. And if we do that, we'll be "burying our heads in the sand" while we wait for a "day of reckoning" - I guess I didn't realize POTD had such cosmic repercussions! Look, it's too bad that anything promoted today has to wait a year or more to reach the Main Page, but many of the proposed "solutions" benefit current contributors at the expense of past contributors. How does it benefit Wikipedia to do that? Here's the solution I propose: current contributors - wait your turn. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • One problem is that if the queue continues to grow, long-standing FPs may already be delisted before they get their chance for front page glory, and whichever way I look at this, it makes us look rather silly, not to mention nonlinear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, if an image isn't worthy of being an FP, better we delist it before we show the world how great it is. Obviously, the best opinion would be that it was never promoted in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • The concern is about increasing standards. An FP that was wonderful two years ago might seem less stellar today. You, as one of the main delist nominators, should appreciate this better than most. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I completely appreciate that, and I think that's the point I'm making. This means that the images we once thought were great but actually aren't don't get their chance on the main page- instead, we give the slot to something decent. The process isn't perfect- that's why we have the delist procedure. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've sort of been mulling this over since the discussion has gone up, but hadn't come to a conclusion before now. I would just like to say that I oppose any change to POTD currently, per Makeemlighter's superb argument above. Worrying about this "problem" so much is a problem of itself: this project is about improving the encyclopedia with great images, we are not a POTD factory. Putting so much time and effort into changing POTD is actually detracting from the project, as it takes time away from what we should be here to do: to provide the best images Wikipedia has to offer. So excuse me, while I go work on a restoration ;) Jujutacular talk 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Hmmm… Quoting Makeemlighter, here: Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change.

    Maybe you don’t think my argument is “cogent”, but there is a problem with a long queue. As to whether or not “something must change”, nothing must change; note option #1, above. We can continue to do as we’ve always done and simply have FP winners that won’t appear as Picture Of The Day until 2016. The purpose of this thread is to see how many of us see interminable waits for POTD as being something we should and can do something about. To recap, the simple facts:

    Currently Howcheng is drawing from Group 19. Only the regulars here remember voting on Group 19. When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the next hundred: Group 20, and then Group 22 (another batch of 100 pics), Group 23, and Group 24. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into Group 25. Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around.

    Is this a “problem”. Yes it is. Clearly it is not one that some here give a hoot about. But it is a problem. Why? Because we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the Main page, that is over one year long. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, this animation of mine took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Wikipedia-time. This long wait greatly detracts from the reward and fun derived when new contributors’ pictures are awarded FP status.

    If some here want to treat this problem like social security, where we just keep adding to the problem for another year or two and pretend nothing will ever have to be done about it, that’s a legitimate view (although I think it unwise).

    The problem has been caused—in part—because there are some regulars here who nominate enormous numbers of candidates for consideration and our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” has been too low. And now, new contributors who self-nominate with really, really good work have to wait over a year to have it appear on the Main Page.

