Commons talk:Picture of the day/Archive 2

Add topic
Active discussions

POTY finalists unused

Hello. I found some of the POTY finalists in Commons:Picture of the day/Unused featured pictures. (I am not familiar with POTY2006 or POTY2007, so there might be more POTY2006 or 2007 finalists unused). Will you - can you use them in POTD?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miya (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  Support: Sure, go ahead and create some POTD templates for days that don't have a POTD yet. These are brilliant pictures which are beautiful to be on the main page. Just make sure that you use the appropriate templates: {{Potd filename}} for the filename page, {{Potd description}} for all captions and {{Picture of the day}} for the file description page. Furthermore, it's probably helpful to steal the captions from the image description page, as these usually have some translations. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Messy redlinks all over the template

It seems to me that the templates double the redlinks unnecessarily. For each language that does not have a description, there is a redlink on the language name (ok), and then a redlink of the template name that is missing (not ok). Both link to the same place, so I would much prefer only to see one of them. Is there a technical problem doing this? --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this doesn't look good, but I'm afraid we can't change this. Technically, there's an option to use {{#ifexist}}, but this parser function can only be used <500 times on a page (and developers are planning to reduce this to <100). We would definitely hit this limit, and in such a case any ifexist parser function will be treated as if the page would exist, even if it actually doesn't. So, the only option to remove the redlinks is to create a translation. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made a change which I think improves the situation. At least now you don't have to scroll to find the images! If anyone's got objections to this, let's talk and see if we can sort them out. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File renames

Hi, it recently came to my attention that File:Adm2.jpg was renamed to File:Admiral David Farragut (1801–1870) - collodion, LC-BH82-4054 restored.jpg in preparation for its appearance as the February 16 POTD, with the summary "Change meaningless". It would have been less unpleasant a surprise if someone had contacted me (as the editor who restored that file) to inquire whether there actually was a meaning. Indeed there was. I use a filename system for digital restorations that appends numbers and letters according to their progress as restorations. For instance:

The filename suffix (usually 2) differentiates a restoration from the pre-histogram edit, which is usually uploaded under the suffix numbered 1 such as File:Grant of arms1.tif. This system makes it possible for genuine wiki-style collaboration to occur since histogram changes are nonrecoverable. The filename change that was implemented damages the recordkeeping element of that naming system and I would like to revert it (the rest of the filename, "Adm", is a standard abbreviation for admiral). Please communicate and inquire before taking preemptive actions of this type; I discovered this change only through my watchlist. Durova (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded at User_talk:MGA73#Featured_picture_name_change where this was posted initially. The change was requested two days ago and the full reason given was "change meaningless name" (refering to Commons:File renaming point 2). BTW, there is no File:adm1.jpg and you can still retrieve the image through the redirect. -- User:Docu at 03:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
That pre-restoration filename would be in TIFF format of course, to prevent progressive JPEG artifacting. WMF software did not support TIFF format until 2009. That particular restoration was completed in 2008. During the interim I had a system crash and lost several dozen restorations including that one, which was a reason the developers implemented TIFF support. These measures are necessary to facilitate collaborative editing within a wiki structure. Per the above explanation the original filename was meaningful. If you have no further objection I intend to restore it, although it would be equally effective in this instance to change to File:Admiral Farragut2.jpg. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Durova (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I still don't think "adm" is an acceptable filename, but if others think so, I guess you could rename back to that.
When requesting the rename (four days ago), I also expanded David Farragut with more images from Category:David Farragut. At some point (in preview), I wanted to re-arrange the sequence of portraits, but as they are all named more or less the same, I had trouble keeping track which image was which one.
If we do rename the file, I think we should attempt to pick one that is sufficiently descriptive and different from the other images used on David_Farragut. For portraits, first name and last name of the subject should be included. It isn't the only collodion either. As photographer and year of the portrait aren't known, we can't use that. Personally I'd keep the LC id. BTW "restored" seems more descriptive than just "2". -- User:Docu at 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to [[[:File:Admiral Farragut2.jpg]]? It's the filename I probably would have chosen if the restoration had been done half a year later. This was one of the earliest. :) Durova (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons explained before, personally I would pick one that allows to identify the image in "AdmFarragut.jpg Admiral-David-Farragut-1.JPG Admiral_David_Farragut_Monument_1024.jpg Admiral_David_Farragut_Statue.jpg Admiral_David_G_Farragut.jpg Brady_-_Admiral_DG_Farragut.jpg Commodore_Farragut.jpg David-glasgow-farragut.jpg David_Farragut.jpg David_Farragut_WWI_poster.jpg David_G._Farragut_memorial.jpg Farragut_Memorial_-_facade.JPG Farragut_Memorial_-_statue.JPG Farragut_Square_-_Connecticut_Avenue.JPG Farragut_Square_-_facing_north.JPG Farragut_Vicksburg.jpg Farragut_sculpture.JPG Madison_Square_Park_Farragut_Memorial.jpg Plaque_Farragut_Sculpture.JPG" and includes "David Farragut". -- User:Docu at 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I was asked if I would rename the file before it was POTD. That is why the rename was done so fast. I still find the old name meaningless. Was he really known as "Admiral 2"? Had it been "Adm David Farragut" or something like that I doubt that someone would have suggested a rename. --MGA73 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

