Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 7

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 7

"See another banknote"

From time to time several images are multiplexed into a single POTD, such as Template:POTD/2014-06-25 with four. A link is then provided, in this case reading "See another banknote", so people can switch to one of the others.

However, what the link does is simply to purge the page cache. This is annoying because (1) you have to click OK, (2) if you're seeing the image on the home page, it forces the entire complicated page to reload and leaves it scrolled back to the top, (3) since the selection is random, you may actually get the same image again, and (4) there is no way to tell whether you've seen all of them.

I suggest that instead of this approach, the subpages Template:POTD/2014-06-25/1 through Template:POTD/2014-06-25/4 should link to each other in sequence, and the link should be changed so that subpage 1 would have:

See another banknote: Previous Next

and analogously for the other subpages. This way once a person chose to see another of the set, they would be taken to a separate page containing only that picture, and they could transition to the other ones in an orderly gallery-style manner. Of course I could make this edit myself for the June 25 set, but as I'm proposing that the change be applied to all such sets in the future, I thought it was better to raise the point here. (Besides, maybe someone can improve on my proposal.) It would be even better if this could be done more automagically through a clever template of some kind.

And on another point, it would also be better if the text that's identical for each subpage of the set could be transcluded from a single source so that any errors in it didn't have to be edited out more than once. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both suggestions are doable, but for the second one (the transclusion of repeated text) I'd probably wait until next time we do something like this. I know some images (the Taman Sari (Yogyakarta) set, the Exeter Cathedral set, etc.) for which this would make sense.

However, this would mean that only one of the images would actually be on the main page (unless the page were purged), rather than having the main page regularly purged and thus all images having an equal chance. How would photographers/scanners/restorers react? Godot13, since this involves you in a more immediate fashion, could you give some feedback? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of next image/previous image and going in order, it allows the viewer to know there is more to see in the set (without back to back repeats of the same image). I'm not sure I completely follow the equal chance at the main page part of what you are saying...--Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps its me writing at 6 a.m. AFAIK, the MP is not "purged" regularly when people load it, but when it is updated (or press the purge button). In portals like P:ID, this is true. Assuming this is true for the MP, (again AFAIK) only one note would be visible on the main page over an extended period of time, and the others would only be viewable by clicking on the "next"/"previous" button... which to be honest probably wouldn't draw much attention. Someone better versed in the MP would know if I'm mistaken though. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's true, it doesn't strike me as a big deal. As I see it, if people are interested in one picture then they will want to see the other ones, and if not, they won't care whether they have an equal chance of seeing all of them. --[formerly 69.158.92.137] 70.49.171.225 (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely missed the ping or your response Crisco, sorry. I get it, and I do somewhat agree with the IP editor above, while further developing it for larger sets would be nice. Many thanks for all your tireless efforts with POTD.--Godot13 (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll try to talk to a technical minded user (I'll have to try and remember who set this system up!) -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Here he is, Mr. Stradivarius. Mr. Stradivarius, question for you about the main page: is it purged regularly, or only on updates? Wondering if I should just link "next/previous" directly to the subpages, or if there's a way to avoid that. (Personally I like it being random, but that's just me). -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Only on updates, as far as I'm aware. When someone edits a page transcluded on the main page, that invalidates the main page's cache, and it is generated from scratch for the next person who tries to view it. And as it's the main page, that will happen almost instantly after the edit is made. If no edits are made to any subtemplates, though, then it is only purged when someone clicks a purge link. I can't think of any way to show the images in sequence by purging the page; it would have to be either at random, or just one static image. You would have to do something like link to a subpage and show all the images in sequence there. The new MediaViewer has a nice slideshow feature, but it doesn't look like it can yet be manipulated into showing a slideshow for anything other than (all) the images on the current page. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 07:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd much rather not factor the MediaViewer into this, as many power users (including myself) have turned it off. 69/70, how would you feel if I ask image nominators/creators individually when it comes time to showing multiple images? Say, Godot can have subpages linked from the main page, and I can have images randomized through purging, and X and Y can have whatever they want. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 7

