Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:POTD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Reporting caption errors
Please do not post error reports for today's POTD caption here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Userbox[edit]

Code Result
 {{User:CFeyecare/templates/POTD}}
Hawgone - Silver Horn - Kiowa chief.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤
Transclusions


"See another banknote" redux[edit]

From a different IP address, I posted this here on June 7:

From time to time several images are multiplexed into a single POTD, such as Template:POTD/2014-06-25 with four. A link is then provided, in this case reading "See another banknote",

so people can switch to one of the others.

However, what the link does is simply to purge the page cache. This is annoying because (1) you have to click OK, (2) if you're seeing the image on the home page, it forces the entire complicated page to reload and leaves it scrolled back to the top, (3) since the selection is random, you may actually get the same image again, and (4) there is no way to tell whether you've seen all of them.
I suggest that instead of this approach, the subpages Template:POTD/2014-06-25/1 through Template:POTD/2014-06-25/4 should link to each other in sequence, and the link see another banknote should be changed so that subpage 1 would have:
See another banknote: Previous Next
and analogously for the other subpages. This way once a person chose to see another of the set, they would be taken to a separate page containing only that picture, and they could transition to the other ones in an orderly gallery-style manner. Of course I could make this edit myself for the June 25 set, but as I'm proposing that the change be applied to all such sets in the future, I thought it was better to raise the point here. (Besides, maybe someone can improve on my proposal.) It would be even better if this could be done more automagically through a clever template of some kind.
And on another point, it would also be better if the text that's identical for each subpage of the set could be transcluded from a single source so that any errors in it didn't have to be edited out more than once.

This produced some discussion that was generally favorable to the ideas, but nothing actually happened and there was at least one suggestion to wait until an item like this came up again. Well, now it has: Template:POTD/2014-11-07 has appeared in the queue. So I repeat that I think something should be done to improve the way this multiplexing works, either along the lines I suggested or, if possible, something better yet.

Oh, by the way, there is one obvious alternative to the Prev/Next approach: subpage 2, for example, could instead have:

See another banknote: 1 3 4

This has the advantage that it's obvious from the links alone how many there are.

-- [formerly 69.158.92.137 and 70.49.171.225] 174.88.135.88 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I remember Godot expressing approval for this, so I'll implement it immediately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Woo hoo! Thanks for the quick action. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

#TTTWFTW kickstarter campaign[edit]

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Area for Alaska may be problematic[edit]

In Template:POTD/2015-01-04, it previously said

The lands purchased covered 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2), and became the modern state of Alaska more than a hundred years later.

I just corrected the erroneous "more than 100" and adjusted the wording to what I think is plainer English:

The purchase involved 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2) of land, which became the modern state of Alaska in 1959.

But I have to wonder if the area is correct.

The first thing to note is that Alaska includes considerable coastal territorial waters, and neither the old nor my revised wording implies that these are included. I think that not including them is the right choice, as the extent of coastal claims may have changed since 1867. On the other hand, including inland water would be reasonable. I looked at the Alaska article only to find that it contradicts itself, giving 663,268 square miles (1,717,856 km2) as the land area in the body text but the same number as the total area in the infobox. Even if that is the total area, the infobox says the state is 13.77% water, which would make the land area 571,936 square miles (1,481,307 km2). I have not looked at other sources, but I suggest you do, or else substitute a rounded area. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Removed altogether. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)