These responses don't address the question which has been posed twice, so I have gone ahead and renamed to File:Admiral Farragut2.jpg. Feel free to remove this image from the POTD queue if that causes any problems. It's unlikely that this problem would recur in future with my FPs because this images was one of the earliest, yet in future it might be good practice to see whether the FP nominator is active and available for dialog before implementing radical filename changes--less feathers ruffled on all sides. Best regards, Durova (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Hope you remember to change the wiki-pages that uses the file. --MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You might want to lend a hand to MGA73 with renaming files to test the suggested procedure. -- User:Docu at 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored/extended instructions for inclusion in the aftermath of COM:FPC discussion

I have adjusted an extended the instructions for inclusion quite a bit following Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Concern over effective delisting of image. It is a rather big change I have made, but I hope you agree with the intention behind. I am not the best at writing concise and precise English, so feel free to adjust, tighten, improve as you please. Of course, if you totally disagree with the change I will take no offense if it is reverted either. In that case let us just discuss what to do. --Slaunger (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit looks good to me for what it is worth. And thanks for the work. --Herby talk thyme 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-FP POTD candidate

Hi folks! It seems to me that the candidate for Picture of the Day 2010-05-27, namely this file, is not a Featured Picture. What is the protocol for that case? --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not eligable for POTD, so it should be replaced by another image. The user, whi has inserted the image, potd has only made a few edits, and may (if I AGF) simply not be aware of the procedure. --Slaunger (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Caption on Template:Potd/2010-03-30 (en)

The first thing I wondered was where or what is Paranal platform. Needs a link but is protected. Moondyne (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of including commons Template in Wikipedia

Is it possible to include a commons template in a wikipedia? This would make it easier to keep POTD translations updated at a single place (i.e., here on commons), via e.g., Template:Potd/2010-03-30 (en). br. Quackor (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (fo.wp)

See bugzilla:4547 for this feature. I also agree that it would be great to have such an option. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I guess I won't start at local translation here on commons then (to much double work). br. Quackor (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


The page should load a lot faster now. There was some incredibly inefficient code in one of the sub-templates which I desnarled. Basically, something that was a good idea when this served fifteen languages did not scale up to the hundred or so we now have very well.

Let me know if there's issues, though I have tested this and it seems to work great, and I doubt that very many people will even notice the change.

Those of you who are not coders may turn their attention away now.

Basically, #ifeq is one of the more server-intensive parserfunctions. The documentation says that it's limited to 500 uses per page, because of this, after which it will refuse to load.

This page used it a bit over 3000 times.

The reason it was used so much has to do with how the languages that can be translated into are divided into a short list of languages with (in theory) lots of translators, and a long list of all the languages with (in theory) few people supporting them.

However, all the languages' PotD page use the same template to provide the back end. It's translated using a "lang" parameter passed to the template.

However, what if you're on, say, the Afrikaans PotD setup page? That's one of the languages in the secondary list, but on that page, it needs to be in the main list.

...The problem is, they decided that A. Alphabetical order had to be maintained, and B. That it had to be suppressed in the secondary list. That meant the code was something like:

  • Check if the page is the Afrikaans PotD. If it is, show the link to the Afrikaans translation here.
  • [Check a dozen other languages, show them if they're the selected one]
  • Show the link for bn, one of our "main" languages
  • [Check a dozen other languages]
  • Show the link for Česky, one of our "main" languages.


Then, just to make it worse, when you got to the list of other languages:

  • Check if the page is the Afrikaans PotD. If it is don't show the link to the Afrikaans translation here.
  • [Same thing for every single other language!]

There were over 100 checks devoted to that effort of prettying up the page slightly - PER DAY ON THIS PAGE. That's a huge server load, and put this page a few more languages being added away from breaking completely.

Here's what I did.

  • I used a single #switch parser function to check whether {{{lang}}} was one of the languages in the main list (or undefined). If it wasn't, show the language {{{lang}}} represents at the top, in bold.
  • Display the rest of the list with no checks.

It's not as "pretty" in some very specific cases, but it has the benefit of being scalable, and not giving this page a server processing time measured in entire seconds. It also loses no actual functionality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a few more efficiency tweaks - there were a whole ton of padleft calls, and I realised that, if the template is going to work at all, there's no way they could ever do anything. ( {{{month}}} is always of the form YYYY-MM, calling it to be padded to at least two digits cannot do anything. Evidently, PotD used to be on a yearly cycle, like MotD currently is. )
Suffice to say, I have checked that the change works in all the higher-level templates that called it. This wasn't hard: It's a subsidiary template only used by one other, and some new stuff I made myself and which isn't in common use yet.
PotD should be loading really fast now =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Caption on 2010-06-25 (Wright brothers' first flight)