    Maybe what we can do is have a bot go through the queue and weed out most of the pictures that were nominated by some regulars here who, statistically, are wildly and disproportionately represented in the queue; you know… reduce the ones from our über nominators down to just a dozen each. Yes. I seriously think that would be fair. And, I’ll add it as an option to the green-div, above, so others here get the “Ah, HAAA” of what this is, in part, due to. And, NO, I don’t think it has a prayer of passing because it’s the regulars who vote here and help define that the community here says “Tough titty says the kitty; you can wait a year or more.” Greg L (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Greg, you need to wait a year, like everybody else, and no, your work is not superior to that of other contributors. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Greg, I find your comment above pretty ridiculous. When I contribute to Wikipedia, I do it because I believe in a free encyclopedia. If you're really contributing to Wikipedia just so that you can have a picture featured on the front page, then you're here for the wrong reasons. You used the phrase "FP winners" which I feel is completely incorrect, and has made me rethink this whole situation. You don't "win" the recognition. You've released your content under the license Wikipedia uses, and you're making it sound as if you own it. Boohoo that your picture won't be on the main page for a year, it's not that big a deal. If your e-penis really grows because a picture of yours has appeared on the main page, then well done. But that's not why you should contribute to Wikipedia. It's not a 'reward' contributing a featured picture, you're doing it for the good of the encylopedia in my opinion. Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year. Get over yourself. -- bydand•talk 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Good. You find my comment ridiculous. I find your response to be ridiculous. So we’re even now. You think this was about me, yet everything I wrote above (and below) couldn’t possibly have made it clearer that my concern is over allowing newcomers to quickly share in one of the important rewards when their pictures achieve FP status: seeing it on the Main Page for a day and not waiting over a year for this to occur. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me (Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year.) It would be *extra* nice if you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote here before demonstrating your shortcomings at parsing written English. Since I find your posts to be utter and total nonsense (in addition to going out of your way to be insulting and combative with your bullshit Get over yourself), I won’t respond to you at all on this subject again because you aren’t here to help but to just be a WP:DICK. So, Goodbye to you, sir. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Speaking here in terms of photographers. You say that: "our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” is too low". The trouble is, increase the difficulty of getting a featured picture, and "new contributors who self-nominate" would find it too difficult to take a featured picture and give up. It is pretty rare to attract an already experienced photographer to FPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I absolutely agree. Just like the United States’ Social Security problem, you either raise the retirement age, decrease benefits, or greatly increase taxes. This would have been avoided if we had been keeping track of the fact that we nominate something like 11 pictures per week. If you keep up with that sort of thing for a few years, you got a problem—and an ever-developing one. One of the things I’d like to see is the FPC venue putting all pictures that achieve FP status into a weekly folder and only the top five (not seven) get advanced. That is our last step at noticing we have three bird photos, one of the chemical-element photos, four pictures of Chicago buildings, and couple bug photos, and two photos of some flowers from some retired guy’s garden. Then we can choose the best of the best and slowly reduce the queue. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with bydand. Why must a prompt appearance on the main page be a reward for contributors? This is a free encyclopaedia; people generally improve content because they want to improve content, and ownership tends to be discouraged. I would welcome reassessment of how POTD is run, but this should be on the basis of showcasing wikipedia's best content, rather than rewarding one wikipedian over another. I would also disagree with any criteria that sought to ration the number of POTDs to one per day or whatever, since that would be - by definition - unrelated to the quality of the content. If there's a need for a structured system of rewards for individual contributors, hand out barnstars or something like that.
    Count yourself lucky; there are many other valuable contributions which will never be on the main page. Some folk fix ten thousand typos, resolve a dozen thorny disputes, or translate obscure foreign articles which will never make it to FA - these folk miss out on mainpage glory altogether. If "fairness" in rewarding contributors is your main concern, shouldn't we first find some way to give headlines & glory to non-POTD editors? bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Note: Editors can click this sub-section’s [edit] tag
    • I would not support that, but I would support fast-tracking FPs of new contributors. Jujutacular talk 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey, there’s a new idea! I’ll add it to the green-div a little later. (Must make killer espresso for wife right now…) Come to think of it, why don’t you, Jujutacular, add your idea as #9, above. Please try to keep it a little general as to the exact details while still providing some specific ideas for how this could accomplished without unduly burdening Howcheng. If your noodling on the mechanism to accomplish this results in two flavors of your idea, then add both. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Jujutacular talk 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks. What defines a *new* contributor? Are you thinking that the closer of the nomination would just keep in mind to note, when closing, whether the nomination is from a non-regular and/or is self-nominated? And would the closer then advance these to a special folder for Howcheng? Please advise, since you know the mechanics and procedures well. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Define "new" has hasn't had POTD before and this seems like a reasonable idea - might cause some encouragement for new users. We shouldn't make life harder for howcheng though. I'm pretty much per mostly for the rest of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Jujutacular, do you have any specific proposals on a practical way to implement this? Off the top of my head, I should think that any of our regular shepherding admin closers would be able to easily recognize when there is a picture from a non-regular that should go to the shorter, segregated pile. If there is a better way, let’s hear it from the experts here. Greg L (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. Basically anyone that notices a new user getting a promoted picture could simply leave a note on Howcheng's talk page. I guess for example TonyTheTiger has not had a POTD and could use a fast-track. Idloveone is a newcomer with no promotions yet, but I have a feeling will get one soon. Jujutacular talk 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a decent enough idea, I suppose. But newcomers make up a very small percentage of FP contributors, so this would apply in very few cases. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That would be an argument pro making exceptions? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Not really an argument for anything. Just an observation. If there is a problem (which I've disputed above), I don't think this does much to solve it. Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more, but then you'd still wait a year for anything else you had promoted. So it mostly sidesteps the concerns about the long queue, but it does give a little extra incentive to newcomers. The merit there, however, is debatable. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Quoting you: Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more. Oh no! Not that! ;-) That is entirely what this is about. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, there is quite an amount of good for Wikipedia if we address this. Wikipedia requires free content (and fair-use in rare circumstances), so we really need high-quality pictures.

