Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day

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

Template:POTD/2012-06-02 image deleted[edit]

The image for Template:POTD/2012-06-02 has been deleted. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2019-10-02 does not exist[edit]

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2019-10-02, I found that Template:POTD/2019-10-02 does not exist. Please create it! When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2019-10-02 has unexpected content[edit]

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2019-10-02, I found that Template:POTD/2019-10-02 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}} or {{POTD/2019-10-02/{{#invoke:random|number|<N>}}|{{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2019-10-02 manually. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. If you have any questions or comments that my operator should see, please post a notice to User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks! AnomieBOT 09:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2019-10-02[edit]

@Ravenpuff: @Coffeeandcrumbs: - I was busy writing a reply to the ERRORS conversation, but then it disappeared, so I'll comment here instead! As Ravenpuff says, the issue of separate vs combined pics came up in discussion, and I couldn't find the converation initially, but the gist of it was that FP contributors weren't too happy with combining separate photographs into one POTD entry, except for cases like a series of currency notes, which were very clearly linked to each other. I don't really see a problem with repeating the same article for different pictures, as long as they're far enough apart in time (i.e. at least a year). On the blurb itself, I have created the protected POTD entry, but from a look through the text it looked (a) a bit too long, and (b) seemed to have unreferenced material in it, so I have used the version of the blurb from the previous run at Template:POTD/2018-09-15. So apologies if this reverses the work done on the previous version, but we really must be taking more care that only cited material is included in the blurbs. This is a bright-line rule for main page content. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I don't think that the material in the previous hook was necessarily unreferenced – Bath Abbey is a good article, after all. MOS:LEADCITE also indicates that citations are less of a necessity for the lead if references are already present in the body. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: yes, material from the lead can be mentioned if it's also cited in the body, but I couldn't find anything for the following facts:
  • able to seat 1,200
  • it also hosts civic ceremonies, concerts and lectures
  • There is a heritage museum in the vaults
  • representing Jacob's Ladder
and maybe others... I knew about this because I wrote the original blurb last year, and was frustrated at the time that I couldn't get cites for those bits to include them in the blurb. It would be great if we could always trust GAs to be fully compliant, but sadly the truth is often different... this one was marked as good in 2011 so I guess it's drifted since then. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected version[edit]

Please please can we improve the method of protecting the current day's picture? The method used by other sections of the main page is to rely on the cascade protection of the main page to protect today and tomorrow's content. Why is this method not used for POTD? I just had to make eight separate edits to fix one simple mistake - 4 versions + 4 protected versions. There has to be a better way of doing this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As for "why", the method used here dates from before cascading protection existed and no one ever changed it. The necessary formatting template didn't even work right when not substed until I fixed it earlier this year.

There's also the fact that the cascade protection would start protecting some additional templates, that the unsubsted "Recently featured" list always works off the current date rather than the date of the POTD, and that it would mean extra parser load for the Main Page. I don't know whether any of those things are considered blockers. Anomie 12:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)