Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

1937 Shanghai crying baby image up for deletion[edit]

The POTD from 28 August 2020 is up for deletion at Commons. Here's the POTD template: Template:POTD/2020-08-28. Here's the deletion discussion at Commons. I am especially looking for someone who is familiar with Hearst Corporation practices. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ERRORS page discussion from 9 January 2021[edit]

TFA spotlights a featured article, and it is reasonable to require all the information in the blurb to be present in the article and for it all to be well referenced there. POTD is different. You have to link the picture to an article in which the image is used, but the picture and articles may have different main subjects. Perhaps you could direct me to a page discussing the issues you raise above, because the only one I know is these guidelines. This should probably be discussed elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, when we finally got round to the idea that this was not Commons, there was a general drive to ensure that everything in the blurb was in the target article and referenced because, after all, this is an encyclopedia. But if that's not what we're doing any more, I'll just update my expectations. I thought Amakuru might have some light to shed on this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No, TRM is correct. Every piece of text that appears *on the main page* must be fully referenced and verifiable. It's true that POTD has traditionally been given some extra leeway, in that the article itself may contain unreferenced text, which is less than ideal but has sort of emerged as a compromise around the fact that FP nominators are mainly graphics bods and not necessarily article writers. It's quite worrying that the need to reference the main page content isn't codified in any POTD guideline, but ultimately this falls back to WP:V, which is an absolutely fundamental policy. Certainly when I was coordinating POTD, the need to source all text was the absolute first and foremost rule that I followed, and that still appeared to be followed even after I stepped away from the project in mid-2019. The last major discussion I recall around POTD was this one, initiated by Espresso Addict. And although we had somewhat differing views on what the underlying purpose of POTD was, I didn't see anyone question the central philosophy that the text must be verifiable. Anyway, I have added a couple of refs and pruned a couple of lines from the blurb, so hopefully today's issues are resolved. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I do still think everything in the blurb absolutely must be verified somewhere readily accessible. I have (reluctantly) been forced to embrace the view that the rest of the linked article can be treated as akin to the linked-but-not-bolded links elsewhere on the main page -- should not be horrendous, but doesn't necessarily meet the highest standards. (Though if that's the case, perhaps not bolding it would be consistent with the rest of the main page?) By the way, I thought you were still co-ordinating PotD, Amakuru? Who's doing that now? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure there is a dedicated lead coordinator any more, although it seems like Cwmhiraeth and Ravenpuff handle most of the workload, for which much kudos is given. I think there were some more editors around penning the blurbs during 2019-20 as well, though I could be wrong. I never formally stepped down from the role (and in fact I was never formally appointed to it in the first place either), it just gradually ended up that I was writing fewer and fewer of the blurbs as others stepped up to the plate and I found myself with less time on my hands. I fully agree with you on being forced to embrace that view about the state of the articles... it just doesn't seem to be practical to get the articles up to standard; in many cases I found it quite a full-on job just verifying enough of the text to form a blurb. I think IMHO the current status quo is probably better than unbolding the target or reducing the whole thing to just a glorified caption though. POTD does generate a significant hit for all the articles it bolds, and that's probably a good thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The guidelines say "The caption should be as specific as possible about the image itself. If there is not enough to fill the entire space, then you may take some text from the article." Consider the Template:POTD/2021-01-28 blurb I have been working on today. Most of it comes from the descriptions of the items of clothing that accompany the uploaded files, but the information is not stated and referenced in the article in which these images appear. So should it be removed, as per @The Rambling Man:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Personally I think it would be easier to write a concise caption, given how dreadful some of the target articles start out, but I agree there's encyclopedic value to be drawn from a longer one, if editors can be bothered to do the work writing and sourcing it properly. I recall I wrote a few around then, then wandered off in my usual on–off fashion.
To come back to the point in hand, is there any easy way in which the sources can be highlighted so that The Rambling Man can extend his checks to them? Hidden text? It's surprising quite how many errors turn out to be present in innocuous-looking OTDs, and I can't believe the PotDs are likely to be any better. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Before Amakuru did the captions, I used to check that (a) the text in the POTD blurb was found in the target article and (b) that the text was verifiable in the target article. When his lordship turned up, he used to do the job so well I only went into it sporadically and can't recall a time when there was an issue. Today I was amazed by the length of the POTD blurb so I checked, and, well, the rest is history. While it's nice to highlight a pretty picture, this is an encyclopedia and our readers should not have one section (just one!) where the claims being made are not verifiable using RS in the target article. Why should POTD blurbs be worse than DYK, OTD, ITN etc?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite so, and it's not actually that onerous to keep it ticking along, as long as everyone writing the blurbs is aware of the two rules above and cites/writes accordingly. Most POTD topics have enough sources readily available online to generate a passable blurb. E.g. Using art gallery websites for paintings, or picking a few snippets from Encyclopedia Britannica, if it's a geographical entity. If one is short of time or the sources don't seem to be there, then a short 3 line caption can also do the job. I don't mind stepping up again and doing some of them if there's a need for it, but we should make sure we're all on the same page about how this should work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the POTD guidelines (heading there now) but my position is clear: captions for POTD should be (a) reflected in the target article and (b) verifiable. That, probably, is all that is needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a fundamental problem here, highlighted by Cwmhiraeth's British soldier, that file data is the de-facto exception to the sourcing rules, probably because the material is located on Commons not here, and featured pictures are sometimes not much better than average in this regard. I don't believe the caption material for featured pictures is generally reviewed in detail. Relying on someone who has taken a decent photograph of, say, an insect to correctly identify it is also a problem, and one not limited to PotD. For example, to pick an example of mine that's appeared on the main page, I assert that File:39 Welsh Row, Nantwich2.jpg shows the listed building that it says it does, but that's just my personal research, with no source to back it up. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think we've had incidents of images actually not being what they purport to be. I have asked on occasion "how do you know it is what it says it is?" but that's normally just chuckled away. It is a general problem, but one would hope that the WP:FPC process would cover that. Surely? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the conclusions that two or three people seem to have come to, which go against the guidelines for Picture of the Day. Please look at the following statement from the guidelines, which is supposed to contrast a "bad" caption with a "good" caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Those two examples presented date from 2005 and 2006, which was really a completely different era in Wikipedia terms. The text you mention was added in 2007. The fact is, though, that this section of the main page has evolved over the years. As has our strictness when it comes to enforcing WP:V. POTD has always unfortunately been something of a neglected backwater - for most of the 2010s it was run exclusively by Crisco, and presumably he didn't feel the need to update all the guidelines as he went along, it's just that the way he did it became the accepted norm. Fast-forward ten years from the "good caption", to December 2016, and you find a very different story. Almost every blurb is about the linked article, not about the picture. And what's written is generally stated and cited in the article. When I took over, I maintained this status quo. Ultimately this fits with the purpose of FPs which is, as well as being high-quality images, that they must be used to enhance encyclopedia articles. The latter requirement is what separates our FPs from Commons FPs, and POTD should similarly use the image to illustrate an encyclopedic topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The December 2016 captions are quite satisfactory, but I suggest that if you wish to repurpose POTD in this way, you need to rewrite the guidelines. It would be quicker and easier to write short captions like this and not mention the particular features of the picture, but it is more interesting to the observer if the caption provides some guidance on the significance of the image. This one for example explains why the letters "HJK" appear on the star. You wouldn't get that from the linked article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If the text is informative and relevant to the image, why wouldn't it appear in the target article? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