The time of day is given, but not the date. This seems very strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

motd problem

Hope I am putting this question in the right spot? I was trying to help out MOTD, so I added a hidef video of a gorilla (that I took, so I am sure it is on firm copyright standing) but the default thumbnail isn't the best. I tried to use the wikicode thumbtime=8 to give a wonderful thumbnail, but it didn't seem to work. Any way we will be able to select thumbnails for the motd? That would be great, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure whether that's possible, in all honesty, while keeping things simple enough to be usable. Let me think about it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am not making the template, but I'm not sure why it can't work like wikicode on a page. On the template where you put the file name is it impossible to parse a |thumbtime= command at the end of the file name? I am not inventing wikicode here, that code already works in Wikipedia. Just sayin! Nesnad (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure if you noticed, but the advanced options suggested, doesn't work. The thumbnail on the gorilla video is still in the middle instead of frame 8 like would be better. The advanced option (as of now) is not working. Hope you see this! Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thumbtime is actually in seconds, not frame number. I've set it to .5, which seems to be what you wanted. You may need to purge the page to get it to show. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Language lists

The following languages are very frequently translated into, and thus now appear in the main language list: Belarusian (Taraškievica), Korean, Macedonian, and Ukranian.

Esperanto is almost never used, and is now under "Other languages". Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Bold text


It would be nice to tweak {{Potd/DaySetup}} so that when adding a description for a Potd, {{Potd description}} with the relevant parameters is preloaded. What do you think ? Jean-Fred (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, it's impossible due to that requiring more #ifexist functions than are permitted (~60 languages * ~30 days = ~1800. The maximum number is 300, and we already use about... maybe 100 on this page for more basic functionality.
However, a bot's being worked on that'll automatically add the template after the fact. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense. That could be done with {{Potd}} though ? (though it would be better if it is never used : means otherwise that the Potd has no description yet on its day :-p).
(By the way, I love this new layout : I never thought about translating the Motd before, and now I do. Great idea). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There's been a lot of hard work put into it, since the old code was hugely inefficient, which meant that getting it to the stage where we could double up like this took a lot of work. =) Here's the current stats.

NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 58807/1000000 Post-expand include size: 1855422/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 164484/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 138/500

Not really happy with that Post-expand include size, but it at least has a bit of a buffer.

By the way, I don't know if anyone's noticed yet, but from May 2010 on, the monthly pages auto-translate. Compare:

Been trying to decide if we can use that instead of the monthly translation pages some languages have. The issue, of course, is whether we should have, say, following a link from the Commons:Picture of the day page in German to a monthly page to there should change commons' language to German, or just use {{int:lang}} unprompted, and hope the user has set his language appropriately already. If we DID use either method of {{int:lang}} translations, though, it'd vastly simplify {{Potd/Months}}. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor improvement

The blank image and speaker icons used for unselected Potd and Motds may now be clicked on to choose a PotD or MotD, respectively. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Two questions I had about POTD:

  1. How are POTDs selected? Is there a vote on it?
  2. If I add myself to the POTD email list, can I remove myself from it later?

--The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Due to the controversy surrounding POTD, I suggest we replace it with COM:FK. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

July 25, 2010

"on july 25th 1946.": a capital "J" is needed here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough featured pictures for the POTD?

Seems there are now not enough FP to get one for each day? --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Caption template link for language Malayalam (ml)

Wish to add a caption link for language Malayalam (like # English : Template:Potd/2010-08-01 (en) ). But unable to figure how. Pls help. Thanks--Praveen:talk 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Somehow did here Template:Potd and Motd/Languages, but still not sure--Praveen:talk 23:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

14. September 2010

This is best of the best of Commons? Please, be careful when adding new POTD's. kallerna 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  Could we replace the current Commons logo on the template with this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Piłsudski description

Shouldn't it be at least the briefest mention that Piłsudski served as a military dictator? I understand that he was significant for the modern independence of Poland, but it's a bit touchy to leave out a fact like that in a PotD caption.

Peter Isotalo 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

November 17, 2010 English caption

The current caption in English (Template:Potd/2010-11-17 (en)) reads "Picture taken in Duisburg while summer meetup. nymphaea alba". This is pretty incoherant not to mention non-wikipedians might not know what a meetup is. Could it read something like: "Picture of nymphae alba taken in Duisburg during a Wikipedia meetup", Sadads (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the caption is not very good and should be changed. And our main page should not lead people away from Commons so the links should lead to nice galleries at Commons, not to article or project pages in Wikipedia. I suggest changing the caption to "Picture of Nymphaea alba taken in Duisburg in August 2010." /Ö 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  Done Lupo 12:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Has this file ever been a POTD ? If not, I think it is worth a nomination. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. But before it can be POTD it needs to be a Commons:Featured picture. /Ö 13:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and how does it become a Commons:Featured picture ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

There seem to be quite a few element samples in January (3 in ten days), maybe we should switch some of the them. Oddly most replacements I considered were already POTD. --  Docu  at 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the POTD RSS feed hasn't been updating recently. The last item in the feed is for 2nd January. 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dup potd image.

Template:Potd/2011-04-08 and Template:Potd/2011-01-21. -- ChongDae (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No picture for 4 January 2011?