              We have some *regulars* to FPC here who nominate hundreds of pictures a month; many nominations (or most) are pictures someone else created. But we also have some contributing photographer wikipedians who really bust their butts to create exceedingly well done, professional-looking pictures. And they make Wikipedia the beneficiary of that effort. Much of the (small) reward they can derive from their hard work and their donation is in seeing those pictures featured as Picture Of The Day on the Main Page.

              But because of the chronic over-promotion of FP status to pictures by the regular denizens that inhabit this venue, and the fact that we have no screening process to further segregate those FP winners that can quickly go to the POTD queue, the resultant one-year-plus wait means these “non-regulars” don’t get to see their work featured as POTD for over a year. And this queue is growing and will be multiple years if we keep doing as we’ve been doing the last few years.

              It didn’t always used to be that way. An animation of mine got POTD in one month back in 2007. That was a blast and was quite a reward for the effort. Those days are long gone for newcomers (awe… shucks: *newcomers*) unless we *regulars* do something about it. I don’t think our attitude should be “Tough. Stop your whining, donate your damned picture, and wait a year or two.”

              We can always develop procedures for our closers to decide when a contributing photographer graduates to *one of the regulars around here*-status because we have grown tired of the prolific quantity of high-quality pictures he or she generates. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I clear up one thing? The image that Greg is talking about, File:Translational motion.gif, actually took four months (not one) to go from promotion to POTD. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops. I stand corrected. I had a nagging feeling I should have looked into that before writing “one month.” It didn’t seem like four months; I must have been extra busy at that time. Waiting over a year: now that would seem too long. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, because when I thought about what time would be ideal between promotion and POTD, I was thinking of four months. The only benefit about leaving them for, say, nine months is that you would get roughly seasonal POTDs, but then some people might crave sunny beaches in winter, and not everybody is on the same seasonal schedule, so it may be a non-argument. Four months sounds fine. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought- it'd mean, for instance, that this image was featured as winter closed in on the UK. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I might use that one for winter solstice. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That'd be summer solstice :P. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was understood by now that the problem that Greg is highlighting is that if we continue to promote the way we're doing, "just over a year" will turn into 15 months, then 18 months, etc. If we can't vary the rate at which we feature, we can't control the length of the queue. (Or alternatively, use one of the other proposals that affect the length of the queue.) My gut feeling is that FPC is going to turn into a less friendly place if commenters feel they have to keep down the pass rate to control the queue. My feeling is that we currently promote about 1/5 of the eligible pictures, and that we should aim to increase that rate. If we do, the queue will get longer under the current rigid system, and it will not be some convenient length, but whatever length is dictated by the pass rate. Deciding whether or not to promote a picture on the basis of the current length of the queue is what strikes me as ridiculous. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The POTD queue length should have no bearing on an image's FPC nomination. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well… not necessarily. Good people can disagree on the extent to which we *Love* a picture. If we are making monster-size queues waiting for POTD, we aren’t saying to photographers “Tell you what; everything sucks nowadays around here.” It is legitimate to say “Bring on the really good stuff that stands head & shoulders above the rest and *really* makes our readers ‘stop, stare & click,’ because with year-long queue, we’re not handing out FP awards to pictures like candy at a parade anymore just because *there are no major problems* with them.” And don’t make me go look for the actual post behind that last asterisked quote because I clearly recall a recent “support” vote with reasoning similar to that. Greg L (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of where we are

