Knowledge talk:Picture of the day/Archive 1

1071:

theirs. I suppose this is also a personal issue as well, and I'll admit I am biased. My apologies. A great deal of time an effort goes into making a good photograph, much more so than goes into creating an article. Not just editing in Photoshop, but also before exposure. Going out to the location, setting up the tripod, getting the composition just right, properly exposing the picture, making sure everything is in line with your artistic vision. It's all very personal, and very involved, and very different from an article, where dozens of people might edit it in a single day. I don't think that a small 6 point font with the words "Photo Credit: User X" is at all harmful to the collaborative nature of Knowledge, and is a small but visible recognition of the photographer's tremendous efforts toward making our encyclopedia better.

31: 671:, you will see that we are actually quite heavily biased towards photographs. In practice, featured pictures is open to any type of image that illustrates an article on Knowledge, even animations, though we have yet to see a movie clip. So diagrams are definately welcome and I for one would be happy to see more high quality drawings and illustrations - there are a great many articles that can't be illustrated by a photo. -- 889: 204:. This system will allow us to plan the POTD way ahead, plan POTD for special occasions, automatically archive the POTD's and so on, it also makes recycling a POTDs very easy, just point the template to a previous date. Another important advantage is that it makes customizing POTD's much easier, as you don't need to remember which were changed in size for instance or had a small caption added. 854:

they are promoted, except there is one old and one new marker moving through the list. In practice I will also shuffle the order slightly to ensure variety - for example I try to avoid two diagrams or two flower pictures on consecutive days. Also if a picture is only used on a stub article with little to say about it, I might avoid placing it on a weekend.

1036:

know-how to take a photograph good enough to gain featured picture status, shouldn't recieve a small amount of credit. Where do you think these pictures come from, out of nowhere? They didn't just materialize out of nothing, some individuals put a great deal of work into them, and a very small "Photo Credit: SomeWikipedian" isn't hurting anyone, I think.

1177:

writers might also want to see more visible credit for their work, and DYK article in particular also tend to be the work of an individual. Nevertheless, it is considered to be best for Knowledge as a whole if editors are not credited too visibly for articles that they write, as this might discourage other editors from improving and extending an article.

439:

blank, but it all falls into place once the archive becomes a genuine historical archive. The FPArchiveBar templates have been written by hand up to the end of 2005. Again its easy enough to do with some cut-n-pasting - you only have to pay attention to the January and December templates where one of the links needs to wrap to the next/previous year.

1355:

may not intice them, but photographers struggle with this issue in every aspect of their professional lives. Donating a photo, with out credit would not be an enjoyable way to spend their free time. Wiki, giving credit to photographers may be able to host more copywritten works. Photos add quite a bit to the pages their attached to.

660:. I sometimes shuffle the order by a place or two to avoid awkward conjunctions, but in this instance, there wasn't a better alternative nearby and I decided the two illustrations were quite different in style. Its is also quite rare for us to have non-Wikipedian diagrams featured, so I decided to stick with the original order. 1139:

for their work, deserve a little free advertising in exchange for donating their hard work to the encyclopedia. I think amateur photographs, taken by ordinary Wikipedians, should never be credited. Finally, diagrams should never be credited, since they're often easier to create and edit, so it's more

1004:

I would tend to agree. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any particular reason that POTD includes a picture credit - its more that that is how it always has been done. It is possible it was introduced because you often see picture credits next to pictures in newspapers and magazines. There

438:

At the top of the archive page is a template for navigation to previous and future archives of the form {{Template:FPArchiveBarMarch2005}}. This should also be updated for the appropriate Month&Year. For the current month, it includes link for next month's archive isn't much use as it will all be

155:

are planning simply to recycle when they run out. This seems the easiest option, and less open to confusion about what should be featured. Allowing non-featured images to be used would leave the page open to trolling by people trying to insert inappropriate images. I think updating every day, even if

1276:

I can't add much that hasn't already been covered by Deco, Piccolonamek and Fir002, except that I agree with them that credit should be given. I don't think that it is against the spirit of wiki to recognise effort and success, and I do agree that photography is almost exclusively a pursuit that is,

1154:

then having a credit line is a desirable bit of recognition to the photographer and encourages others to produce similar works. If on the other hand you are using a photo to illustrate an article or other discussion, then I would support removing the credit. Basically the distinction I see is that

1112:

On that point, a picture can't be compared to an article, because the photo shows an individuals style and talent. Say for instance someone single handedly wrote and got an article featured (an extremely unlikely event), the chances of the individual having more articles of similar standard is quite

906:

There could be some benefits in changing the WP POTD to use the nested templates as used on Commons. We did have some experiments around Dec 2004 in which a parameter was used to control the width of the condensed POTD. It worked for a little while, but then stopped working after a software upgrade.

