Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

Reporting errors

Please do not post error reports for today's or tomorrow's picture of the day here; post them at WP:ERRORS instead. Thank you.

File:Animated phenakistiscope disc - Running rats Fantascope by Thomas Mann Baynes 1833.gif scheduled for POTD

Maybe I'm just a little too sensitive about this, but I've always disliked the careless labelling of artifacts and artworks. For instance, it has always been clear to me that Girl with a Pearl Earring doesn't feature a pearl earring. I understand how it may be useful to keep the incorrect title that was attached to it long after the painter's death, because this title has become so well known. Something similar happened with "phenakistoscope" or "phenakistiscope"; these versions are too well known and I can only hope that one day enough people will learn to replace these misspellings of the brand name of a rip-off with the term "stroboscopic disc": one of the first terms used, coined by Simon Stampfer, who is regarded as one of its inventors and who was the first to describe the stroboscopic effect - in his proper explanation of the principle of this type of animation). Fantascope would also be fine, because its earlier inventor Plateau preferred it. But I can understand why the more common term "phenakistiscope" in the text for Picture of the Day might better be left as it is.

Inventing a title for the specific example chosen as picture of the day is actually less problematic than the bastardized name for stroboscopic discs, but I don't understand the need to do this. It can be simply described as depicting running rats, instead of suggesting that there is an authoritative title. This particular animated disc was one of six in the third Fantascope series published by Ackermann and Co. in London in October 1833 (advertised in The Literary Gazette. No. 874. of 19 October 1833 - I just added a slightly later ad as a ref in the Phenakistiscope article for which I could link to a useful url - while an advertisement of 19 September still only mentioned the Phantasmascope by Plateau). I doubt any title or specific description for any particular one of the animations was ever written down by designer Thomas Mann Baynes, publisher Rudolph Ackermann, any associates, or any contemporary writer.

Although the text for Picture of the Day is more or less correct and well written, I'd like to suggest some changes to the last line, for instance like this: "This animation shows such a disc, with lithographed rats scurrying over its surface and crawling out of sight over its edge. It was designed by Thomas Mann Baynes and published in October 1833 as one of six discs in the 3rd Fantascope series by Ackermann and Co.." Joortje1 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1er, Ier or I er

See Talk:Palais Galliera#1er, Ier or I er Art LaPella (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Synchronizing the article and the caption seems a good way of dealing with this. I wrote the caption but I will leave it to others to wrangle over the numeral if they wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

POTD/2021-04-19

Regarding Template:POTD/2021-04-19: What's with the "may be inverted"? If an image is sufficiently admired to become a Picture of the Day, shouldn't it be known whether part of it upside-down or not? --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have left a query on the WikiProject Malaysia talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

POTD?

The last two "picture of the day" have been rather mediocre images of notable people, rather than (I would expect) notable pictures of random people/places/things. Shouldn't a POTD be a good example of an image?

Riventree (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, nothing in two days? With sufficient apathy and such humdrum offerings, should we consider removing the POTD from the front page?

Riventree (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)