Open main menu


Could someone change the intro (2nd paragraph) to this page so that it reads "from among" instead of "among"? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2018‎ (UTC)

  Done Storkk (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello, I'd changed the picture from current to this one, I'd done it for a many monthes ago. There weren't particularly strong objections. There was a talk with two users on my UserTalk page and they didn't mind. Few days ago one of administrators reverted all my edits and protected appropriate pages so we can't edit them. He done it without discussion or warning. So, I propose to talk about changing the picture here, because the administrator deosn't want to discuss it (except one sentence on my TalkPage after my appeal to him). My point is: I think that the variant proposed by me is neutral and should not raise objections. So, what can you say? --VAP+VYK (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@VAP+VYK: You changed the POTD "without discussion or warning" (or even without a short comment in edit summary), so don't blame others for reverting your changes "without discussion or warning". --jdx Re: 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I started this topic not for you to try justify yourselves, I even didn't mentioned your nickname. Please refrain to attack on my address. There is no place for discussion of administrative actions. --VAP+VYK (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So, what are your opinion? --VAP+VYK (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, will be there any objections? --VAP+VYK (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I was kinda stunned to see nudity on the front page. Commons is not censored ... but there is at least the general expectation that it's safe for work if you don't deliberately go seeking out NSFW images. I need to remember not to go to the commons home page at work tomorrow. --B (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jdx: Any chance of changing this? Not exactly safe for a work environment, might get ppl into trouble. Braveheart (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Inclined to agree, no real objection to the image per se, but it shouldn't really be on the front page. Battleofalma (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately, users of many Wikipedia projects don't see this 'creative work' because there are their own featured images. --VAP+VYK (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It is a creative work - a stunning portrait by a professional photographer. But having a NSFW picture on the front page of Commons is a big FU to everyone who edits from work. --B (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I love women, the picture is beautiful. But, 1. Wikipedia is writing in hundreds of languages, and for many users, naked photos in a neutral encyclopedia are unacceptable. 2. The argument above about "not safe for work". We don't need such pictures as the picture of the day.--Soul Train (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of naked pictures in Wikipedia and always will be because it's not censored. If you go to an article on nudity, sexual intercourse, or penises, you will find images of those topics. This isn't about litigating that - it's about demonstrating respect for the people who read and edit from work by not getting them fired. --B (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This just doesn't make sense to me. "I don't like it" or "it offends me" are more reasonable arguments to me than "not safe for work." At work one is expected to work, not edit Wikipedia, watch boobies, read (on-line) newspapers nor do anything else not related to work. --jdx Re: 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are people who have breaks at work, who edit on their lunch hour, or who are free to surf the web while waiting for a customer to come in, waiting for something to compile, or not otherwise occupied. --B (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would really expect more sensitivity and thoughtfulness from people who are maintaining a public-facing page like POTD... Braveheart (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first time there has been nudity on the front page. COM:NOTCENSORED. If you're concerned about it, then...I guess don't visit the main page from work, or visit latest file feed, or...anything else that could potentially load one of the probably millions of photos that contain nudity. GMGtalk 16:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that GFDL is deprecated, can we quit nonsense like today's featured picture?

File:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg is basically advertising for its photographer - it's inviting people who desire to reuse the photo to email the photographer for terms. Does this really showcase the best Commons has to offer? I never minded GFDL. I don't know that I really wanted to see it deprectated. But what I certainly don't like is giving prime real estate to users who view Commons not as somewhere that we contribute to but as somewhere that is used for self-promotion. --B (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


How is the POTD selected? I there any process. Can every FP be entered on a free day? Many days for the next years seem already booked. Is this meaingfull. So there is no chance for topicality. --2003:EC:5BDC:FF00:5D61:5F3E:5D37:95D 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions#Changing picture of the day allows for overriding a previous choice. Arlo James Barnes 05:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Picture of the Day: File:Subduction-en.svg

The Picture of the Day for tomorrow, March 4, 2019, needs to be updated. Please see the discussion page for this file for the location/ name of the updated file. Please update this file prior to it becoming the Picture of the Day tomorrow. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done --jdx Re: 09:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Harvesting descriptions from POTD to file's descriptions

I think it'd be cool if there was a bot that would harvest descriptions that are being created in different languages at POTD and insert them into the file descriptions. Example what I mean is see Template:Potd/2019-06-17 (en) - there are descriptions in 11 languages but the image itself has only three. Is anyone aware of any limitations of this? Do you think it's a good idea? I'd like to ask bot people to have a look at it but I thought I'd ask here first. Maybe the idea was discussed before. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, Podzemnik. I would though only take over versions that are not existing in the description page of the FP image, otherwise it will be hard to find a logic to decide which version should prevail Poco2 10:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Poco_a_poco Good point! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

09 October 2019 Picture

Currently File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Dome 01.jpg is set to be the POTD for 9 October 2019, a seemingly ambiguous date for that image. I was wondering if anyone else thinks that an image such as File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpg would be more appropriate, since especially, among other things, there is a connection between the dates of both images. Thoughts and opinions please! - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 03:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fluffy89502 Does the photo with arrested refugees-immigrants any significance for 9th October? Apart from being taken on that day 9 years ago? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik Not that I am aware of. There may be other significance's between the dates than the reason that I mentioned already that I do not know of. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fluffy89502 Hmmm I'm sorry but I don't really see why the photo that you suggested would better suit for that day. I mean it's just a coincidence that it was taken on that day. If it was taken a week earlier, it wouldn't make a difference to the photo or to the day. I'd understand a need for a change if there was any more meaningful significance like eg. an anniversary of something, a birthdate of someone, a holiday or something what would have connection to events listed at October 9. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Restriction of POTD to Featured Images is nonsense and against the scope of Commons, Valued Images should also be eligible

Scope of Commons is to collect images for other Wikimedia projects, it's not a photo competition. Desert or beach panorama number 735 may be nice to look at, but adds nothing of value to Commons. But an image of a rare flower or bird does, even if it may be not a technically perfect photo. Commons should show on its main page that it follows its scope, not worship pictures that no one is using.--Chianti (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Picture of the day/Archive 3".