Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography

I think it would be an invaluble addition to add Pulitzer Prize photographs to the Picture of the day. The following articles have long lists of winners but very few pictures of the actual photos which I find odd. Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography, Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography, Pulitzer Prize for Photography

We're going to run out

Wikipedia:Picture of the day will finish next week since Wikipedia:Featured pictures has just run out. There are not enough nominations being supported to keep up with providing a new featured picture of the day. Should the frequency of this be changed to once a week until more pictures come in, or should non-featured pictures be used? Perhaps ones which were previously nominated by narrowly failed to get in could be included? Angela . 19:07, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for non-featured pictures to be included. Chmouel 09:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote for more nominations and lower standards at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Gdr 15:30, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
I've since found out that Featured articles are planning simply to recycle when they run out. This seems the easiest option, and less open to confusion about what should be featured. Allowing non-featured images to be used would leave the page open to trolling by people trying to insert inappropriate images. I think updating every day, even if the image was used 3 months ago, is better than updating once a week. Angela . 00:26, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using non-featured pictures or lowering the standards of nominations. Using previously featured pictures is fine as long as they're worth it. Hence the high standards. -- Solitude 11:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we should consider using some of the featured pictures from commons. We haven't used those yet, have we? The only problem with is that there wouldn't be any image pages on en:, but we could fix that easily enough. --bdesham 18:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New and improved POTD system

This morning I've been working on implementing a new and Picture of the day system. It is based on the proven concept used by Today's featured article. This system will allow us to plan the POTD way ahead, plan POTD for special occasions, automatically archive the POTD's and so on, it also makes recycling a POTDs very easy, just point the template to a previous date. Another important advantage is that it makes customizing POTD's much easier, as you don't need to remember which were changed in size for instance or had a small caption added.

Overall it's a robust system I think but please take a look and tell me what you think, see if there is anything I've overlooked. Switching to the new system would be a cake as the only thing that changes, is that the POTD templates now need to point to specific dates instead of days.

By the way, the framework for each month's archive can be generated with a PHP script I wrote, it can be accessed here. I've also added the link to the bottom of the archive pages, not sure if that's the right place, but we can change that any time. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I just realised there's not even the need to update the POTD templates daily, this will now be an automated process as well, as those templates can include dynamic months/years etc. Excellent! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:50, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

For a mockup of a new POTD main page, see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Mockup of new POTD page. Tell me what you think. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:54, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed in php, but the script looks clean and easy, like the idea that it uses dynamic months and years to save human-hours. I think this should go live whenever you consider it ready, consider this a yes vote if it needs a vote.Pedant 16:07, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I was told automatic updates to the page would cause link table corruption, but since featured articles are doing it, I guess it doesn't matter. This looks a good idea. Angela . 17:47, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I have converted the templates to the new system, if something breaks, they can be reverted to the old format as the coming POTD's are in place in both systems. Please let me know if you spot problems. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 16:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

?

Uh, so who dropped the ball here? Very Verily 00:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

800x600 text version

Could/should? the text version be made to fit in 800x600 displays, or is that unrealistic given its size. I'd personally end up using the condensed version so it doesn't impact me; but just throwing it out there for consideration. - RoyBoy [∞] 04:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, the picture width of an average POTD image is 300px and the text seems to scale to be a similar width. Overall, this probably puts the full PicOfTheDay at just over 600 width with the frame and all, so I would have thought it would fit 800x600. Or perhaps you mean 800x600 with the Wikipedia side bar removed. The normal image width could be reduced if that is what most people want.