Hi, Template:Potd/2011-01-04 seems to be missing. Does anyone know which file was chosen for POTD that day? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 13:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be File:Apikal4D.gif but I don't know understand why the template was deleted. Please reinstate it if that would be OK. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Caption 2011-03-04

Why is the caption written in the past tense? This is a fossil, yes, but brachiopods are far from extinct and still filter-feed using their lophophore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Caption April 21, 2011

Can we please clean up the grammar and italics in the Jesus Baptism picture? Thanks. Stickpen (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done Thanks for the note. --99of9 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Yahua Blowgun Amazon Iquitos Peru.jpg

See also Template talk:Potd/2011-05-16

How come this picture features as the POTD? It isn't even a featured picture, and its size is below the size requirements for FPs. Tomer T (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was done in error and has been reverted. Kaldari (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

POTD in other languages

Is there any help/tutorial/faq that indicates how one can automatically display the commons POTD on the main pages of other language Wikipedias? Or can anybody be nice enough to write the steps here? It will be greatly appreciated! -- (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Any help? -- (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ignore please. I now know how to. -- Hgetnet (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Template:pdh is supposed to automatically categorise Potd templates. In some cases, this doesn't work, and I can see no reason why. Compare Template:Potd/2010-04-03 (de) (fails) with Template:Potd/2005-01-07 (de) (works). (I'm cleaning out Category:Uncategorized templates.) Rd232 (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The dates have to be written with a leading 0 for single digit numbers. So for April it should be "04" and not just "4". /Ö 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've tried to clarify the documentation. Rd232 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: in fixing these templates it turns out that template parameters not matching the template name also breaks the template (so eg Template:Potd/2010-04-24 (ca) must use language code ca and date parameters 2010|04|24). Rd232 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please correct year

Hi. Can someone kindly correct the year for File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg? It said 2012 which I don't believe is correct. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks correct. Maybe it is a bit early to choose a picture for May next year. But I assume someone did this to make sure that the image is used on the death date of Leonardo da Vinci. To use a specific image for a specific date one needs to do it in good time before that date. /Ö 19:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. The edit summary says it hasn't been featured yet which explains it, along with your info ("good time before that date"). -SusanLesch (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable captions

I've noticed quite a lot that POTD's often have really sub-standard captions. Captioning is a very important aspect of image metadata, especially when something goes on the mainpage. As an example of an upcoming POTD, the image File:Cucurbita 2011 G1.jpg has no information other than "Squashes and pumpkins". I don't question the quality of the image, but as information about what the image actually portrays, it's near-useless. Where was the picture taken and in what context? What species or varieties are we looking at? Are they edible or inedible? Every single detail doesn't have to be included, but reducing the description to "squashes and pumpkins" seriously lowers the usability of the image.

Are there any kind of quality guidelines concerning image information?

Peter Isotalo 15:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Identical images

Two potd images are same.

-- ChongDae (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the latter. Featuring the same image twice in one year because of a mere two-year anniversary doesn't seem right at all.
Peter Isotalo 16:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a mistake was made when the FP nomination was closed. Both files were marked as featured, when only the editted version was voted in the nomination. /Ö 17:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I ...

How can I propose a picture of the day?--Llorenzi (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

second time?

This picture has already been elected in July--David1010 07:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes - well spotted. We need a replacement now. Rd232 (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Period at the end of captions

Hi, I've been asking myself why do the captions here have the period at the end. Is this a convention here? Per en:Wikipedia:Captions#Wording, there should be no period at the end except in the case of full sentences, because the majority of captions are not grammatically complete sentences, but noun phrases. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A length of caption

There was a dispute about a length of caption in Template:Potd/2013-02-11 (en). In my opinion, because the English description is used in commons and some Wikipedias, it is better to be short (For more reasons and discussions see User talk:Gidip#Too much info). What do you think about this? Should we really have to made a guideline for this? --관인생략 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Beppe Grillo image of the day ????

I do not know who roposed and who choosed Beooe Grillo as "image of the day" March 14th, but it is a very strange and inappriate idea. --Arrakis (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? This is a featured picture, like many others, and it can be assigned to the "picture of the day" like any other featured picture. --Kaganer (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong county

Could someone please correct the caption on the picture of the day April 2nd? Måbødalen and Eidsfjord are located in Hordaland, not Sogn og Fjordane. - 4ing (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of [ these photos] would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File templates

Why are the current POTDs not decorated with the corresponding templates any more? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Portal Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg (POTD for 30.04.2014)

File File:Portal Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg was nominated for deletion (No FOP in Oman). I propose chenge it to File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg. --Kaganer (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Please vote for Bugzilla:22521 if you want to enable to change a description page of a file on the main page. --ŠJů (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day widget has a commercial/Google slant

It looks like User:Vdegroot added the "Add the Picture of the day widget to iGoogle or your own website" link to this page in 2011.

As of 2015, this widget

  • uses Google's service to parse the featuredfeed RSS
  • loads google-analytics code and phones home to with a ton of information
  • promotes a "LinkedIn connections on a map" widget
  • promotes a "Desktop Decoration" app for Android at the Google Play store

It's kind of a useful service, but for something featured on commons I would expect a less commercial, more self-contained FOSS approach.