POTD for September 2

Hello. Would it be appropriate to use Yogapith, Mayapur for the POTD slot on September 2, the birth anniversary of its founder, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, shifting the currently scheduled POTD to another date? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, Cinosaur, that should be fine. I've moved the POTD for Sep 2. Do you want to write the blurb yourself? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Crisco 1492, will do. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, I've created the POTD template and written the blurb. Would you mind having a look there, in case it needs some adjustments? Cinosaur (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, done. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Crisco 1492. May I tweak the blurb some more? For one thing, I thought the name of the object pictured needs to be bolded, even though there is no corresponding article - like here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• The example you're looking at is seven years old. I've never bolded something that isn't linked. If you want to polish the prose a bit, though, feel free. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

POTD from Monarch butterfly article

I received a notice that a photo from the Monarch butterfly article was nominated for POTD. As one of the editors, I need to tell you that I have been in the process of a major clean-up for two months. I have to check out all the references even though I have probably added at least two dozen myself. Someone just attempted to rearrange a picture gallery, in good faith it appears to me, and to change the UNC status with an unreferenced statement. The article is filled with unreferenced statements that I have been trying to track down. I wish there were other editors to help me so that we could get the article into better shape. I encourage the powers-that-be to delay any POTD from the Monarch butterfly article at least until the article is cleaned up.bpage (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Lake Lahontan

In Template:POTD/2014-09-15, why are there arrows pointing from the Sacramento River to Lake Lahontan? The legend says that red arrows are "Direction of flood". But although the Lake Bonneville flood is described, I found no evidence that the Sacramento River ever flooded into Lake Lahontan, or vice versa. Lake Lahontan gradually dried up, but the legend says it was a flood. Art LaPella (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging the map creator, Fallschirmjäger. I am not familiar enough with the references to give feedback. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the ambiguous arrows but well spotted. I am certainly no expert on the subject area, the map was created over a year in collaboration with TCO ago so my knowledge is somewhat limited. However I recall those arrows in particular were sourced from here albeit it is not entirely clear. WolfmanSF makes a good point here, so in light of this perhaps the best solution would be to either shrink arrows away from the river or remove entirely? Fallschirmjäger ? 20:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If the map in this article is the only reason for the arrows, then they should be removed. In that map, the arrows are used to label Pyramid Lake and Lake Lahontan. In the Wikipedia map, they don't serve that purpose; all they do is to confuse the map of the flood. So I see no reason to keep the two arrows, shrunk or unshrunk.

The arrow into Lake Missoula has a similar problem. That article describes floods coming out of Lake Missoula, but why is the arrow pointing in? Probably because the other map uses an arrow in the same place to label Lake Missoula; in that case, remove it also. Art LaPella (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the ambiguous arrows. Kind regards, Fallschirmjäger ? 22:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still see the arrows. Art LaPella (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• You may need to purge your cache (adding &action=purge to the end of the URL should work). -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

3 arrows gone, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Attracting interest

I enjoyed today's picture and it made me realise that there isn't really an easy way to share Picture of the Day via social media (which could attract more interest to Wikipedia and its pictures). I know Wikipedia has it's own official feed on Facebook for general announcements, but I feel that Picture of the Day would also be very well suited to this format. I know there is reticence to incorporate elements of social media into Wikipedia (and for good reason), but is there any way a separate feed could be set up elsewhere on social media itself rather than adding share links here? SFB 10:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"See another banknote" redux

From a different IP address, I posted this here on June 7:

From time to time several images are multiplexed into a single POTD, such as Template:POTD/2014-06-25 with four. A link is then provided, in this case reading "See another banknote",

so people can switch to one of the others.

However, what the link does is simply to purge the page cache. This is annoying because (1) you have to click OK, (2) if you're seeing the image on the home page, it forces the entire complicated page to reload and leaves it scrolled back to the top, (3) since the selection is random, you may actually get the same image again, and (4) there is no way to tell whether you've seen all of them.