Based on my reading of the above, it seems like the most agreeable option is a bit of a hybrid: We keep the queue intact (barring of course anniversaries and other special days), with the possibility of skipping photos from overrepresented topics if the nominator/creator has a good number of FPs to their name. We also will allow jumping the queue for people who have very few FP contributions (less than 5?) so that they have a shorter wait time for Main Page glory. Are there any additions/changes to this? howcheng {chat} 21:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • That sounds reasonable to me. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Most of it seems fine to me. I'm pretty sure the consensus isn't there yet to skip images from people with many FPs. I don't think I've seen anyone but Greg L hold that position, (though I've stated that I'm happy for you to skip some of my own). I'm moderately confident that Durova would oppose skipping strongly (promises to Museums and such) and am not sure how other voluminous contributors would feel. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think this gets at the root of the problem at all, as stated in my previous comment. I'll also state that this whole debate about being skipped looks absolutely ridiculous when FP contributors are the only ones to ever get any credit that normal users would see. Everybody else is a second-class citizen by default, so exactly how you feel you have any license to whine remains unclear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The two issues are independent, so exactly how you feel they are related remains unclear. I've only stated the consensus as I see it and reiterated that I'm personally happy with all of the items on the list. Agreement cannot constitute whining, the two are practically mutually exclusive. This isn't about getting to the root of the problem (if there is one), it is about acting on the current consensus. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't even looked at the way POTDs are determined, but I have a horrid suspicion that newly promoted FPs are just added to a huge queue. If that happened with FAs, the system would be similarly clogged—it would grind almost to a halt. And the topics of TFAs would not be balanced over time or reflect anniversaries, or whether authors had already had a FA on the Main Page. Could I suggest that a similar system to Raul's for TFA be established for POTDs? And could I also suggest that six-hourly rotations are a bad idea. One per day, please, and getting the gold star doesn't for one minute mean Main Page exposure. No way, sorry. It should be a separate process. Tony (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Tony1. The issue, I feel, also includes the system of picking POTDs, which should be changed to something like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The guidelines there, I feel, would match up with some of the things mentioned here. —fetch·comms 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I will at least support #9. As someone who actually creates the pictures (as opposed to one who finds them on Commons, created by someone else), this will be a very nice acknowledgment of their work. There's nothing like seeing your work get bashed, picked at, criticized, etc. at FP, and come out on top and achieving it! My thinking is that it's not so much as a reward, but I think it will encourage more contributions from originators and that can only be a good thing. Also, this discussion seems to have ended somewhat with no real consensus. Perhaps there are too many options. Maybe its time to weed out the obvious "no takes" and put the rest to a simple vote. My 2 cents. – SMasters (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

TFA instructions: draft translation to POTD?

Someone would need to run it, like a "delegate". Seems very bureacratic the way they do it for TFA, but it's probably necessary for them because competition is fierce, and there have been dreadful fights. It appears to work well, but possibly the rules and procedures could be trimmed for POTD. Raul is trialling a sixth TFA system at the moment, which he can slot in anywhere (no specific date request). Tony (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures suggested here must already be featured pictures. Pictures do not have to be suggested to appear on the main page. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled.

There may be no more than five total requests on this page at any time for a specific date, and one request for a nonspecific date. If there are already five articles requested and if the article you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it according to the instructions below.

Requests are not the only factor in scheduling Picture of the day; the final decision rests with the POTD director, X. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the picture will appear on the requested date.

It is helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the talk page pending template up to 60 days before the requested date; applicants should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if the picture has enough points to replace another.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Dead links – Alt text

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Calculating points:

Points are the sum of choices for each of the following six criteria:

Notes

  1. ^ One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the picture and the date, for example File:X on [date]. Multiple points are awarded only for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in an article in which the picture appears. Just because a picture might be appropriate for a date, for example File:X on [date], does not mean a point should be awarded.
  2. ^ Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a 12-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project. That is, the picture is on an academic subject that could reasonably be expected to be part of a school curriculum for that age-group:
  3. ^ Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FP: two dissimilar pictures may be grouped under the same category. For example, [provide example].

Adding requests:

The picture must not have been previously featured as a POTD. History shows that pictures with five or more points are almost never replaced. Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such a picture, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and to allow other pictures their chance.

Please nominate only one picture at a time. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured pictures is here. If there are already five requests, and the picture you propose to add has more points than one of the pictures already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following:

  1. If a requested picture has at least five declarations and more than 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
  2. If item 1 does not apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points pictures outside that date may have.
  3. Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the picture with the latest date. If the tied pictures are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.