(I stumbled across this while writing an article about Showing interesting content using the featuredfeed API; I'm trying to figure out the simplest way to show Picture of the day, I appreciate any help) -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please consider scaling or cropping photos with large "blank" areas at the top

Wikimedia Commons Main Page as it appeared on November 7, 2015

Today's (November 7 2015) picture of the day (File:Egretta garzetta 2015-06-17.jpg) has a huge area at the top that, absent the bird, is uninteresting. When you load it into a web browser on a typical laptop (768-pixel-tall display, Internet Explorer occupying the full screen, "100%" scale factor), you see a vast boring are of green with only a very small amount of the top of the bird's head showing.

Consider scaling or cropping future "picture of the day" images that have this problem, or, if that is not feasible (say, due to the need to go through the whole "featured picture" process all over again for a cropped image or if the scaled- or cropped-image simply doesn't look good enough to be on the main page), choose a different image for the picture of the day.

I'm not complaining about this image - it's a great image - it's just that most people who visit the Commons with a laptop won't scroll down to see it as it is intended to be seen. Davidwr (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The red Fiat

The caption for the red Fiat (Picture of the Day) is syntactically incorrect and would benefit greatly from a review by a native English-speaking editor. Richard Avery (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

a lot of churches ...

This month there are churches presented on 6th, 7th and 8th, today on 10th and upcoming on 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th and 21st. That makes almost a third of this months pictures of the day. Including the Annunciation on 4th, a third of the pictures shows christian content. There's nothing wrong with good pictures of churches, but this is a significant cumulation of such images and thus a lack of variety and quite a bias towards one religion. --Tsui (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination: File:National highway (M-9) Jamsshoro Toll Plaza Overfly.jpg


File:National highway (M-9) Jamsshoro Toll Plaza Overfly.jpg National Highway (M-9), Karachi-Hyderabad Motorway.Jogi don (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the way how it shouldn't be

Hello, I come here to strongly protest about the way that user Rodrigo.Argenton "contributes" in POTD:

  • He overwrote all POTD templates planned for Nov 22th (in 3 days) with a picture he nominated and edited for FP. He argued that there war 4 pictures of deserts of mine and therefore he has the right to do or undo as he likes. Indeed, there were 4 desert pictures in November: one train (in a desertic area), a row of shops (in a desertic ares), a Bolivian desert that reminds to a Salvador Dalï picture and a lake in a desertic area. Yes, they have in common that were taken in a dried area, but they all have completely different subjects.
  • He didn't contact me or any other of the creators of the 7 captions before or after the overwritting.
  • He just overwrote the old files instead of moving the current information to a different day.
  • He didn't like to wait for over 4 months as everybody does, but rather 3 days.

This is totally disrespectful to me, and to the community and is IMHO far from the wiki spirit. I'd like to add it is not the first time that he overreacts on this topic as you can see here.

