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.


Code Result
Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau), John Singer Sargent, 1884 (unfree frame crop).jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

Lake Lahontan[edit]

In Template:POTD/2014-09-15, why are there arrows pointing from the Sacramento River to Lake Lahontan? The legend says that red arrows are "Direction of flood". But although the Lake Bonneville flood is described, I found no evidence that the Sacramento River ever flooded into Lake Lahontan, or vice versa. Lake Lahontan gradually dried up, but the legend says it was a flood. Art LaPella (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pinging the map creator, Fallschirmjäger. I am not familiar enough with the references to give feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Apologies for the ambiguous arrows but well spotted. I am certainly no expert on the subject area, the map was created over a year in collaboration with TCO ago so my knowledge is somewhat limited. However I recall those arrows in particular were sourced from here albeit it is not entirely clear. WolfmanSF makes a good point here, so in light of this perhaps the best solution would be to either shrink arrows away from the river or remove entirely? Fallschirmjäger  20:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • If the map in this article is the only reason for the arrows, then they should be removed. In that map, the arrows are used to label Pyramid Lake and Lake Lahontan. In the Wikipedia map, they don't serve that purpose; all they do is to confuse the map of the flood. So I see no reason to keep the two arrows, shrunk or unshrunk.
The arrow into Lake Missoula has a similar problem. That article describes floods coming out of Lake Missoula, but why is the arrow pointing in? Probably because the other map uses an arrow in the same place to label Lake Missoula; in that case, remove it also. Art LaPella (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed the ambiguous arrows. Kind regards, Fallschirmjäger  22:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but I still see the arrows. Art LaPella (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You may need to purge your cache (adding &action=purge to the end of the URL should work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
3 arrows gone, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Attracting interest[edit]

I enjoyed today's picture and it made me realise that there isn't really an easy way to share Picture of the Day via social media (which could attract more interest to Wikipedia and its pictures). I know Wikipedia has it's own official feed on Facebook for general announcements, but I feel that Picture of the Day would also be very well suited to this format. I know there is reticence to incorporate elements of social media into Wikipedia (and for good reason), but is there any way a separate feed could be set up elsewhere on social media itself rather than adding share links here? SFB 10:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"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 and] (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. -- (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)