On the condensed POTD version, there is now the option to add a parameter to scale the image, as per Sj's comment below. There are still limits on how small you can reduce it due to title and framing - 100px is probably a small as it can comfortably go. -- Solipsist 23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we please have POTD in a plain white page, with no menus and no distractions, as a sidebar for browsers supporting it (like Opera and Mozilla)? I visit POTD daily, I think the sidebar arrangement would be ideal - KJK::Hyperion 17:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This one is not so easy. It might be possible, but we would probably need a template/script to manage three version. It is already a little tricky to manage the text and condensed version. More of a problem is that it is not generally possible to set up a specific link on clicking an image. As such an ultra-condensed POTD wouldn't lead anywhere except the related page in the Image: namespace. -- Solipsist 23:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alignment

How would I force the pic of the day (condensed) to align right... for example across a contents list. - RoyBoy [∞] 07:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should try :-

although at the moment there seems to be a template bug that if you don't specify a width parameter, you will get 3 spurious brackets following the POTD. -- Solipsist 23:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Parameter for img size

I changed the template to include an optional parameter for image size; it appears inside the image-markup in such a way that, if nothing is entered, the parameter is ignored; else if "150px" or some other width is entered, it overrides the "300px" default width. Good for fitting POTD into small spots. Caveat: the template used to generate the POTD should be updated to match today's template (Wikipedia:POTD/February 9, 2005). +sj + 11:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the solution to the extra brackets a few months ago, seems to have effectively disabled the width parameter. If anyone can figure out the template syntax, it would be good to try and reinstate it. -- Solipsist 10:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generating POTD entries

Just so that there is a record somewhere, I've been managing the Picture of the Day selection using Solitude's mechanism above with a few amendments. If I should happen to be abducted by aliens or get run over by a bus, this is how it is done.

At the start of the month, fill out the new month's Picture of the day archive, such as this one from March 05. For a little while, Solitude had a PHP script to populate these pages (see above), but this seems to have gone away. In any case its simple enough to fill out a new monthly archive by copying the base text for a previous month's archive and replacing the month name using an external text editor (just make sure you copy from a month with 31 days and edit as appropriate).

At the top of the archive page is a template for navigation to previous and future archives of the form {{Template:FPArchiveBarMarch2005}}. This should also be updated for the appropriate Month&Year. For the current month, it includes link for next month's archive isn't much use as it will all be blank, but it all falls into place once the archive becomes a genuine historical archive. The FPArchiveBar templates have been written by hand up to the end of 2005. Again its easy enough to do with some cut-n-pasting - you only have to pay attention to the January and December templates where one of the links needs to wrap to the next/previous year.

Individual Picture of the Day entries are prepared a few days before they are needed. From the current [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 2024}|Picture of the day archive]] follow the red edit link for the text version of the day in question. Then populate the page, either by copying an example from an earlier day or using the Template:Generate POTD T, for example

{{subst:Generate POTD T|Image:Imagename.jpg|Image description|UserCredit|Image title|Long caption}}

Further instructions are available at Template talk:Generate POTD T.

Sometimes, the pictures don't quite fit the mould and you will have to do a bit more work on layout. In particular, very tall, thin images should be reduced from the default 300px wide. Wide panorama images might be better with the caption placed below. Sometimes the photo credit needs some extra thought when referring to external agencies. You can usually find examples to follow in the archive.

Next follow the red edit link for the condensed POTD version and fill out that page in the same way. If you use the template approach, you can feed an almost identical string into {{subst:Generate POTD C|...}}.

If the image was taken by a Wikipedian I usually drop a note on their talk page to let them know that their picture is coming up for POTD, and given them a chance to update or improve the caption.

At the moment, we are not getting enough new Featured Pictures coming through WP:FPC to only use each Featured Picture once, so we have to reuse earlier ones. When reusing an FP from a previous POTD check that it hasn't subsequently been delisted. You can usually reuse the previous caption, but watch out for any changes in the format and layout of boilerplate of the PictureOfTheDay page. -- Solipsist 20:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Updated April 2006

Here are the relevant templates. Please note that all are intended to be used with subst. Please see their repsective talk pages for more details, although they are meant to be used in tandem to allow for easy copy-pasting.

--howch e ng {chat} 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a POTD by email?