I brought this complaint here because it shows IMHO exactly how it shouldn't be. If we all would behave like this, it would be a jungle. Poco2 21:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"This is totally disrespectful to me, and to the community" [my highlight]
For me is giant disrespectful you nominate 9, nine, photos in just one month!! Nine photos, ~1/3 of the POD you established as your work, and this is far from being the first time.
And didn't I talked to you? okay, lets fresh your memory okay:[1], oh wait, you linked it.
Your answer:
"To be honest, I don't see any problem with the fact that one person is the author of the 1/3 of the POTD pictures in one month as long as they are diverse, and I think that that is the case. I can though try to spread them more, but still there will be many of them every month, and I am actually happy about that. " [2]
So, how we going to talk to you, if you frequently do that, and think that is normal. And completes with "I am actually happy about that."
More funny, "pictures in one month as long as they are diverse", 4 photos of desert, and every single month we have a church, just as if the whole community as Catholic or even Christian (or do not suffer because of Christianity, or do not have religion).
But okay, this is just November, lets back to October, let me see here... humm, 8 , eight photos, 5 deserts photos!! 1 church and 1 monastery..
Okay, okay, lets back to September, that will be different, wait, 9 nominations, 3 deserts, 2 churches.
You concealed one part of my complain "In one month 8 Diego Delso, 4 photos of a desert by him ¬¬" and I was wrong, was 9 photos by him. And inside this 1/3 of photos of the month, 4 photos of a desert, that we already had a lot in the previous month, and the month before...
I removed one photo, one of a ridiculous pattern that you are imposing to the community, and you crying loud, and talking about overreacting and disrespect??
You don't respect the others work, you think that you should always be in front, above the others. And you really are talking about "wiki spirit", when you occupy ~1/3 of the space just for you?
And worst than concealed, you are deliberating lying to us: " with a picture he nominated" [my highlight]
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skul of crocodile (Crocodylidae).jpg, I not even voted for it. Nothing, not my name, not my opinion, not even a notification, nothing. This one is FP, and is out of the "church" "desert" theme that follows... just it.
But, if it was my nomination? Or my picture? You are imposing yours for years and you are "actually happy about that", why others could not do that? Why you are so special?
I tried to be nice back there, and you lie, conceal, overreact (just because I removed one of 9 photos, nine!), and say that I'm the example of how not to be, and that I'm the disrespectful one here? And talking about talk, my talk page it's empty, no sign of Diego Delso.
I'll not enter in the jungle thing, but for me that was enormously disrespectful, discriminatory, especially as a Brazilian.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
It cannot be surprising that I place most pictures in POTD because I get most of them here through the FP process and I'm a very active community member. I don't think that the aomunt is a problem and those pictures have the same right to become POTD as all others. Still, your first reflex after this thread was to look for my FPCs and drop a decline to try to reduce the throttle. One more commendable action of yours.
What you have copy-pasted above is nothing else but a proof that you have a problem with me and you believe that whatever you (alone) affirm is the holy truth.
You affirm that "I'm always above the others", but I keep off conflicts and I've always respected the rules here. I add a POTD on July 10th to put it on the first page on Nov 22th and you just come more than 4 months later and overwrite it with your candidate without contacting me (instead just adding an edit summary without any foundation as I have proven above) and without moving that POTD to a different date. Who believes to be above the others?. Your behaviour is disrespectful and irritates me.
You seem to have a problem with Christian churches since the last discussion, I don't have any. As a proof, I've got several FP of mosques in the last weeks, and I hope that soon you don't have a problem with mosques. I've photographed many christian churches due to geographical reasons. You say "it is discriminatory, specially as a Brazilian". Excuse me, but I can hardly believe that somebody can feel discriminated by the work I upload as I've uploaded pictures from 78 countries and got FPs in 43 of them (I apologize because I didn't manage any one from Brazil, I didn't have a chance for that). You will find all kind of subjects, cultures, religions and types of photography among them.
What can I add to your "analysis" of the last months in POTD? yes, I have a lot of pictures in POTD because I've a lot of FPs and I'm an active user here, that is somehow logical. I always try to spread them over several months and keep some away from each other when there are similar subjects. You are the only one who seems to have a problem with that here. If you don't like it the way it's you have 2 options: stop complaining or define any additional rules (that nobody needs IMHO) and get consensus here to settle them. Apart from that the problem of your behaviour and your believe that you can do here what you like remains. I still expect that you create a POTD for the FP that you have tramped, otherwise I'll bring this topic to COM:ANU by Monday night (UTC time), I am fine though if it is in the next 6 months, not in the next 6 days. Poco2 07:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Before I read this, I already started a topic there, I don't live by fear, so treats do not affect me you can start a topic, it's your choice.
No, I don't have a problem with Christian churches, I myself do photos on them, what I said is that we need to be more careful when we put every single month Christians symbols as highlighted pictures, as we have a plural community, and this images goes beyond Christian countries.
And don't change things, I make clear that I was talking about the "it would be a jungle", being a Brazilian, and working with Amerindian this very racist, very racist. I can guarantee that in "jungle" the have a ridiculous more community spirit than what you are presenting in this discussion...
You are not that important as you think:[3], my first "reflex" was to thanks the volunteers that helped to translate the POTD, including one that said: " Thanks for bringing the updated image to my attention, and for changing it in the first place – the last few weeks, there was too little variation" [4]
So again, stop disturb the reality, and you are not using the correct space, most of your point is about me, so you should really being using the COM:ANU, or my talk page.
This is not about my action, you are presenting me as the problem.
Now, the only thing that is not about me:
And you talked briefly about rules, right?
"The original inclusion did not provide a reasonable diversity in subjects, creators, etc. over a couple of days." Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions#Changing picture of the day
I gave 2 of the reasons include in the first topic to "Changing picture of the day" >> diversity in subjects, creators
Yes, I didn't move, but all the other things I'm inside the rule, that do not have any kind of limit for dates, I don't need to contact you, I don't need to do all the things that you are claiming that are a rules.
So, if you want, you can go ahead and change the rule, now as it's, anyone can do the change, after you nominate tons of pictures of the same subject, or yours. Cheers.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why do you link to your contributions after saying "You are not that important as you think". As said, I don't believe I am above any other here, but indeed I am a very productive user, that is a fact, and in spite of that I usually manage to keep off problems, but I cannot help it if somebody else tramples me.
I am happy that you bring those rules up. The first one says "The original inclusion did not provide a reasonable diversity in subjects, creators, etc. over a couple of days." Sorry, but so far the discussion was about months, not about days. Please, don't speak generally and bringt it to the point. Where did I include the same topic within a few days. Looking at POTD I definitely see similar topics within a few days, but not those added by me at the point of time that I did it.
Speaking of rules,did you read a few lines further?:
If a replacement is done, it is the responsibility of the replacing user to:
Move the original image to a vacant day including already completed translations. (Not applicable if the original was unsuitable as POTD.)
Update the Picture of the day templates on the file descriptions of both the new and the old picture.
Please, DO THAT, I already asked three times for that. --Poco2 08:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
"Yes, I didn't move,"^ so I read the rules, and I forgot to do..
And it's here:Template:Potd/2017-05-20.
Now, I can do the things that I should be doing, or you will continue with this rage?
I'm tired, and you will not change and less appropriate the space, so I'll reserve my energy to another things.
x0x0 -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
For the first time I agree with you, I've better things to dedicate my time to. Hopefully next time you ask me previously in a polite way and I may even move the POTD templates on my own. Politeness can be a very persuasive tool :) Poco2 11:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dumb question