I suggest that instead of this approach, the subpages Template:POTD/2014-06-25/1 through Template:POTD/2014-06-25/4 should link to each other in sequence, and the link should be changed so that subpage 1 would have:

See another banknote: Previous Next

and analogously for the other subpages. This way once a person chose to see another of the set, they would be taken to a separate page containing only that picture, and they could transition to the other ones in an orderly gallery-style manner. Of course I could make this edit myself for the June 25 set, but as I'm proposing that the change be applied to all such sets in the future, I thought it was better to raise the point here. (Besides, maybe someone can improve on my proposal.) It would be even better if this could be done more automagically through a clever template of some kind.

And on another point, it would also be better if the text that's identical for each subpage of the set could be transcluded from a single source so that any errors in it didn't have to be edited out more than once.

This produced some discussion that was generally favorable to the ideas, but nothing actually happened and there was at least one suggestion to wait until an item like this came up again. Well, now it has: Template:POTD/2014-11-07 has appeared in the queue. So I repeat that I think something should be done to improve the way this multiplexing works, either along the lines I suggested or, if possible, something better yet.

Oh, by the way, there is one obvious alternative to the Prev/Next approach: subpage 2, for example, could instead have:

See another banknote: 1 3 4

This has the advantage that it's obvious from the links alone how many there are.

-- [formerly 69.158.92.137 and 70.49.171.225] 174.88.135.88 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I remember Godot expressing approval for this, so I'll implement it immediately. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Woo hoo! Thanks for the quick action. --174.88.135.88 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

#TTTWFTW kickstarter campaign

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Area for Alaska may be problematic

In Template:POTD/2015-01-04, it previously said

The lands purchased covered 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km²), and became the modern state of Alaska more than a hundred years later.

I just corrected the erroneous "more than 100" and adjusted the wording to what I think is plainer English:

The purchase involved 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km²) of land, which became the modern state of Alaska in 1959.

But I have to wonder if the area is correct.

The first thing to note is that Alaska includes considerable coastal territorial waters, and neither the old nor my revised wording implies that these are included. I think that not including them is the right choice, as the extent of coastal claims may have changed since 1867. On the other hand, including inland water would be reasonable. I looked at the Alaska article only to find that it contradicts itself, giving 663,268 square miles (1,717,856 km²) as the land area in the body text but the same number as the total area in the infobox. Even if that is the total area, the infobox says the state is 13.77% water, which would make the land area 571,936 square miles (1,481,307 km²). I have not looked at other sources, but I suggest you do, or else substitute a rounded area. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Removed altogether. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

May 14

For Template:POTD/2015-05-14, "Trochea" should be trochlea, "Coronid" should be coronoid, and the capitalization is erratic considering that there aren't any proper nouns in the diagram (I suggest capitalizing only the first word of each phrase). Art LaPella (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

June 24, 2015

Can someone explain why this picture is POTD level? How is it examplary, inspiring, impressive or even relevant (being from 2012)? -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's featured pictures are determined by consensus. The discussion which led to said image gaining FP status was here. If you believe that the image does not meet the criteria, you are free to nominate it for delisting at WP:FPC -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Birmingham Quran manuscript

@Crisco 1492: Birmingham Quran manuscript is now promoted. Do think that the pic has the chance to appear on the main page. Mhhossein (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it will. Generally there is an 18 month delay, but something like this could (and probably will) be scheduled for date relevance earlier. Eid al-Adha will be in late September, and that would be a decent date to run this. Not because of the verses shown, but because of the Quran's importance in Islam. -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: WOW! That's a brilliant idea. Yes, Quran is very important to Muslims. ?????????. Mhhossein (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Woodrich: Eid al-Adha will be on 23 September and I just meant to remind you that. Btw, Can I have a suggestion for the caption? Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Another editor added the tomb (I'm assuming for Eid as well). I've opened up the template at Template:POTD/2015-09-23 if you want to add a blurb. -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

protected version of POTD

Why enwiki creates additionally protected version of POTD with subst? I think Cascading protection is enough for normal POTH page. There is no need to create additionally protected version. --Mavrikant (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Different layout. --howcheng {chat} 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Are you sure there is no anything special? We(trwiki) are gonna delete all protected versions and use normal versions on main page. --Mavrikant (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If we could go with one template, we would have done it. We also wanted to make sure that the regular POTD was editable by anyone. --howcheng {chat} 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suggested POTD for International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Picture of the day's parameters works incorrectly

