This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Picture of the day page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 31 days

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2023-11-30, I found that Template:POTD/2023-11-30 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these Bézier curve images does not demonstrate anything especially interesting by itself, is not a good illustration of the concept of "Bézier curve", and it is unlikely it would ever be a 'featured image' by itself. In my opinion it's not a great choice as a "picture of the day". Its use in Template:POTD/2023-12-13 is likely to be at least somewhat confusing to readers.

The purpose of this image is to show the first step in a process leading to the later images such as the third image also shown here. (Any other of which would be a better choice for picture of the day.)

However, if you really want a template box about this image, it should begin with discussion of linear interpolation as a bolded concept, only mentioning that it's a 1st degree Bézier curve somewhere near the end. –jacobolus (t) 15:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. A straight line by itself is a poor and confusing illustration of Bezier curve. Can't understand how it could have been chosen for POTD. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:8CA2:14F8:CF7B:BA58 (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. A straight line illustrates a curve?! Very confusing. Wis2fan (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the process dropped the ball here in choosing this pic rather than the main image from the set it belonged to. I assume that was simply because it happened to be the first image in the set. Kind of a hilarious embarrassment. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The process also dropped the ball by not responding when I raised this concern 5 days ahead of the picture running on the front page. I guess they don't have enough volunteer staff at POTD to keep tabs on this talk page? user:Amakuru posted a message at Talk:Bézier curve saying in part "If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day", but it's not clear what the point was. –jacobolus (t) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the ping and I will apologise for not spotting the discussion earlier than this - the page here is on my watchlist, but unfortunately so is a lot of other junk so I must have failed to see the conversation. I would certainly have engaged with the discussion had I seen it. However, I don't agree with the assertion that there's anything wrong with this. A linear bezier curve is still a bezier curve, and it is explicitly discussed in the linked article. Furthermore, the linked article is a featured picture and like any other, is entitled to a day on the main page. As it happens, the three curves that you guys have labelled "more interesting" already ran on previous days - in 2007, in 2018 and in 2022. We've just been spacing them out and now the set is complete. A different decision might have been to put all four on one listing, but I think this is an interesting topic, and we're bound to get page views at the article as a result, giving readers a chance to learn more, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every picture in a set of "featured pictures" is independently worth featuring on the front page. If we have shortage of good mathematical diagrams listed as featured pictures, maybe someone should put out a call to nominate or create more, instead of just recycling the weakest examples from 16 years ago. –jacobolus (t) 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to propose any particular images for addition or removal from the featured picture corpus, then feel free to go and make proposals at WP:FPC. In the mean time, we'll just work our way through the ones that have been approved, as per the guidelines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second time that I find a completely new editor creating POTD templates. This one's first contribution is Template:POTD/2023-12-27; we have four films being nominated between 27 and 30 December. I've just wikified the Template:POTD/2023-12-29 draft. The other three still need to be tidied up. How come that POTD attracts newbies? Maybe the new editor can explain... Schwede66 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why my query produced a redlink, I see that Amakuru has just shifted the 29 Dec work to Template:POTD/2024-01-29. Schwede66 22:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Indeed, I've been shuffling them around a bit to create some balance and also working on wikifying a bit too. I'm not sure POTD is really the best fit for brand new editors to gain Wiki-experience, not least because it requires a lot of knowledge of WP:V, how to write prose, Wikiformatting and suchlike; it's not the first time it's happened though, and I suppose technically there's nothing in the rules against it; help is useful as long as fixing it up isn't a complete timesink. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanuil, Gnom, Onel5969, and Anomalocaris: - just checking the status of Template:POTD/2024-01-01: currently it has a "coming soon" placeholder image in it. I assume the intention is that because the Steamboat Willie thing is coming out of copyright in the new year, we'll upload it to Commons that day and then substitute it in.

I have no issue with this in principle, it's quite a good story (although the POTD would have to be expanded to include some commentary on the film itself, not just its public domain status). Howeveer, I can foresee a few issues with this:

1. Presumably, the public domain status will only kick in when the clock turns to midnight in the US, which would be already five hours into the scheduled run of the POTD.
2. We won't be able to do the usual thing of having a protected version of the POTD extant for the day before the run
3. Someone will have to switch it in very quickly when the allotted time does come round
4. We'll also have to wait for Commons protection to kick in on the new file (or for an admin to fully protect it over there)

Not sure if you've thought of any of these issues, but given this another option might be to have it run on the 2nd instead - almost as good and would resolve everything. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re #4, that bot runs every 10 minutes. Schwede66 21:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So realistically, after the clock strikes 5am, i.e. midnight (assuming we go by US eastern time?) we would have maybe 20–30 minutes to upload the video, get it protected, and then send the POTD live. I suppose if there were an appeitte for it, as a sort of IAR option, we could always put the previous day's POTD in the 1 January slot initially so it continues its run past midnight, then swap it over once everything's in place... (probably not by me, as I'm unlikely to be awake at 5am on NYD, either from the previous day or the next day's perspective!)  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I hadn't really followed what the plan was but now I understand. Midnight EST is 6pm where I am, hence I can take on these tasked if we decide that's what we want to do. I have to say I quite like the placeholder idea; quite quirky! Schwede66 00:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, what is written under Steamboat Willie#Copyright status doesn't fill me with confidence that the item will have a clear run on Errors. Schwede66 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea about that. My head always spins when I try to get my head around some of these things! It sounds like probably the copyright itself will definitely expire (barring any 11th-hour actions) but the trademark not. I guess normally trademarks aren't really a problem for us, maybe? Perhaps there will be a deletion discussion at Commons if and when it's uploaded, and the experts will weigh in, but with this goal of running on 1 January, that doesn't really give us any leeway.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru and Schwede66: Hello, and thank you so much for helping with this fun little project. As I originally had the idea for this POTD, I'm happy to answer your questions.

• First of all, there is really nothing to worry about copyright-wise: Yes, Steamboat Willie will enter the Public Domain under U.S. copyright law on 1 January, and even the Walt Disney Corporation agrees with that, which is why they doubled up on trademark protection for Mickey Mouse over the last couple of years. (For some background, I have a Ph.D. in copyright law, which is what got me interested in this story in the first place.)
• The file that we will display is File:Steamboat Willie (1928) by Walt Disney.webm, which is a 1080p version of the film that has already been uploaded, deleted, and checked by Commons admins. So to confirm, nothing needs to be re-uploaded, it's already on Commons and will be un-deleted just in time.
• I wrote an entire blog post about Steamboat Willie entering the Public Domain that will be published on the WMF blog on 1 January (at midnight UTC). A number of news outlets will be reporting on this as well.

Thank you again, and let me know if you have any additional questions! --Gnom (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a Commons admin on standby for the undeletion and the protection, Gnom? Schwede66 09:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and this admin must also be put in charge of protecting the video for the day when it's uploaded. Or at least allow time for the Krinklebot protection to kick in. I'd also be interested to understand the implication of the timezone question above. If the copyright is registered in the Eastern US then we still need to wait until 5am UTC to publish. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have a 'designated Commons admin' yet, maybe it is a good idea to have one – I can take care of that.