Can we have a daily mailing for POTD, just like the one we have featured article of the day? - Mahadevan Subramanian 10:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem feasible, but I'm not sure what would be involved. -- Solipsist 11:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems quite feasible to me, but the email list should be seperate from daily-article-l, since many will not want large files filling their inboxes. With the featured article list, a script is used to generate the emails, but the actual email is sent and approved by hand. I wouldn't mind doing it along with the featured article, but anybody can do it if they'd like. The source for the script is available here (java). The script would probably have to be modified to scrape the URL of the image, and download it to the sender's computer. Alternatively, the URL could just be noted at the top of the output and it could be left to the sender to attach the image. You could try asking Kate to help you out with that. About the list, I'm not sure of the procedure to create a new mailing list, but you'll probably either have to do something on meta or contact the foundation. Hope that helps! -Frazzydee|✍ 15:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTW?

I think we're going far off with today's and yesterday's POTWs. They aren't really pictures, rather images. Now, it's only my opinion, but I think that POTW should include only photographs or other pictures, not diagrams, schemes, et al. --Dungo (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean - I also worried a little about have two diagrams featured this weekend. However, the pictures for POTD are selected in the order in which they get promoted to Wikipedia:Featured pictures. I sometimes shuffle the order by a place or two to avoid awkward conjunctions, but in this instance, there wasn't a better alternative nearby and I decided the two illustrations were quite different in style. Its is also quite rare for us to have non-Wikipedian diagrams featured, so I decided to stick with the original order.

On the whole, if you check the archives and galleries, you will see that we are actually quite heavily biased towards photographs. In practice, featured pictures is open to any type of image that illustrates an article on Wikipedia, even animations, though we have yet to see a movie clip. So diagrams are definately welcome and I for one would be happy to see more high quality drawings and illustrations - there are a great many articles that can't be illustrated by a photo. -- Solipsist 21:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image/photo credits

I commend those who have created useful images for Wikipedia. However, the names of such individuals should not be posted on the Main Page. Image and photo credits should not be included in the Pictures of the day. Within Talk pages users can be given credit for their writing and their image creation, but published areas should NOT give individuals credit. I realize there is little collaboration in image create; nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a place for acknowledging individual efforts.

It offends me to see names of individuals on the Main Page. That goes against the collaborative ideals of Wikipedia.

Please refrain from crediting individuals in such a public manner. Please remove all previous credits from old Pictures of the day. Kingturtle 18:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold is good, but as Pic of the Day has always had credits, this is one where you probably need to gain consensus before making a change. I suggest discussing the issue, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates where there tends to be more activity. -- Solipsist 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New PotDs?

It seems as though plenty of pictures are being nominated as FPs. Why do I so rarely see a PotD on the main page? Check out the September archives to see several new FPs. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTD only appears on the main page at weekends. There is noly so much information that can fit there, and the POTD slot is shared with the Did you know? section, which appears on weekdays. Those who love the pics more (like me!) have to settle for putting {{POTD}} on our user pages. ~ ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 11:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PotD on html webpage?

Can this be done? I'd assume so, but my knowledge of the html/wiki is not enough to write the code. What do you think about writing such a code? It may be use to popularize wiki by making some friendly Websites display our PotD... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC) This is a crude solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ViewPOTD At least its html linkable. Imperfect, however, because this ignores history and discussion pages. A better solution would be this static link having a simple redirect script to the dynamic link of the current days POTD.[reply]

Order of images

The page states that

Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted.

How come that the October 31st picture is not in the correct order (after the bee picture, it should be Image:Red panda.jpg, see here)? Thelb4 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is right. After the Hurricane katrina pic should be the koula bear shot, then the sakura trees and the martian sunset and then the battleship picture. What about these shots? Why isn't this in order? TomStar81 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that in practice we are not promoting more than 7 new Featured Pictures each week (see the archives for Wikipedia:Goings-on). As such we need to repeat old POTDs on alternate days. This is mentioned at the end of the Generating_POTD_entries section above. Although now that POTD is appearing on the MainPage at the weekends, I'm trying to ensure that we have new pictures on Saturdays and Sundays. So we have picked up the pace slightly with 4 new POTDs and 3 repeats each week. Within that scheme, POTDs are selected in the order in which they are promoted, except there is one old and one new marker moving through the list. In practice I will also shuffle the order slightly to ensure variety - for example I try to avoid two diagrams or two flower pictures on consecutive days. Also if a picture is only used on a stub article with little to say about it, I might avoid placing it on a weekend.