119:

has just run out. There are not enough nominations being supported to keep up with providing a new featured picture of the day. Should the frequency of this be changed to once a week until more pictures come in, or should non-featured pictures be used? Perhaps ones which were previously nominated by

1226:

Are you suggesting that if the article were to be written by a single person, he should be credited? Whenever I read a good article, I look at the history to see who the contributors are. Same is the case with some images used in DYK. When there is no photo credit for images in DYK, Current Affairs

1022:

I also agree, reluctantly (these guys deserve recognition). Photo credits should be mentioned as prominently as possible on any "Knowledge:" namespace pages we have dealing with this, but not on a Knowledge article or the Main Page, which are part of our actual content and should be left out of the

477:

to only use each Featured Picture once, so we have to reuse earlier ones. When reusing an FP from a previous POTD check that it hasn't subsequently been delisted. You can usually reuse the previous caption, but watch out for any changes in the format and layout of boilerplate of the PictureOfTheDay

335:

This one is not so easy. It might be possible, but we would probably need a template/script to manage three version. It is already a little tricky to manage the text and condensed version. More of a problem is that it is not generally possible to set up a specific link on clicking an image. As such

1354:

I have worked with Photographers my entire life, my fater shoots professionaly, as does my step mother. I work with stock photography personally, curently. I can tell you with absolute certanty that leaving out the name of the photographer WILL discurage photographers from donating work. Adding it

1208:

The difference is that all articles are collaborative works. No article is written by a single author, even if a single author creates a detailed article and most subsequent edits are minor. Photographs are generally not collaborative — at best, one Wikipedian takes them and another might crop it,

1059:

I agree with removing the credit. When you edit a page, it says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." This ethos applies to all contributions, including images, IMO. Knowledge is bigger than any individual photo-taking editor! :) On the image

853:

section above. Although now that POTD is appearing on the MainPage at the weekends, I'm trying to ensure that we have new pictures on Saturdays and Sundays. So we have picked up the pace slightly with 4 new POTDs and 3 repeats each week. Within that scheme, POTDs are selected in the order in which

434:

had a PHP script to populate these pages (see above), but this seems to have gone away. In any case its simple enough to fill out a new monthly archive by copying the base text for a previous month's archive and replacing the month name using an external text editor (just make sure you copy from a

601:

It also seems quite feasible to me, but the email list should be seperate from daily-article-l, since many will not want large files filling their inboxes. With the featured article list, a script is used to generate the emails, but the actual email is sent and approved by hand. I wouldn't mind

462:

Sometimes, the pictures don't quite fit the mould and you will have to do a bit more work on layout. In particular, very tall, thin images should be reduced from the default 300px wide. Wide panorama images might be better with the caption placed below. Sometimes the photo credit needs some extra

377:

I changed the template to include an optional parameter for image size; it appears inside the image-markup in such a way that, if nothing is entered, the parameter is ignored; else if "150px" or some other width is entered, it overrides the "300px" default width. Good for fitting POTD into small

1340:

photos in order to futher the goal of creating an encyclopedia. If getting credit is the difference between someone uploading a photo or not, they probably aren't pursuing the goal of creating an encyclopedia. The page for the photo (where you would find the hi-res version, which anyone really

1249:

Advertising may encourage photographers to add their photographs for that reason, and they might not be photographs we can use. Whatever the decison, I think that the standard should be the same for professional photographers and amateurs. Amateurs often put in just as much work for a picture as

1176:

Well actually I am somewhat ambivalent on the matter. I think we should do what is best for Knowledge. I am aware that many photo contributors are encouraged by being recognised, but also accept the argument that it is potentially against the spirit of the rest of the project. After all, article

1123:

Still no reason that the credit has to be in the main page rather than in the "history" tab, the way all other wikipedia contributors receive credit. The point is, that nobody owns any contributions on Knowledge, and I think that crediting contributors in this way is against the wiki philosophy.