______________________________

Yes, of course the decision would be made by a director, as for TFA. You'd have to choose someone, just as featured lists chose its first directors when they shifted to a director system. I'm not suggesting a director system for FL itself—you seem to have it pretty well worked out as it is. But the POTD system is horrible: how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example? The selection of FPs that are going to get SUCH big exposure needs to be properly managed, not the chaos we currently have. Oh, and then there's that year-long queue. Tony (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Howcheng has done a good job of keeping variety among the POTDs. And this wouldn't help with the year-long queue at all. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how this helps. It's just one more page to watch and one more process to deal with. The current system seems to work fine, although I'll defer to Howcheng if he says otherwise. This proposal won't help whittle down the queue at all. The newer images (the ones with that year-long wait) will have at least as hard a time getting to the main page sooner because of the points system. I'm having a hard time seeing the merit of this proposal. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Errrrr ... merit-based? And balanced in topic over time? And avoiding repetition? Tony (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
POTD already is merit-based - the images have to be FPs (and Howcheng schedules based on relevant dates already). I think POTD has had balance in topics and has avoided repetition. Maybe you can point me to complaints to the contrary. I recall seeing a few comments about all the insects on POTD on Talk:Main Page, but complaints about TFA (which uses the system proposed here) are far more common. Anyway, if you try to spread out all the bugs (or whatever) more than they are now, you're just creating a problem further down the line. All those bugs are FPs, so they'll be POTD eventually unless we decide that all FPs don't get to be POTD any more (which consensus above looks to be against). I'll grant that there is some merit to the proposal, but I don't think it comes close to addressing the problem that started this whole discussion. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment (I'll abstain from supporting/opposing based on a conflict of interest): I agree with Makeemlighter in that this doesn't really help out in terms of the backlog. All it means is that certain pictures may get to appear earlier than they might otherwise (which is already true, when there is a relevant date involved), and that others will have to wait longer than they might normally (which is also true now, when we look at overrepresented subjects). Moreover, this system only works if you have enough active participants.
Additionally, I'd like to hear what Tony1 thinks is so chaotic about the current system (being just me with occasional help from others like Fetchcomms and Ktr01): The POTD gets selected from the list of FPs in rough FIFO order of promotion. I try to space out the overrepresented topics (such as bugs, which have at least a week between each bug photo), and I'll reserve days ahead of time for relevant dates. That's pretty much it. The only time we have any trouble is when I get busy with RL activities and I write the POTD blurb at the last minute, or even a bit too late. We haven't had the need to repeat any images in a few years now because the number of promotions has far exceeded an average of 7 per week. Tony1 did ask, how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example? Answer: I see what I've posted recently and try to space it out. That's it. Note that although in theory anyone can schedule any image for any day, in practice there are very few people who write POTD blurbs besides myself (I can count them one hand), and I exercise considerable editorial control over the scheduling. I admit I don't have the title of "POTD Director" but I've scheduled 99% of the images since May 2006.
All that being said, if the consensus is that we want to move to a points system, I will be glad to implement it. howcheng {chat} 04:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC
Howcheng should know more than most users about this. In response, the queue should, I believe, be based not just on some model of socialist welfare, but on a points system. Some FPs would never make it, some would have to wait even longer than a year. But the current backlog is most unsatisfactory.

An alternative system would be to allot, say, three days out of seven to FPs promoted in the past three months. There would effectively be two queues. That would be fine by me. Tony (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Which proposal are you referring to, PLW? And can you comment on my feeling that since recent FP nominators/creators are part of the community, their work should be highlighted before they grow old? Is the TFA process that the FA/TFA community evolved not "community-oriented"? I'm not going to push this any more, but I think FP nomination should carry a greater incentive. One engineers it to make the process as dynamic as possible, and here is incentive down the drain, to me. TFA seems well-managed now, even though it's a little bureacratic. Bureacracy/rules are the essential counterbalance to the freedom of a wiki, if you want to maximise quality. Look at the featured-content criteria and instructions, especially for articles, lists, and pictures. You've gotta have it. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal. And yes, if I had to think up of a process that allowed me to be a dictator while keeping up appearances that I'm serving the community, I'd probably come up with something like you have over at FA/TFA. There should be no "directors" on Wikipedia. It completely goes against how we portray ourselves to the outside world. Merits a DYK along the lones of "Did you know... that 'community-based' website Wikipedia is governed by a number of so-called 'directors', and that no term of office is specified and no elections held for these positions?" Well, I guess that "Free" is a kind of broad term, so well done, folks, for watering down our concept of freedom and community! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
First, you haven't answered my question. I've made two proposals here: one for a points system, and more recently, as an alternative, a 3-day 4-day dual queue system. Second, I had nothing to do with the evolution of the TFA system; and nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty at FA. So why are you referring to "like you have over at FA/TFA"? Tony (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The incentive structure above decreases weight for recent nominations, so surely just fast tracking people with under five FPs would better highlight recent contributors? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if some of those with a long-term record of helpful, role-up-the-sleeves leadership would step up to the plate, take bits & pieces of good ideas here, and float a proposal. Then anyone left here who still gives a dump at this late stage can weigh in.