As a Potd-newbie I think I'm entitled to at least one dumb question. Is there any reason why there are no restrictions on how Potd are added/chosen? Or have I just missed them? At QIC and FPC only a certain number of pics are allowed and that seems to work fine. Looking at this I see the same users and subjects over and over again, wouldn't the "front page" be more diversified if there were some limits, or has this already been discussed and rehashed ad nauseam? cart-Talk 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we need a limit on a limit? There is already a regulating process to limit the throughput called FPC, I don't think we need another one. Please, don't "punish" those users who achieve a lot of FP material. --Poco2 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of "punishing" anyone Poco, you take wonderful pictures and they are joy to watch, but you can't be everywere and photographing everything; I was simply asking the question since I think it would bring more diversity (subjects and photography style) to this section. At FPC there are, theoretically, an huge number of possibilities for getting an FP and yet we are only allowed two active noms at a time. Here there are (mostly) only 365 slots per year to be divided among the photographers at FPC. cart-Talk 18:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
W.carter: I do not think it is a stupid question. It has just worked this way for many years, and in the beginning, there was not promoted much more than one FP per day, and there was not much to choose from. On EN:WP there has been a tradition of a voluntary curator selecting the images from the pool of FPs, which has not yet been POTD, trying to select pictures that match with a specific day and bring diversity in the subjects shown and the creators represented. The curator of course also receives suggestions from creators if they match a specific day. I do not think that would be such a bad idea either at Commons if someone is willing to invest the time in managing it, and a consensus for such curation could be achieved. With the increasing number of FPs per day nowadays, it is in practise such that the FPs that appear as POTD are from the few users, who actively add their own FPs to POTD, and that implies that for some users, the FPs just never come up, even if they would diversify the subjects shown. I am "guilty" in doing the same thing. I think about a year ago, I took all "my" FPs that had not yeat appeared as POTD and inserted them in the empty slots well ahead in time. I was careful not to chunk them together, and tried to put them at meaningful dates with some space in between, but it has nevertheless given a disproportionately large number of "my" FPs the last year, compared to the entire FP-pool, and although my FPs have some diversity in subject and location, it has - to be honest - been more to feed my own ego, than to assure that we get the maximum variation and diversity in locations and subjects on the main page. I would welcome a volunteer curator to actively select FPs instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Slaunger, thanks for filling me in. If the system is old and hasn't been changed to fit the now much larger number of FPs, maybe it's time for some kind of overhaul. I may be mistaken or confusing it with something else, but I think that at the Hebrew Wiki, there is some kind of system where people can leave comments about if a pic is suitable as Potd so that a small kind of consensus is reached sort of like CR at QIC. In any case something like that could also be considered. I also think that newcomers at FPC could be guided to consider adding their pics for Potd, most of them have no clue that they can do so and think you have to be selected/nominated for it. Potd is yet a step of encouragement for photographers to improve their pics and stick around. cart-Talk 19:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I was thrilled the first time I saw one of my FPs appear as POTD on the main page, and it was very encouraging as a newcomer. Now, for me, it is not such "a big thing" anymore. I am not sure that we have the critical mass for a consensus forming process for POTD selection, but indeed it is worthwhile to consider some kind of overhaul. And speaking of overhaul, don't get me started on the antiquated COM:MOP! I'll shut up now and hear what others think. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If somebody is willing to do the job (you called it curator) fine for me, but please, no new voting pages involving the whole community Poco2 00:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You may have a point there regarding voting, I was brainstorming/thinking out loud. ;) A curator, huh? Does that need to be the same person all the time or could that be rotated for say a month or two at the time so as not to be too tiring for the volunteer(s)? (More brainstorming) --cart-Talk 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the POTD of EN is still curated by Crisco 1492. Hope he too can share some thoughts here. Here the current practice is (as many already commented above) to add a featured picture to the next available slot, mostly by the nominator themselves. We usually maintain a gap between similar subjects. But it may not work well in some cases due to the unbalanced promotion of similar type featured pictures. And if we have three FP promotions everyday, that means we can't showcase every FP as POTD. We may consider to filter out pictures those promoted with a borderline support. Jee 04:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the EN-Wiki system would be appropriate for Commons. EN-Wiki has lower throughput, so the first-in first-out system works fine, but we still have a backlog of almost two years. FIFO wouldn't work on Commons, methinks. A curator would probably work, though, assuming s/he chooses images based on thematic relevance/subject matter.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd support a clear rule that future POTD images would have to achieve at least x (supporting - opposing) votes in the FPC (x could be adjusted according to the current throughput every year or so, 12 could be a good number to start with) as Jee suggested. --Poco2 09:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dumb question - part 2 (subsection for easier editing)

All these ideas are great, maybe something will come from it. Not sure that a "least x (supporting - opposing)" would diversify more than a curator would though. I think the main page should showcase the diversity of Commons and !voters tend to be wowed by the same thing all the time. There are categories that are full of photos but rarely represented on Potd, like for example non-historical pics of people. Another wild idea that popped up since many newcomers here think you have to be nominated for Potd is: I wonder how it would look if we were not allowed to nominate our own pics? Would it make us think twice about what to show if we could only suggest a pic that we had nothing to do with? cart-Talk 10:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