308:

At the moment, the picture width of an average POTD image is 300px and the text seems to scale to be a similar width. Overall, this probably puts the full PicOfTheDay at just over 600 width with the frame and all, so I would have thought it would fit 800x600. Or perhaps you mean 800x600 with the

1035:

Much more often than not: One person took the picutre, one person edited/developed it, and of course, only one person uploaded it. As a general rule, photographs are not a collaborative effort, and I see no reason why the person who worked so hard to get it just right, who had the skill and the

1180:

It is however possible to argue that the opposite is the case for photographs. Since it is not really possible to improve and extend and existing photograph, the 'preventing a sense of ownership' argument is less relevant. It may well be the case that more visible credits for photographs helps

1070:

Unless the photo is in dire need of enhancement, it is unlikely to ever be edited by others, not that either editing or distrubution changes the originator of the photo in any way. Just because I fix somebody's photo, or upload it to another Knowledge, doesn't mean that the credit is no longer

686:

I commend those who have created useful images for Knowledge. However, the names of such individuals should not be posted on the Main Page. Image and photo credits should not be included in the Pictures of the day. Within Talk pages users can be given credit for their writing and their image

923:

The short excerpt from the article is fine for POTD as used on userpages, but when it appears on the main page, it clashes with the Featured article - they both contain almost the same elements. What I think would be better is if the blurb was about the picture itself, i.e. caption and some

1110:, and agian I am biased as I really like seeing my photos on the main page with my name under them. I mean you look at the POTD and you think "wow what a nice photo" and then you want to see who took it so that you can see more of their work. A size six fount link is extremely usefull. 207:

Overall it's a robust system I think but please take a look and tell me what you think, see if there is anything I've overlooked. Switching to the new system would be a cake as the only thing that changes, is that the POTD templates now need to point to specific dates instead of days.

1008:

On the other hand, it is the case that pictures on Knowledge are more often than not the contribution of one individual. The principle purpose of POTD is to encourage people to illustrate articles on Knowledge, so I wouldn't want to make a change that might discourage that. --

606:(java). The script would probably have to be modified to scrape the URL of the image, and download it to the sender's computer. Alternatively, the URL could just be noted at the top of the output and it could be left to the sender to attach the image. You could try asking 910:

A possible downside of using nested templates is that the WP POTD now also appears on the Main Page at weekends which could introduce protection problems. There are also five elements that go into the WP POTD compared to the two that are used by the Commons version. --

883:? I'm curious how come they are different. Since the Commons's mechanism depends on templates, wikipedians have no luck using Commons's potd on wikipedia pages. I see several advantages to Commons's mechanism, so can I ask how come WP's mechanism is such? Thanks! -- 442:

Individual Picture of the Day entries are prepared a few days before they are needed. From the current ] follow the red edit link for the text version of the day in question. Then populate the page, either by copying an example from an earlier day or using the

949:

Has it? Most of the POTD pages are on my watchlist, and I haven't noticed them changing. On the other hand, there can be subtler ways of changing the picture. Can you point me to any examples of when the picture has changed after the start of a new day? --

312:

On the condensed POTD version, there is now the option to add a parameter to scale the image, as per Sj's comment below. There are still limits on how small you can reduce it due to title and framing - 100px is probably a small as it can comfortably go. --

1259:

Another point, I'm pretty sure when you use an article from wiki, I'm pretty sure that you only have to credit Knowledge, not every individual editor. But when using and image (especially for commercial purposes) I think you have to credit the actual

1277:

from inception to post-production, the work of an individual. I don't believe there is any harm in a simple credit for an image that is featured. Nor do I believe Knowledge should be about collectivity to the point where individuality is removed.

1081:

I agree that the credits shouldn't be there. There are featured articles that are almost solely the work of one contributor, shouldn't they receive credit as well? The fact is, that nobody owns anything on wikipedia, it's a collaborative effort.

630:

I think we're going far off with today's and yesterday's POTWs. They aren't really pictures, rather images. Now, it's only my opinion, but I think that POTW should include only photographs or other pictures, not diagrams, schemes, et al.

938:

The picture of the day has been changing sometimes as much as 3 times a day, what's up with this? I can only presume that some people are changing the picture/skipping the "current" one when they don't like it, or something like that...

299:

Could/should? the text version be made to fit in 800x600 displays, or is that unrealistic given its size. I'd personally end up using the condensed version so it doesn't impact me; but just throwing it out there for consideration. -

273:

I have converted the templates to the new system, if something breaks, they can be reverted to the old format as the coming POTD's are in place in both systems. Please let me know if you spot problems. -- ] 16:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

781:

Can this be done? I'd assume so, but my knowledge of the html/wiki is not enough to write the code. What do you think about writing such a code? It may be use to popularize wiki by making some friendly Websites display our PotD...

1266:

As to the claims "nobody owns anything on wiki", if you go down that path we may as well kick out barnstars which recognize extra effort, usually in an article, and even more fantically removing signatures! Credit should be given

1113:

slim. If you look through the FP list, you'll find that people with on FP usually have more. And so it's only natural for someone wot want to see more work done by a photographer who has taken a photo good enough to be a FP. --

228: 793:

At least its html linkable. Imperfect, however, because this ignores history and discussion pages. A better solution would be this static link having a simple redirect script to the dynamic link of the current days POTD.

902:

who has subsequently moved on. The Commons version has to cope with the particular problem of translating the caption into a couple of dozen languages, so that an individual user can see the POTD in their own prefered

326:

Can we please have POTD in a plain white page, with no menus and no distractions, as a sidebar for browsers supporting it (like Opera and Mozilla)? I visit POTD daily, I think the sidebar arrangement would be ideal -

221:

I just realised there's not even the need to update the POTD templates daily, this will now be an automated process as well, as those templates can include dynamic months/years etc. Excellent! -- ] 10:50, Nov 3, 2004

238:

I'm not well-versed in php, but the script looks clean and easy, like the idea that it uses dynamic months and years to save human-hours. I think this should go live whenever you consider it ready, consider this a

395:

Unfortunately the solution to the extra brackets a few months ago, seems to have effectively disabled the width parameter. If anyone can figure out the template syntax, it would be good to try and reinstate it. --

92:

I think it would be an invaluble addition to add Pulitzer Prize photographs to the Picture of the day. The following articles have long lists of winners but very few pictures of the actual photos which I find odd.

466:

Next follow the red edit link for the condensed POTD version and fill out that page in the same way. If you use the template approach, you can feed an almost identical string into {{subst:Generate POTD C|...}}.

1314:

as a Wiki username. Then, how could professionals "use it"? If they have a bio or CV on their user page - so what, we get free professional images - and the photos have to be voted POD to get there, anyway...

610:

to help you out with that. About the list, I'm not sure of the procedure to create a new mailing list, but you'll probably either have to do something on meta or contact the foundation. Hope that helps!

1358:

Also, if the comunity likes a picture enough to feature it on the main page, for millions of people to see each time they log on. Why not give credit to the person who made such a nice piece of artwork?

834:

He is right. After the Hurricane katrina pic should be the koula bear shot, then the sakura trees and the martian sunset and then the battleship picture. What about these shots? Why isn't this in order?

687:

creation, but published areas should NOT give individuals credit. I realize there is little collaboration in image create; nevertheless, Knowledge is not a place for acknowledging individual efforts.

861:

candidates. If we can get to more than 7 new Featured Pictures a week, we might be able to only show new pictures each day and that might allow POTD to become a permanent feature of the MainPage. --

470:

If the image was taken by a Wikipedian I usually drop a note on their talk page to let them know that their picture is coming up for POTD, and given them a chance to update or improve the caption.

1420:

Law says photographers owns the copyright of their images from the moment of creation. Publishing photographers' copyright protected work without credit lines goes against said copyrights.

170:

I strongly oppose using non-featured pictures or lowering the standards of nominations. Using previously featured pictures is fine as long as they're worth it. Hence the high standards. --

1155:

if you are highlighting a photograph for its photographic merit, then you really ought to be directing that praise to the photographer, and so having his or her name there makes sense.

706:

is good, but as Pic of the Day has always had credits, this is one where you probably need to gain consensus before making a change. I suggest discussing the issue, either here, or at

1159: 656:

I know what you mean - I also worried a little about have two diagrams featured this weekend. However, the pictures for POTD are selected in the order in which they get promoted to

536: 525: 1064: 1043: 989: 998: 514: 503: 456: 1086: 1472: 1271: 1168: 1117: 1290: 1254: 532: 521: 1310:

Yes. That tiny, little credit line does not distract. As said, a photo is (mainly) the work of one individual. The credit is an incentive to sharing, so let it stay, but

258:

I was told automatic updates to the page would cause link table corruption, but since featured articles are doing it, I guess it doesn't matter. This looks a good idea.

821: 1406: 1372: 1363: 510: 499: 444: 1431: 736: 1336:

I don't see that WP has any more trouble attracting good photos as it does attracting good prose; the people who are already dedicated Wikipedians shoot and upload

1227:

etc. (even when they are works of registered Wikipedians) and when there is no credit for article writers and most importantly, when the main page doesn't proclaim

1075: 1053: 216:. I've also added the link to the bottom of the archive pages, not sure if that's the right place, but we can change that any time. -- ] 10:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) 1100: 1005:

may be some issue with giving credit for externally sourced images, but since we don't allow 'Fair Use' or other restricted images on POTD this seems unlikely.

770: 1013: 954: 714: 726: 675: 619: 365:

although at the moment there seems to be a template bug that if you don't specify a width parameter, you will get 3 spurious brackets following the POTD. --

1199: 1427: 1188: 1184:

For me the tricky part to consider, is whether the downside of allowing credits for photographs would be that textural content editors are discouraged. --

1128: 1027: 983: 730: 328: 898:

Well I guess it is mainly down to history. The WP version of POTD has been around for about 2 years and was last significantly revised around Sep 2004 by

839: 1239: 1213: 1349: 594: 183:. We haven't used those yet, have we? The only problem with is that there wouldn't be any image pages on en:, but we could fix that easily enough. -- 1301: 1144: 943: 1323: 969: 1164:

I agree with Kingturtle and Solipsist - we shouldn't be referencing the photographer. It doesn't really add anything, and it sets a bad example.

892: 400: 813: 994:

Knowledge is NOT about personal work. We do not sign our work within articles, and we should not post names of photographers on the main page.

976: 697: 786: 850: 758:

POTD only appears on the main page at weekends. There is noly so much information that can fit there, and the POTD slot is shared with the

572: 94: 865: 1210: 1141: 762:

section, which appears on weekdays. Those who love the pics more (like me!) have to settle for putting {{POTD}} on our user pages. ~ ~

752: 79: 71: 66: 494:. Please see their repsective talk pages for more details, although they are meant to be used in tandem to allow for easy copy-pasting. 1096:), but it's just not the same as taking a photograph. I suppose in the end it doesn't matter. I seem to be in the minority here anyway. 828: 707: 693:

Please refrain from crediting individuals in such a public manner. Please remove all previous credits from old Pictures of the day.

1039:

Also, I just realized that this is the same guy who several months ago requested that the photo credits be removed. Just scroll up.

664: 87: 1423: 427: 928: 725:

It seems as though plenty of pictures are being nominated as FPs. Why do I so rarely see a PotD on the main page? Check out the

650: 485: 98: 141: 577: 1435: 201: 602:

doing it along with the featured article, but anybody can do it if they'd like. The source for the script is available

960: 933: 668: 1181:

encourage more photographers to contribute images under a free license - and that would be a good thing for Knowledge.

845:

The answer is that in practice we are not promoting more than 7 new Featured Pictures each week (see the archives for

1296:

Has to be a no-brainer. WP struggles to attract photos so we shouldn't make it less attractive to donate pictures. --

690:

It offends me to see names of individuals on the Main Page. That goes against the collaborative ideals of Knowledge.

47: 17: 1195:

Deco, professional writers who are paid for their work receive no special treatment here, nor should photographers.

212:

By the way, the framework for each month's archive can be generated with a PHP script I wrote, it can be accessed

870: 406: 379: 1368:

I have never seen a hard copy "pedia" that did not give credit to the photographer... why is it even an issue?

372: 102: 1092:

But I just explained why it isn't, at least in this case. I too, have created entire articles out of nothing (

1264:, which clearly demonstrates the difference b/w an article and an image. The two can't be compared that way. 776: 1286: 197: 112: 1140:

likely that a diagram could be updated significantly by multiple editors (who might all deserve credit).

681: 657: 349:

How would I force the pic of the day (condensed) to align right... for example across a contents list. -

152: 116: 1049:

Yes, s/he is trying to gain consensus on the issue before making the change, which should be commended.

213: 1341:

interested in a photo would do) still gives credit to the photographer. What goes on the main page as

1250:

professionals and can be quite reluctant to share them as freely as Knowledge's licensing requires. --

1135:

I have a somewhat divided opinion on this matter. I think professional photographers, who are normally

38: 907:

Its could be that we have had another software upgrade in the meantime, but no one has tried it again.

1369: 1360: 463:

thought when referring to external agencies. You can usually find examples to follow in the archive.

309:

Knowledge side bar removed. The normal image width could be reduced if that is what most people want.

411:

Just so that there is a record somewhere, I've been managing the Picture of the Day selection using

378:

spots. Caveat: the template used to generate the POTD should be updated to match today's template (

451:{{subst:Generate POTD T|Image:Imagename.jpg|Image description|UserCredit|Image title|Long caption}} 336:

an ultra-condensed POTD wouldn't lead anywhere except the related page in the Image: namespace. --

1377:

FYI, this discussion ended nine months ago and there was no consensus to remove the photo credit.

191: 797: 582:

Can we have a daily mailing for POTD, just like the one we have featured article of the day? -

849:). As such we need to repeat old POTDs on alternate days. This is mentioned at the end of the 975:

I'm not sure why this should be. It ought to have been a picture of a Bald Eagle as shown at

1060:

description page, just one click away, they can make their name as prominent as they like.

286: 107: 8: 1451: 1385: 1156: 846: 639: 616: 551: 426:

At the start of the month, fill out the new month's Picture of the day archive, such as

1466: 1400: 817: 720: 566: 1107: 1097: 1072: 1061: 1050: 1040: 918: 767: 703: 180: 1283: 490:

Here are the relevant templates. Please note that all are intended to be used with

262: 160: 124: 294: 1320: 1236: 1196: 995: 940: 694: 491: 416: 283: 1443:

Actually, their copyright is preserved whether a credit line is printed or not.

888: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1185: 1125: 1083: 1010: 980: 951: 912: 876: 862: 836: 711: 672: 632: 612: 591: 479: 397: 366: 337: 314: 473:

At the moment, we are not getting enough new Featured Pictures coming through

321: 1458: 1446: 1392: 1380: 1346: 899: 884: 858: 625: 558: 546: 474: 431: 420: 412: 171: 1268: 1165: 1114: 1024: 966: 880: 783: 763: 603: 583: 386: 184: 132: 1278: 1251: 1230: 825: 816:

picture is not in the correct order (after the bee picture, it should be

744: 350: 301: 259: 244: 157: 121: 965:

My userpage show today's POTD as 'pollen.' It didn't do this yesterday.

1316: 1297: 925: 807:

Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted.

156:

the image was used 3 months ago, is better than updating once a week.

607: 590:

It would seem feasible, but I'm not sure what would be involved. --

179:

I think we should consider using some of the featured pictures from

415:'s mechanism above with a few amendments. If I should happen to be 145: 857:

The solution of course is to nominate (and contribute) many more

383: 1093: 790: 344: 1023:

editing (and photographing) process as much as possible. -

196:

This morning I've been working on implementing a new and

1345:

shouldn't directly draw attention to content creators.--

231:. Tell me what you think. -- ] 10:54, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) 990:

Please: let's discuss refraining from crediting names

1209:

touch it up a bit, or put it in a grid with others.

229:

Knowledge:Picture of the day/Mockup of new POTD page

140:I vote for more nominations and lower standards at 200:system. It is based on the proven concept used by 131:I vote for non-featured pictures to be included. 1150:I believe that if you are singling out a photo 977:Knowledge:Picture of the day/December 12, 2005 1235:why should there be photo credit for POTD? -- 435:month with 31 days and edit as appropriate). 120:narrowly failed to get in could be included? 277: 95:Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography 88:Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography 875:Has anyone compared the mechanisms behind 791:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ViewPOTD 710:where there tends to be more activity. -- 708:Knowledge talk:Featured picture candidates 227:For a mockup of a new POTD main page, see 924:rudimentary data about how it was taken. 14: 455:Further instructions are available at 99:Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 784:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 142:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates 25: 23: 282:Uh, so who dropped the ball here? 24: 1484: 18:Knowledge talk:Picture of the day 887: 361:<div style="float:right": --> 29: 663:On the whole, if you check the 380:Knowledge:POTD/February 9, 2005 1438:) 12:52 17 October 2006 (UTC). 787:22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 771:11:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 103:Pulitzer Prize for Photography 13: 1: 1291:04:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 1272:10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 1255:11:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1240:10:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1214:03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1200:02:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1189:12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1169:01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1160:00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1145:23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1129:23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1118:22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1101:17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1087:17:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1076:12:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1065:11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1054:11:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1044:07:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1028:07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 1014:06:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 999:22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 984:06:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 970:21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 955:09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 944:01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 929:11:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 893:03:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 753:07:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 457:Template talk:Generate POTD T 1473:15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1407:15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1373:11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1364:11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1350:07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 1324:07:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 866:08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 840:00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 829:14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 578:Can we have a POTD by email? 362:{{POTD|250px}} </div: --> 192:New and improved POTD system 115:will finish next week since 113:Knowledge:Picture of the day 7: 1302:15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 715:22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC) 698:18:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC) 676:21:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 658:Knowledge:Featured pictures 651:10:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 586:10:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC) 117:Knowledge:Featured pictures 10: 1489: 961:12/2-I have picture issues 934:Changing 2/3/4 times a day 789:This is a crude solution: 423:, this is how it is done. 151:I've since found out that 127:19:07, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC) 620:15:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 595:11:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 573:22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 482:20:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) 401:10:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 369:23:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) 353:07:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 331:17:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) 291:00:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) 148:15:30, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC) 729:to see several new FPs. 445:Template:Generate POTD T 391:11:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) 340:23:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) 317:23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) 304:04:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 265:17:47, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) 243:vote if it needs a vote. 202:Today's featured article 187:18:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 174:11:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) 163:00:26, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) 135:09:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) 871:WP:POTD vs Commons:Potd 851:Generating_POTD_entries 407:Generating POTD entries 247:16:07, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) 1152:for being a good photo 430:. For a little while, 428:this one from March 05 373:Parameter for img size 108:We're going to run out 1426:comment was added by 1106:I totally agree with 802:The page states that 777:PotD on html webpage? 584:Mahadevan Subramanian 421:get run over by a bus 42:of past discussions. 1370:John Doe or Jane Doe 1361:John Doe or Jane Doe 295:800x600 text version 847:Knowledge:Goings-on 818:Image:Red panda.jpg 682:Image/photo credits 812:How come that the 727:September archives 486:Updated April 2006 417:abducted by aliens 322:Sidebar-sized page 198:Picture of the day 1470: 1439: 1404: 1289: 748: 740: 570: 533:Generate POTD col 522:Generate POTD row 153:Featured articles 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1480: 1471: 1464: 1461: 1456: 1449: 1421: 1405: 1398: 1395: 1390: 1383: 1281: 891: 749: 746: 741: 738: 733: 647: 637: 571: 564: 561: 556: 549: 389: 289: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1459: 1452: 1447: 1444: 1422:—The preceding 1393: 1386: 1381: 1378: 992: 963: 936: 921: 873: 800: 798:Order of images 779: 745: 737: 731: 723: 684: 641: 633: 628: 580: 559: 552: 547: 544: 511:Generate POTD C 500:Generate POTD T 488: 409: 387: 375: 357:I should try :- 347: 324: 297: 287: 280: 194: 110: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1486: 1476: 1475: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1366: 1356: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1305: 1304: 1265: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1203: 1202: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1182: 1178: 1157:Dragons flight 1148: 1147: 1132: 1131: 1111: 1104: 1103: 1079: 1078: 1057: 1056: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1017: 1016: 1006: 991: 988: 987: 986: 962: 959: 958: 957: 935: 932: 920: 917: 916: 915: 908: 904: 872: 869: 843: 842: 810: 809: 799: 796: 778: 775: 774: 773: 722: 719: 718: 717: 683: 680: 679: 678: 661: 627: 624: 623: 622: 598: 597: 579: 576: 541: 540: 529: 518: 507: 487: 484: 453: 452: 447:, for example 408: 405: 404: 403: 374: 371: 359: 358: 346: 343: 342: 341: 323: 320: 319: 318: 310: 296: 293: 279: 276: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 251: 250: 249: 248: 233: 232: 224: 223: 218: 217: 193: 190: 189: 188: 176: 175: 167: 166: 165: 164: 137: 136: 109: 106: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1485: 1474: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1457: 1455: 1450: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428:71.210.168.58 1425: 1408: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1384: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1362: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1280: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1263: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1232: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1153: 1146: 1143: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1109: 1102: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1085: 1077: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1037: 1029: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1012: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 985: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 968: 956: 953: 948: 947: 946: 945: 942: 931: 930: 927: 914: 909: 905: 901: 900:User:Solitude 897: 896: 895: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 868: 867: 864: 860: 855: 852: 848: 841: 838: 833: 832: 831: 830: 827: 823: 819: 815: 808: 805: 804: 803: 795: 792: 788: 785: 772: 769: 765: 761: 760:Did you know? 757: 756: 755: 754: 750: 742: 734: 732:Semiconscious 728: 716: 713: 709: 705: 702: 701: 700: 699: 696: 691: 688: 677: 674: 670: 666: 662: 659: 655: 654: 653: 652: 649: 646: 645: 638: 636: 621: 618: 614: 609: 605: 600: 599: 596: 593: 589: 588: 587: 585: 575: 574: 568: 563: 562: 557: 555: 550: 538: 534: 530: 527: 523: 519: 516: 512: 508: 505: 501: 497: 496: 495: 493: 483: 481: 476: 471: 468: 464: 460: 458: 450: 449: 448: 446: 440: 436: 433: 429: 424: 422: 418: 414: 402: 399: 394: 393: 392: 390: 385: 381: 370: 368: 363: 356: 355: 354: 352: 339: 334: 333: 332: 330: 329:KJK::Hyperion 316: 311: 307: 306: 305: 303: 292: 290: 285: 275: 264: 261: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 246: 242: 237: 236: 235: 234: 230: 226: 225: 220: 219: 215: 211: 210: 209: 205: 203: 199: 186: 182: 178: 177: 173: 169: 168: 162: 159: 154: 150: 149: 147: 143: 139: 138: 134: 130: 129: 128: 126: 123: 118: 114: 105: 104: 100: 96: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1453: 1445: 1419: 1387: 1379: 1342: 1337: 1311: 1275: 1262:photographer 1261: 1258: 1248: 1228: 1163: 1151: 1149: 1136: 1108:PiccoloNamek 1105: 1098:PiccoloNamek 1080: 1073:PiccoloNamek 1062:pfctdayelise 1058: 1051:pfctdayelise 1041:PiccoloNamek 1038: 1034: 993: 964: 937: 922: 881:Commons:Potd 874: 856: 844: 814:October 31st 811: 806: 801: 780: 759: 724: 692: 689: 685: 643: 642: 634: 629: 581: 553: 545: 542: 489: 472: 469: 465: 461: 454: 441: 437: 425: 410: 376: 364: 360: 348: 325: 298: 281: 272: 240: 206: 195: 111: 91: 60: 43: 37: 1231:Jimbo Wales 36:This is an 1287:(Contribs) 1237:Gurubrahma 1197:Kingturtle 996:Kingturtle 941:Chaosfeary 721:New PotDs? 695:Kingturtle 1186:Solipsist 1126:Borisblue 1084:Borisblue 1011:Solipsist 981:Solipsist 952:Solipsist 919:The blurb 913:Solipsist 903:language. 863:Solipsist 837:TomStar81 712:Solipsist 673:Solipsist 669:galleries 613:Frazzydee 592:Solipsist 480:Solipsist 478:page. -- 398:Solipsist 367:Solipsist 345:Alignment 338:Solipsist 315:Solipsist 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 1436:contribs 1424:unsigned 1347:ragesoss 1338:relevant 1229:"Run By 885:Perfecto 665:archives 432:Solitude 413:Solitude 172:Solitude 1343:content 1269:Fir0002 1166:Raul654 1115:Fir0002 1025:Silence 967:Rmpfu89 877:WP:POTD 764:Veledan 704:Be bold 185:bdesham 181:commons 133:Chmouel 39:archive 1284:(Talk) 1279:Diliff 1252:Kjkolb 859:WP:FPC 826:Thelb4 820:, see 475:WP:FPC 351:RoyBoy 302:RoyBoy 288:Verily 260:Angela 245:Pedant 158:Angela 122:Angela 1448:howch 1382:howch 1317:Janke 1298:BozMo 1094:Spira 979:. -- 926:Zocky 635:Dungo 626:POTW? 548:howch 492:subst 222:(UTC) 16:< 1467:chat 1432:talk 1401:chat 1321:Talk 1312:only 1211:Deco 1142:Deco 1137:paid 879:and 822:here 768:Talk 747:home 739:talk 667:and 644:talk 608:Kate 604:here 567:chat 537:talk 535:}} ( 526:talk 524:}} ( 515:talk 513:}} ( 504:talk 502:}} ( 384:+sj 382:). 284:Very 214:here 824:)? 419:or 241:yes 146:Gdr 1460:ng 1434:• 1394:ng 1319:| 1315:-- 1300:] 1282:| 1267:-- 1233:," 939:-- 782:-- 766:• 751:) 743:· 631:-- 560:ng 543:-- 531:{{ 520:{{ 509:{{ 498:{{ 459:. 144:. 101:, 97:, 76:→ 1469:} 1465:{ 1454:e 1430:( 1403:} 1399:{ 1388:e 735:( 648:) 640:( 617:✍ 615:| 611:- 569:} 565:{ 554:e 539:) 528:) 517:) 506:) 388:+ 278:? 263:. 161:. 125:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Picture of the day/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index