The solution of course is to nominate (and contribute) many more WP:FPC candidates. If we can get to more than 7 new Featured Pictures a week, we might be able to only show new pictures each day and that might allow POTD to become a permanent feature of the MainPage. -- Solipsist 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POTD vs Commons:Potd

Has anyone compared the mechanisms behind WP:POTD and Commons:Potd ? I'm curious how come they are different. Since the Commons's mechanism depends on templates, wikipedians have no luck using Commons's potd on wikipedia pages. I see several advantages to Commons's mechanism, so can I ask how come WP's mechanism is such? Thanks! -- Perfecto 03:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it is mainly down to history. The WP version of POTD has been around for about 2 years and was last significantly revised around Sep 2004 by User:Solitude who has subsequently moved on. The Commons version has to cope with the particular problem of translating the caption into a couple of dozen languages, so that an individual user can see the POTD in their own prefered language.

There could be some benefits in changing the WP POTD to use the nested templates as used on Commons. We did have some experiments around Dec 2004 in which a parameter was used to control the width of the condensed POTD. It worked for a little while, but then stopped working after a software upgrade. Its could be that we have had another software upgrade in the meantime, but no one has tried it again.

A possible downside of using nested templates is that the WP POTD now also appears on the Main Page at weekends which could introduce protection problems. There are also five elements that go into the WP POTD compared to the two that are used by the Commons version. -- Solipsist

The blurb

The short excerpt from the article is fine for POTD as used on userpages, but when it appears on the main page, it clashes with the Featured article - they both contain almost the same elements. What I think would be better is if the blurb was about the picture itself, i.e. caption and some rudimentary data about how it was taken. Zocky 11:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing 2/3/4 times a day

The picture of the day has been changing sometimes as much as 3 times a day, what's up with this? I can only presume that some people are changing the picture/skipping the "current" one when they don't like it, or something like that... --Chaosfeary 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has it? Most of the POTD pages are on my watchlist, and I haven't noticed them changing. On the other hand, there can be subtler ways of changing the picture. Can you point me to any examples of when the picture has changed after the start of a new day? -- Solipsist 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12/2-I have picture issues

My userpage show today's POTD as 'pollen.' It didn't do this yesterday. Rmpfu89 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this should be. It ought to have been a picture of a Bald Eagle as shown at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 12, 2005. -- Solipsist 06:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please: let's discuss refraining from crediting names

Wikipedia is NOT about personal work. We do not sign our work within articles, and we should not post names of photographers on the main page. Kingturtle 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any particular reason that POTD includes a picture credit - its more that that is how it always has been done. It is possible it was introduced because you often see picture credits next to pictures in newspapers and magazines. There may be some issue with giving credit for externally sourced images, but since we don't allow 'Fair Use' or other restricted images on POTD this seems unlikely.

On the other hand, it is the case that pictures on Wikipedia are more often than not the contribution of one individual. The principle purpose of POTD is to encourage people to illustrate articles on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't want to make a change that might discourage that. -- Solipsist 06:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, reluctantly (these guys deserve recognition). Photo credits should be mentioned as prominently as possible on any "Wikipedia:" namespace pages we have dealing with this, but not on a Wikipedia article or the Main Page, which are part of our actual content and should be left out of the editing (and photographing) process as much as possible. -Silence 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much more often than not: One person took the picutre, one person edited/developed it, and of course, only one person uploaded it. As a general rule, photographs are not a collaborative effort, and I see no reason why the person who worked so hard to get it just right, who had the skill and the know-how to take a photograph good enough to gain featured picture status, shouldn't recieve a small amount of credit. Where do you think these pictures come from, out of nowhere? They didn't just materialize out of nothing, some individuals put a great deal of work into them, and a very small "Photo Credit: SomeWikipedian" isn't hurting anyone, I think.