    Tony has extensive knowledge of how the Featured Article process avoids year-long queue constipations. Howcheng (notwithstanding his desire to abstain because of conflict-of-interest) is our volunteer on Wikipedia who does the heavy lifting to ensure the right things happen every single day on the Main Page (unlike many of the rest of us who can just take a 5-day wiki-break whenever we please). Accordingly, Howcheng doesn’t have a “conflict”-of-interest here; he has a “deep and highly involved” interest here. A practical system must be something he supports. If anything is going to get done, it seems that the common ground Tony and Howcheng jointly see will be the only practical solution that has any likelihood of working out.

    Perhaps those two will collaborate and provide us with a proposal that gives us a simple up-or-down decision: ‘Yes’ (adopt a new system for deciding what goes to the Main Page in an expeditious fashion), or ‘No’ (opt for Option #1 in the green-div, above). Greg L (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If does seem that one problem with the current system is that if I get hit by a bus or something, there's no established procedure for someone to step in and take over. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess that would be a motivation for inviting more participation, wouldn't it? The more eyes, the easier to spot problems. (Documentation also helps...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Documentation. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the reason I'm saying it is that I looked at that, and it still wasn't clear to me how to get started. There's a whole bunch of things not covered, basic questions like "can anybody do this?", "do I need any special tools?", "do I need to ask anyone to double-check my submission?", "how many can I schedule before people get upset, and how far in advance?" etc. As far as I can tell, there's also no marker for where in the queue pictures are currently being taken from. I'm not sure that each position in the queue is linkable, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it should be. What else needs to be done? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh— it has now been three years since the above discussion appears to have ground to a halt. I have read over much of the text, but must admit that my eyes started to glaze over eventually. I recently (this year) got my first image promoted to being a Featured Picture here on the English Wikipedia, and was wondering if it would ever become a POTD... But after reading the above, I am still left wondering. Was a decision ever made as to how to handle the overwhelming backlog? Will my image ever be a POTD? As a new image contributor, I have suggestions as to how the process might be run to eliminate the backlog, but don't want to waste breath on a dead body (oxygen being at a premium here in Los Angeles). Maybe no decision was ever reached (i.e., option #1 above: "Do nothing")? Someone please advise if you can. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No additional steps were taken. For people who have just gotten the first FP (congratulations!) I myself would "fast-track" it to appear. I would say let Crisco 1492 (who is doing the scheduling now) know and he'll probably do the same for you. —howcheng {chat} 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Click here to return to Talk:Picture of the day | Click here to return to Talk:Featured picture candidates

You guys need better sections

Anyways, I like doing four a day (or two, three, six, etc). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A new idea

Here's a new idea. How about we require real consensus for promoting images instead of a 2/3 vote? It seems to work well for Featured articles and it is the wiki way. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversial image that should be removed from POTD queue

The file File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg is in the queue for POTD and is intended to run on the Main Page on June 25, I think. As you can probably tell if you click on the file, I think this will be highly controversial if run. It will only bring about another round of "Wikipedia is sexist" accusations. Also, it's important to think of the readers. People come to POTD for landscapes and wilflife photos etc., not seminude pictures. See WP:principle of least astonishment. Finally, there is one procedural reason to oppose, which is that the photo is no longer featured in the Michele Merkin article and thus the blurb would have to be rewritten. Thus, I hope this can be removed from the queue. --Jakob (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: It's also on WP:POTD/Unused. For a reason. --Jakob (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Jakec - Please provide a reliable source for the claim that "People come to POTD for landscapes and wilflife photos etc., not seminude pictures.". HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Jakec, this is only temporarily queued, until May when I start a discussion to see if general consensus is against running this or not. The blurb there was written when the image was still in the article as an example of what the blurb would look like (similar to the smallpox discussion last year). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Another image that I think should not be POTD

I have no problem with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roadkill being a featured picture, but surely it is too graphic to be a Picture of the Day.

I noticed it in the queue only a few days in the future. Can someone think about unqueuing it while there is still time?

If there is already a discussion of this, please show me where. (Reply here.) I can't find any reference to a page where Picture of the Day candidates are discussed, only featured picture candidates.

--50.100.193.30 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Why hide a scene that anyone could randomly see while driving along the highway? (I will never understand censorship.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There's censorship and then there's taste. "It's a fact of life" does not mean that it belongs on the front page of your encyclopedia. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that I was an outlier on this. But this still leads to me to ask again -- wait, I'll make it a separate question, below. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Userbox

Code Result
{{User:CFeyecare/templates/POTD}}
This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤
 Usage

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CFeyecare (talk • contribs) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_4&oldid=1149991896"