POTD/2021-02-08[edit]

Surviving series of shrines on the west

Template:POTD/2021-02-08 caption has few errors. It says: The only surviving parts of the building are two toranas (porches) and four pillars. It is inaccuarate. According to article, Two torans (porches) and four pillars of the former central structure still stand along with western part of the complex used as a congregational mosque. There is a series of shrines which was part of the temple on the west surviving and are being used as a mosque. Also the name of Jayasimha Siddharaja of Chaulukya dynasty who completed the temple complex is missing. It should be there in the caption because it was the most important figure associated with the temple. Jayasimha Siddharaja and Chaulukya dynasty has nice articles as well. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Thank you, I have made some alterations. Is that better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for changes. After commenting this, I checked article and other references. Even though the article is GA-class, it has poor quality references and littered with inaccuracies. after checking images and texts, I found following surviving structures:
  • two double-storied porches (eastern and southern)
  • one ornamental gateway (Torana) on southeast
  • four pillars of central structure with two more pillars of upper storey on top of them
  • Mosque (Four complete and one partial shrines on the west, behind the central sanctum)
The article does not reflect this. It describes this inaccurately. So Apart from the mosque, the only surviving parts of the building are two toranas (porches) and four pillars. should be changed. My suggestion: Apart from the mosque, the only surviving parts of the temple are two porches, a torana (ornamental gateway) and few pillars. What do you say? The article needs to be rewritten in my opinion. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: I don't know about the quality of the article, but I have shortened the caption to be on the safe side. Is it incorrect to put "porch" in brackets after torana? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Torana and porches are different. Torana is an ornamental gateway while a porch is a covered shelter projected in front of the entrance of a building. It has two surviving porches and one Torana. Your changes to POTD are OK but the nominated image depicts one surviving porch and few pillars so previous description was more relevant. You can go with my suggestion above which is accurate. Please do whatever you find more helpful. Regards, Nizil (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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)