Also, I just realized that this is the same guy who several months ago requested that the photo credits be removed. Just scroll up.PiccoloNamek 07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, s/he is trying to gain consensus on the issue before making the change, which should be commended. pfctdayelise 11:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the credit. When you edit a page, it says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." This ethos applies to all contributions, including images, IMO. Wikipedia is bigger than any individual photo-taking editor! :) On the image description page, just one click away, they can make their name as prominent as they like. pfctdayelise 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the photo is in dire need of enhancement, it is unlikely to ever be edited by others, not that either editing or distrubution changes the originator of the photo in any way. Just because I fix somebody's photo, or upload it to another Wikipedia, doesn't mean that the credit is no longer theirs. I suppose this is also a personal issue as well, and I'll admit I am biased. My apologies. A great deal of time an effort goes into making a good photograph, much more so than goes into creating an article. Not just editing in Photoshop, but also before exposure. Going out to the location, setting up the tripod, getting the composition just right, properly exposing the picture, making sure everything is in line with your artistic vision. It's all very personal, and very involved, and very different from an article, where dozens of people might edit it in a single day. I don't think that a small 6 point font with the words "Photo Credit: User X" is at all harmful to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and is a small but visible recognition of the photographer's tremendous efforts toward making our encyclopedia better.PiccoloNamek 12:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the credits shouldn't be there. There are featured articles that are almost solely the work of one contributor, shouldn't they receive credit as well? The fact is, that nobody owns anything on wikipedia, it's a collaborative effort. Borisblue 17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I just explained why it isn't, at least in this case. I too, have created entire articles out of nothing (Spira), but it's just not the same as taking a photograph. I suppose in the end it doesn't matter. I seem to be in the minority here anyway.PiccoloNamek 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with PiccoloNamek, and agian I am biased as I really like seeing my photos on the main page with my name under them. I mean you look at the POTD and you think "wow what a nice photo" and then you want to see who took it so that you can see more of their work. A size six fount link is extremely usefull.
On that point, a picture can't be compared to an article, because the photo shows an individuals style and talent. Say for instance someone single handedly wrote and got an article featured (an extremely unlikely event), the chances of the individual having more articles of similar standard is quite slim. If you look through the FP list, you'll find that people with on FP usually have more. And so it's only natural for someone wot want to see more work done by a photographer who has taken a photo good enough to be a FP. --Fir0002 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason that the credit has to be in the main page rather than in the "history" tab, the way all other wikipedia contributors receive credit. The point is, that nobody owns any contributions on Wikipedia, and I think that crediting contributors in this way is against the wiki philosophy. Borisblue 23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a somewhat divided opinion on this matter. I think professional photographers, who are normally paid for their work, deserve a little free advertising in exchange for donating their hard work to the encyclopedia. I think amateur photographs, taken by ordinary Wikipedians, should never be credited. Finally, diagrams should never be credited, since they're often easier to create and edit, so it's more likely that a diagram could be updated significantly by multiple editors (who might all deserve credit). Deco 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if you are singling out a photo for being a good photo then having a credit line is a desirable bit of recognition to the photographer and encourages others to produce similar works. If on the other hand you are using a photo to illustrate an article or other discussion, then I would support removing the credit. Basically the distinction I see is that if you are highlighting a photograph for its photographic merit, then you really ought to be directing that praise to the photographer, and so having his or her name there makes sense. Dragons flight 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingturtle and Solipsist - we shouldn't be referencing the photographer. It doesn't really add anything, and it sets a bad example. Raul654 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I am somewhat ambivalent on the matter. I think we should do what is best for Wikipedia. I am aware that many photo contributors are encouraged by being recognised, but also accept the argument that it is potentially against the spirit of the rest of the project. After all, article writers might also want to see more visible credit for their work, and DYK article in particular also tend to be the work of an individual. Nevertheless, it is considered to be best for Wikipedia as a whole if editors are not credited too visibly for articles that they write, as this might discourage other editors from improving and extending an article.