When Jee first proposed to use the FPs with the most support votes, I thought that would be a good idea as Poc, as it is an unambiguous metric, which does not require a new discussion. On the other hand, and as cart also points out, this metric is maybe not the best for assuring diversity in what we show on the main page. Like, it is very seldom that historical restorations get a flood of supports, simple because many reviewers feel less competent reviewing them, altough they have high value. And we should show them as POTD from time to time to get the diversity. I also thought independent of the "only nominate others work" as POTD as a kind of "low budget" curation, that cart proposes. It has many advantages: People who get their image selected get this feeling of appreciation from others, something you do not get when you self-nominate, and you are likely to get more diversity. In addition, you do not have to rely on a single user being the curator. It would have to be easier though to find potential images to nominate for POTD, as there is not single category of "FPs that have not been POTD" to browse though. There may be a risk though that the process becomes a bit scattered, if there is no single user having the curation responsibility. Regarding curation on EN:WP I was not aware it was a simple FIFO system as Chris Woodrich explains. I thought there was a level of editorial judgement in the selection. If we were to find a curator to select them manually, I think the period of service should be more than one month in between turns. More like once per year. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Slaunger: There is a degree of editorial judgment (if we had six insect pictures promoted in a row, obviously we wouldn't run them as they were promoted). However, FIFO is still roughly applied. EN-WIKI has the FPs on pages called "Featured Picture thumbs", which are ordered according to promotion. I'm currently scheduling from page 47. What I do is simply select based on what is available on that page.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree with Slaunger that having your pic being chosen would be a bonus. Another way of making sure as many of the FPs as possible gets a spot on the main page would be to go from "Picture of the Day" to "Pictures of the Day" and show pictures and showcase photos in the way most websites do today with say three slots and the little arrows or dots under or at the sides of the picture: <   > and a randomizing code for which pic will be displayed first. If we now produce about three FPs/day we could do four slots to get at some of the backlog too. A multi image display would bring the front page a bit more up to the present, website-wise. I think anyone who's been online this past year has seen how this works. Also compare with en-wiki where new articles are displayed as DYKs and they have a multi spot that changes twice a day. cart-Talk 11:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictures of the day is a good idea. We just need to be careful not to just mindlessly keep on piling more information on the main page. It leads to information clutter. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
What I meant in "FPs with the most support votes" is about "net support" votes. We are closing a nomination by calculating Net Support=1*support-2*oppose. So a nomination will pass if it has 7 supports and 3 opposes; but will have net support=1*7-2*3=7-6=1. A nomination with 7 supports only also passes but with a net support=7. I think we may disqualify the featured pictures having a net support below 4 or 5 from appearing in POTD. Jee 03:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I like this idea and also the idea that people can't nominate their own picture. But is there any process of nomination? Chris Woodrich, how is the sequence of photos selected? First in first out sounds like it would be in order from the earliest to the latest. Does that mean we're featuring only pictures from several years ago in 2017? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek: Unless there is a specific request, that's basically it. The most recent images scheduled through FIFO are from December 2014/January 2015.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

World Water Day image

"World Water Day is an annual event celebrated on March 22. The day focuses attention on the importance of fresh water and advocates for the sustainable management of freshwater resources... " [emphasis added]

Why would anyone pick an image of salt water for a day focused on freshwater resources. Incursion of salt water into fresh water sources is a serious problem in some areas -- why use a photograph of the enemy? We have thousands of great images of lakes, ponds, and rivers. Although this is a good image, it's entirely inappropriate for this topic. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A four years old Baikal Cossack

I'm not sure where to change the caption, but it should be "A four-year-old Baikal Cossack..." - The "four-year-old" is a compound adjective and needs to be hyphenated. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Can a picture be chosen twice as POTD?

E.g. File:Standardgraph 2522 2.5–7 mm lettering guides.jpg. According to the instructions it can't. --jdx Re: 13:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I can see no reason why the same image should be chosen twice. Charles (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No quality standards for Media of the Day

Picture of the Day is limited to images that have achieved Featured Picture status. There seems to be no quality threshold for media. Why is this? Charles (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Add the Picture of the Day widget to your own website -- busted?

The URL just seems to point to some blog, not anything useful. Has this content moved? No longer being maintained? 😂 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A question about iGoogle widget

Why does "Add the Picture of the Day widget to your own website" redirects to a spam site?Nikolas Tales (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping @Vdegroot: , who added this link on 2011-08-27, and used to own the pointed domain. -- Whidou (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Removed link to discontinued iGoogle widget. Google believed the need for iGoogle had eroded over time. Since November 1st 2013 this widget was not working any more, but nobody removed it. It is not redirecting to a spam website, but to the website of the developer of the former widget. Vdegroot (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Could someone please change "potrait" to "portrait" in the description of the picture for the 25th (the one with the jaguar)? Thanks! -- 16:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done --jdx Re: 07:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Picture of the day/Archive 2".