For the question regarding intertemporal law, my position would be that we can just un-delete the image at 10.00 pm UTC, and 'flick the switch' at midnight UTC – after 95 years of copyright protection, there will be no fuss about a few hours give or take. De minimis non curat praetor. Gnom (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, and it sounds like it's all mostly good. And with all due respect for your PhD in copyright law, which sounds like an impressive achievement indeed, you'll forgive me for being a bit sceptical about taking chances and being a bit woolly with regard to timing. Asserting that "there will be no fuss about a few hours give or take" is not really the same as the "precautionary principle" that I would expect us to take when it comes to main-page content. This is particularly so, as noted at the earlier deletion discussion, Disney is known for being highly protective and litigous about their content. So in short, unless someone from the WMF legal team, or a strong consensus of those who know about legal issues here on Wikipedia, says it's fine, I think we should stick with the 5am plan. Schwede66 do you concur with that, and thanks also for the offer to do the honours re the switcheroo!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think not even Disney would be so crazy as to send a DMCA to the WMF (which is all they can do) a few hours before ET midnight, and even if they did, it would become moot by the time someone in San Francisco reads it. But I totally understand if you prefer to rather go live at 5.00 am UTC. Gnom (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without having WMF Legal on board, I’d rather not chance it. Schwede66 16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Podzemnik, do you know whether you will be around on 1 January at 18h for this undeletion task? Schwede66 16:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll very likely be somewhere in the bush Podzemnik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was hoping you’d say that. Enjoy! I’ll go tramping today myself; back Saturday. Schwede66 18:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good idea to post Steamboat Willie as a non-Wiki friend of mine mentioned it the other day and so there's already some buzz about this. Commons is not a significant obstacle because the image can be loaded and protected directly on the English Wikipedia. The admin instructions for ITN list the various ways of posting an image to the main page quickly. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Amakuru: The only problem with this is that Steamboat Willie isn't a featured picture. It's recent nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steamboat Willie) failed, so probably something other should be scheduled for that day. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Armbrust: oh... what a good point - I can't believe I didn't even think about that! We're so busy tying ourselves in knots over the copyright status, and yet the (non)-video itself isn't even an FP. I've moved it to Draft:POTD/Steamboat Willie for the time being, I guess it can be resurrected sometime in the year if and when it's uploaded and if the community confirms it as an FP. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This saddens me. Can we not make this an exception? Gnom (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Gnom that we should make an WP:IAR exception here. Looking at the FPC nom, it didn't fail because it was undeserving but because it wasn't available to be uploaded yet. If someone uploads a high resolution version, it seems like a formality to get it approved. Since the essence of IAR is to take action that's in line with the spirit of our policies/principles even if a procedure gets in the way, it seems applicable IMO. BTW I've cross-posted this discussion at VPM, since it's probably of interest to more than just those who watch this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, @Rhododendrites. FYI, we do have a high-resolution (1080p) version uploaded on Commons and ready to be undeleted on 31 December just before midnight. Gnom (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IAR in this case makes sense to me too. This seems like it will be a significant cultural event in an area with a direct relevance to us, but getting it officially past FP in time seems unlikely to happen since we can't upload it until the instant we'd want to make it PotD for the exact reasons it's going to be a significant cultural event and what makes it relevant to us. Anomie⚔ 14:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, there's no version for anyone to assess. I think putting a non-featured-picture in the today's featured picture slot is really a no-no. Part of the reason it was rejected at FPC was because nobody could vet the quality of the supposed uploaded version, what resolution it was and all that. All I'd say is, if you want to make this an IAR case then as a prerequisite you'll need to somehow convince the regulars at WP:FPC that this warrants an IAR. If it's possible to somehow make it clear to people what the proposed video actually is, and then get Armbrust to sign off that a consensus has been formed, then I'll be happy to assist at POTD-level in whatever fashion you want - even if that means swapping the FP into its slot midway through the day and possibly relisting it again some other time too. I'm not against this running, but the correct boxes do need to be ticked. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, there's no version for anyone to assess - Gnom is there somewhere else on the internet that people can see the version waiting to be undeleted on Commons? if you want to make this an IAR case then as a prerequisite you'll need to somehow convince the regulars at WP:FPC that this warrants an IAR - Disagree. This is of much wider interest than the handful of FPC regulars. IMO the point of the IAR action here is to put this file on the main page, not to make it a FP without FPC and then put it on the main page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites: You can see a lower resolution version (360p) on Youtube. However, the Commons admins have confirmed that the version they are ready to undelete comes from Disney Video (video.disney.com, this link may be not accessible if you're outside the US) and its resolution is 1080p. Gnom (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO the point of the IAR action here is to put this file on the main page, not to make it a FP without FPC and then put it on the main page. I was going to say the same thing. The "FPC regulars" don't have any special say if the rule we're ignoring is that the PotD needs to have passed FP. Which is what has been suggested above. Anomie⚔ 01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi all, this is a great idea, and I'm happy to supply the technical work to make this happen. I would suggest we have two versions of the POTD, one for pre-5am UTC and one for after. The one before can have a placeholder icon (copyright logo?) and a blurb that explains how it will become public domain at midnight EST (bonus points if someone can whip up a tiny JavaScript countdown clock). Then when it's undeleted on Commons (automatically detected using ((#ifexist:))), the blurb switches to the real video and whatever text we originally wanted.

  As one of the operators of KrinkleBot that does the autoprotection on Commons, we can have the bot protect it ahead of time so it kicks in right away after undeletion. Or we tell the undeleter to protect it for 24h. Or both.

  And I'm 100% on board with what everyone else has said re: IAR. Legoktm (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it’s a high res video and those are usually approved as FPs, then IAR is appropriate. Schwede66 17:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: countdown, should we really use JavaScript on the Main Page? It might bring accessibility concerns, especially when it is used in the most popular Wikipedia page. ((countdown)) could potentially work well, though it requires page purging and I don't know whether something bad would happen if the Main Page is constantly purged. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 12:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as the script is done with progressive enhancement and has proper error handling in case of really old browsers, it should be fine from that perspective. Whether people would want the necessary script added to sitewide JS even if someone wrote it I don't know. Anomie⚔ 13:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see; I was a bit worried whether JS-related error handling was possible. I've found this user script that could help, and there was a related MediaWiki:Common.js failed feature request a while back. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think of this? The countdown should appear if you install this script I just created derived from ToxiBoi's script I linked in my second reply. Disabling JavaScript in the page makes the countdown disappear. (On a side note, I omitted the number of days left, since when it appears in the Main Page it will be 0.) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made a few more tweaks to the countdown proposal, such as the addition of "This image will be replaced by a video of the film in a moment." when the countdown ends and the file hasn't been uploaded. It's worth mentioning that the page restarts when the countdown ends. Removed this feature. I need some feedback about this before I ask about its implementation at the technical village pump. I have just got a problem; ((#ifexist:)) does not detect whether a file on Commons exists, it can only detect local files. I guess the video should also be localized to Wikipedia as soon as it's uploaded on Commons? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IAR is that we should ignore rules, if they prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I don’t see how that would apply here. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious from the statements above: Several of us here think that this file, as it goes into the public domain, would be an excellent PotD. The rule that PotD is supposed to be an FP would prevent that. Nitpicking over what might be "improving" or "maintaining" is similarly against the spirit of the rule. Anomie⚔ 01:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now worked on the article by fixing and removing maintenance templates (the article should probably be without them if it appears in bold on the Main Page!). I also expanded the POTD draft's blurb with more information about the film, while adding inline citations in the article to confirm those facts. It should be mostly finished. So... @Legoktm and Anomie, thoughts on the countdown and ((#ifexist:)) issue? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you use File: it checks if a (local) file page exists rather than checking if an actual file exists. Try using the special Media: namespace instead. Anomie⚔ 18:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Works now, thanks! I might ask about the countdown implementation to the VPT soon, since no one has voiced opposition to the countdown. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 19:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you all agree to make an RfC on whether the video can appear as a POTD on that day or not? A user has suggested this at the VPT. Pinging active participants in this discussion: @Amakuru, Anomie, Armbrust, Gnom, and Schwede66. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I would not support that. If those who look after the main page are happy with what's proposed, that's good enough. We are way too close to the event for an RfC to be useful. Schwede66 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]