At this time my user page is broken. I don't know why, but earlier POTD works fine like "Flag of the day" section at my userpage. Parameters {{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|image}} and {{POTD/{{#time:Y-m-d}}|title}} generates full Template without only image or only text. <- Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• That's because how today's POTD is set up. Template:POTD protected/2016-02-19 selects from two pages randomly (1 and 2), and therefore it doesn't use any parameters to generate what you want. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• @Alex Great: Fixed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. <- Alex Great ^talk_rus? 05:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Responsive layout

So I've been playing in the sandbox of {{POTD row}} and come up with a responsive design that shows the image and caption side-by-side or stacked, depending on screen size. To see it in action, enable the New Main Page gadget, visit Template:POTD row/testcases and resize away. Would there be any interest in implementing this? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's not working for me. The Crater Lake image stays on top, and the CC one stays on the side. -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editing blurb for current main page POTD

Two days ago I edited the blurb when it was in the Wikipedia:Main Page queue (reached via Main Page toolbox). In this sentence, I unlinked the all the (common) geographical terms, added a comma after Japan, and deleted "also":

"It is widely distributed in northern and central Europe, and its range extends across Asia and Japan and also into North America."

However, this seems to have had no effect on what appeared on the main page. What is the point of allowing that version to be editable if it makes no difference to what eventually appears on the main page? Edwardx (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The version that appears on the main page is created by copying and pasting the text from the unprotected version. In this instance, that occurred about 12 hours before you performed the edits, so they weren't included until you posted an error report. In the future, you can use the {{edit fully-protected}} template to request that an admin incorporate the changes into the protected version (or post at WP:ERRORS again if the content appears today or tomorrow). Watch for a non-red "Template:POTD_protected" link. --David Levy 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting specific image for September 8

To go alongside the total main page Star Trek domination that currently looks like will happen for the 50th anniversary of the franchise (looking like a full day of DYK hooks and a FA is currently nominated to appear on the day), I was wondering if we could throw a Star Trek related image on Picture of the Day on September 8. We don't have many FPs in the project (literally 2), and one has already been featured previously. File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg passed FP recently and so would be suitable. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Ping. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Miyagawa: Certainly. Sorry for the late reply; have been swamped here.  -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

At Template:POTD/2016-09-08 -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of random multiple images

Template:POTD/2016-09-05 randomly selects one or other of two selected images (Template:POTD/2016-09-05/1 and Template:POTD/2016-09-05/2) with subtext "This image was chosen at random from a selection of 2. ()" to notify the reader. For archive purposes it would be more convenient for Template:POTD/2016-09-05 to simply show both images, with subtext like "One of these two images was displayed on the Main Page, chosen at random for each user", and a link to Template:POTD protected/2016-09-05 for those who want to see what it actually looked like on the day. It's also liable to confuse some readers when "view another image" shows the same image again on refresh. jnestorius^(talk) 09:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the Day POTD/2016-10-04 - Michael Mullen (b. 1946) is a retired United States Navy admiral who served .....

I always considered Wikipedia a non-partisan site. I think we all thought this. It certainly is what most of us hoped - and expected! It's a real pity to see that this is no longer the case!! LawrieM (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we have a bot create the protected version?

So I'm filling in for Chris while his computer is being repaired, but it seems that a lot of things haven't changed since I last schedule the POTD. For instance, the protected version still needs to be created manually on a daily basis. It seems like this should be able to be accomplished by bot. Could we engage AnomieBOT for this sort of work (ping Anomie)? --howcheng {chat} 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AnomieBOT III is the adminbot, unless it's only template-protected in which case AnomieBOT II could handle it. What exactly needs doing? Anomie? 01:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anomie: POTD on the Main Page is built from templates. There is a regular version and a "protected" version (they have different layouts). For the last number of years, a person has had to manually create the protected version, but I think that this job could be done by a bot. To create the protected version, a person has to go to [1] (replacing the date with the correct value) and replace the first line with {{subst:POTD row. That's it. Ideally, these templates should be created 24 hours in advance of their scheduled date (so that they can appear on WP:Main Page/Tomorrow). I assume this is fairly simple. It's one step more than doing the daily FFD pages. What do you think? Thanks. --howcheng {chat} 05:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll have the bot create it at 22:00, about 2 hours before it's supposed to show up on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. BRFA filed Anomie? 02:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How to figure out the scheduling sequence for adding new PsOTD?