It is however possible to argue that the opposite is the case for photographs. Since it is not really possible to improve and extend and existing photograph, the 'preventing a sense of ownership' argument is less relevant. It may well be the case that more visible credits for photographs helps encourage more photographers to contribute images under a free license - and that would be a good thing for Wikipedia.

For me the tricky part to consider, is whether the downside of allowing credits for photographs would be that textural content editors are discouraged. -- Solipsist 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deco, professional writers who are paid for their work receive no special treatment here, nor should photographers. Kingturtle 02:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that all articles are collaborative works. No article is written by a single author, even if a single author creates a detailed article and most subsequent edits are minor. Photographs are generally not collaborative — at best, one Wikipedian takes them and another might crop it, touch it up a bit, or put it in a grid with others. Deco 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if the article were to be written by a single person, he should be credited? Whenever I read a good article, I look at the history to see who the contributors are. Same is the case with some images used in DYK. When there is no photo credit for images in DYK, Current Affairs etc. (even when they are works of registered Wikipedians) and when there is no credit for article writers and most importantly, when the main page doesn't proclaim "Run By Jimbo Wales," why should there be photo credit for POTD? --Gurubrahma 10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising may encourage photographers to add their photographs for that reason, and they might not be photographs we can use. Whatever the decison, I think that the standard should be the same for professional photographers and amateurs. Amateurs often put in just as much work for a picture as professionals and can be quite reluctant to share them as freely as Wikipedia's licensing requires. -- Kjkolb 11:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, I'm pretty sure when you use an article from wiki, I'm pretty sure that you only have to credit Wikipedia, not every individual editor. But when using and image (especially for commercial purposes) I think you have to credit the actual photographer, which clearly demonstrates the difference b/w an article and an image. The two can't be compared that way.
As to the claims "nobody owns anything on wiki", if you go down that path we may as well kick out barnstars which recognize extra effort, usually in an article, and even more fantically removing signatures! Credit should be given --Fir0002 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add much that hasn't already been covered by Deco, Piccolonamek and Fir002, except that I agree with them that credit should be given. I don't think that it is against the spirit of wiki to recognise effort and success, and I do agree that photography is almost exclusively a pursuit that is, from inception to post-production, the work of an individual. I don't believe there is any harm in a simple credit for an image that is featured. Nor do I believe Wikipedia should be about collectivity to the point where individuality is removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be a no-brainer. WP struggles to attract photos so we shouldn't make it less attractive to donate pictures. --BozMo[[user talk:BozMo||talk]] 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That tiny, little credit line does not distract. As said, a photo is (mainly) the work of one individual. The credit is an incentive to sharing, so let it stay, but only as a Wiki username. Then, how could professionals "use it"? If they have a bio or CV on their user page - so what, we get free professional images - and the photos have to be voted POD to get there, anyway... --Janke | Talk 07:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that WP has any more trouble attracting good photos as it does attracting good prose; the people who are already dedicated Wikipedians shoot and upload relevant photos in order to futher the goal of creating an encyclopedia. If getting credit is the difference between someone uploading a photo or not, they probably aren't pursuing the goal of creating an encyclopedia. The page for the photo (where you would find the hi-res version, which anyone really interested in a photo would do) still gives credit to the photographer. What goes on the main page as content shouldn't directly draw attention to content creators.--ragesoss 07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day: Golden Gate Bridge

Background

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

ATTENTION:Picture-of-the-day expert needed

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

POTD picture size

In response to this request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Template Design

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

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

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

And without:

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

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

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

POTD Mainpage, remove "Nominate new image" link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southward

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

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

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_picture

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

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

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

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

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