Hi, I'm interested in assisting with POTD by scheduling FPs into the queue. However I'm confused as to how to identify where in the sequence of FPs to start at - I mean, how does anyone know how far back in the archive of FP noms to start using FPs as PsOTD? Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No more pictures

There are no more Pictures of the Day after January 29, except for one or two per week in February. I'm not saying that we need pictures; I'm just making sure that someone has thought this through. If it isn't just an archive problem or an "oops I forgot", then we need to make sure the Main Page doesn't have a big red "Not Found" where the picture should be. Art LaPella (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Art, sorry for the late reply. As How stated in the above thread, my computer was out of commission for the better part of a month, so he took back the reigns for a couple weeks. How and I have different styles; I tend to keep a two-week bumper, while How tends to schedule one or two days before. That's why we had some empty dates when you posted this comment.  -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2017-05-07 has unexpected content

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2017-05-07, I found that Template:POTD/2017-05-07 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2017-05-07 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? 22:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfie

No idea what forum should be used for this, but I would like to protest in the strongest possible terms against the use of a monkey selfie as PotD on WP. (June 1st)he

This is a copyrighted image, by the human photographer, and WP should not be hosting it, let alone advertising the fact as PotD. Doing so further discredits WP as not observing photographer's copyrights. Certainly to blatantly use it in such a way is deliberately provocative. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but US courts have disagreed with that claim. There is no question that the work is in the public domain in the US. However, I agree that using it as POTD may be in poor taste. We certainly don't need to be adding insult to injury. --howcheng {chat} 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

US courts had, in relation to a different and earlier image, already given the opinion that animals can't create a copyrightable artwork or hold such copyright. But that's not something that anyone (other than PETA, who get everything wrong) is claiming here anyway.

Nor are US courts arbiters of world copyright: this is a photo taken by a UK photographer, in Indonesia.

Wikipedia's invented view (which hasn't been anywhere near a court) is that this photograph is the work of the monkey, but the monkey can't hold copyright. That's against the US court view (which says that monkeys can't create) and also against European law which holds that the human photographer was the artist responsible, thus holds the copyright. More to the point though, Wikipedia's continual gloating over repeated, prominent use of this image gives a very poor portrayal of Wikipedia, as a copyright pirate that delights in finding opportunities to exploit photographers. That is a long-term harmful viewpoint for WP and WMF to take. PotD should not be encouraging this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Arguing about the copyright status of this photo at this point is moot and beyond the scope of this page. Although I agree with you that we don't need to be poking the bear, I will defer to the POTD scheduler, User:Crisco 1492, whether or not we want to feature it as POTD. --howcheng {chat} 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andy, Wikipedia's view is that the monkey took the photograph, as in "pressed the button that opened the shutter and caused the image to be captured". That is far from identifying the monkey as the "creator" under US copyright law. There is the physical act of taking a picture, nothing more.

Regarding your argument that "US courts [are not] arbiters of world copyright", Wikipedia, with its servers being located in Virginia and its headquarters in California, is bound solely by US copyright law. Even if the image were recognized as copyrighted outside of the United States (a doubtful claim), as stated at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, Wikipedia "accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries"

If the sole claim against using the image is copyright, it is groundless in both US copyright law and in Wikipedia policy. As Howard has said, "Arguing about the copyright status of this photo at this point is moot".  -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

POTDPageCreator: Template:POTD/2017-06-10 has unexpected content

While attempting to create Template:POTD protected/2017-06-10, I found that Template:POTD/2017-06-10 does not begin with {{POTD {{{1|{{{style|default}}}}}}. Please fix it, or create Template:POTD protected/2017-06-10 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? 22:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Looks like the random image thing is confusing the bot again. Anomie? 00:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Okay. At least I'm at home this time.  -- Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia