Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Preparation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Some practical considerations

Latest comment: 13 years ago100 comments7 people in discussion

Voter eligibility

To make the checking simple, I propose to change the voter eligibility a little:to merge the 2 condition to one with making the both dates before 2011-01-01 :

...you registered before 2011-01-01
...and have more than 200 edits before 2011-01-01 (that is 31 December 2010 (UTC)/1 January 2011, 00:00 (UTC) in any single Wikimedia project.

This would make the checking process simpler and faster.--miya (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I updated the voting and voting instructions template to match this. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My Toolserver account is in the process of being created; I will write or adapt a tool to check eligibility. --theMONO 02:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Round 1 voting has ended! Do not vote any more!

Galleries by categories

Diagrams, emblems, and maps
(18)
Non-photographic art, posters, stamps, and historic maps
(40)
People and human activities
(45)
Constructions, architecture, cities, ruins, and related
(68)
Interiors and details
(42)
Objects and miscellaneous
(45)
Rocks and minerals
(32)
Vehicles
(49)
Nature views
(61)
Astronomy, satellite and outer space
(26)
Panoramas
(75)
Plants and fungi
(33)
Arthropods
(52)
Birds
(74)
Mammals
(46)
Other animals
(39)
Bones, shells, and fossils
(37)

All or half of the 2010 featured pictures

Tables

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Galleries/Table/Month

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Galleries/Table/by Category

Animation thumbnailing

We have the same problem as last year. Some animations thumbnail as animations, others (large ones) just give one frame. Any suggestions for a solution? 99of9 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Shall we have a sub gallery for animations and movie files? --miya (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we'd better make "Index by sub-category" including "Animated and ogv files".--miya (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an extra page Animated&ogv in the Index by Category. Anyone who is looking for animated or ogv files can find them here.--miya (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Index by Category
Diagrams	Artworks	People and human activities	Constructions	Interiors and details	Objects and miscellaneous
Rocks and minerals	Vehicles	Nature views	Astronomy and outer space	Panoramas	Plants and fungi
Arthropods	Birds	Mammals	Other animals	Bones and shells	(Subcategory:Animated&Ogv)

Thumbnail size

Does anyone mind if I make the gallery thumbnail size larger? Since this is an image contest, I'm sure people will be prepared to use a little bandwidth to do their voting, and it's important for them to see some of the detail before they vote. --99of9 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hum. If anyone complain, we can split a heavy page into two or three with 30 or 40 files in them.--miya (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I'll make "Index by sub-category" including "Animated and ogv files"..--miya (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Index
1–50	51–100	101–150	151–200	201–250	251–300	301–350	351–400
401–450	451–500	501–550	551–600	601–650	651–700	701–750	751–785

If i remember correctly last year we have (at least) three sizes of thumbnails paralelly. It is not problem to create more sizes, question is what should be the base size. I think that 300x300 is too big for base size (only 2 pics in row for 1024p).--Jklamo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an image competition. These images need to be seen in at least 300px to judge their value. Remember that in most cases, that is already scaled down by a factor of 10 from the original. I think those on a small screen will understand, and will simply have to scroll further. 99of9 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Galleries/Diagrams for more thumbnail sizes galleries proposal, i created Small and Large (and titled current 300px as medium). --Jklamo (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Galleries/Table

Please check this table if there is any mistakes, dupes or missings.--miya (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Round 1

For example, from "1 April 00:00 (UTC)(Friday)" to "10 April 23:59 (UTC)(Sunday)"?--miya (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be ready by 1 April. Once we're satisfied here, we then need to put out a call for more translations etc. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If the categories and galleries are OK and there will be no changes for the voting system, we'd better start Round 1 - even if the translations are incomplete.--miya (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If there will be no change to the voting system, how about starting this week? (As to category I'm goint to finish up tomorrow) That may be:

Voting period: from 2011-04-22 00:00 (UTC) to 2011-05-01 23:59 (UTC) (From Friday to next Sunday)

We can never start if we wait for all the translations to be ready.--miya (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea to set-up start date definitely, but i suggest to wait one more week, as it is Easter time now.--Jklamo (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think we should delay about a week. I really think we need to get a global notice going and advertising will take some time to sink in. So how about 2011-04-30 00:00 (UTC) to 2011-05-04 23:59 (UTC)? theMONO 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- As troubles or confusion might happen on the first day of Round 1, I'd rather hope to start Round 1 on a weekday (like 2011-04-28) as a test run with Commons sitenotice only - and then let the global notice start on the weekend (like 2011-04-30). So how about 2011-04-28 00:00 (UTC) to 2011-05-04 23:59 (UTC), with Global notice from 2011-04-30?--miya (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  - That can be arranged. The Foundation has been contacted for approval for a global notice and a post on their blog announcing the contest. With regard to the translation, my solution is to to target only certain languages (you can see which ones we have so far at the translation page). Ideally, we could add Russian, Polski, and Italian, however, that's ideally. theMONO 23:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How many finalists ?

If we do the same as in POTY2009, it would be like below.--miya (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply go through the galleries, click the "Vote" button below any image you wish to vote for, and vote using the template Template:2010POTY/Vote and 4 tildes:

#{{2010POTY/Vote|Your_username}}--~~~~

In Round 1, eligible users may vote for as many images as they wish to support (one vote per image)~~, though it is suggested voters to choose one image in a category if they can~~.

The Round 1 Category winners ~~(1st, 2nd, 3d)~~ and the top 10 overall will advance to Round 2 (finals) voting. If a category winner also happens to be in the top 10, it qualifies in 2 ways, reducing the total number of finalists.

Copied from Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Preparation--miya (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Added (1st, 2nd, 3d)--miya (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested to choose one image in a category.--miya (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Striked this part.--miya (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seemed to work fine last year. Go for it. I'm not sure what you mean by "Suggested to choose one..." - who should choose one? --99of9 (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am for keeping current system, thus possibility to vote for multiple images in category. One vote per category is too restrictive (although easier to check and count), also there is too big influence of category choosing on result and there is also big possibility for images with zero votes, that can be disappointment for authors. --Jklamo (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Surely I don't wish "images with zero votes". I striked "...one image in a category". --miya (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Striked "(1st, 2nd, 3d)" per discussion below.--miya (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If 17 categories

There became 17 categories in the end. If the finalists are "top 10 over all and category tops (1st, 2nd and 3d), the number of finalists may be between 51 and 60. Is it OK?--miya (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should only take 1st and 2nd from each category (plus the overall top 10)? It's important that finals voters look at all the finalist images before they make their decision. --99of9 (talk)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Eligibility just says "Category winners and the top 10 overall". If we take only 1st and 2nd from each category, then the finalist images will be around 30 or 40, which may be good size of number.--miya (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

1+2+3+top10 will produce too much finalists IMHO. 1+top10 with 17 cats may produce app. 22, that seems few for me. Thus i agree with 1+2+top10 (or propose 1+top20). --Jklamo (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an agreement. We can still award 1st 2nd and 3rd prizes in every category, 3rd just doesn't make the final. --99of9 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I added second places to eligibility page, as there was only 1+top10. But it was already incorrectly translated to other languages. --Jklamo (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting system

Can we have any voting or checking system? Some of POTY2009 committee members considered to use (and gave up in the end) Special:SecurePoll for the Final last year, though SecurePoll is not suitable for a case with so many candidate like POTY Round 1.--miya (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think secure poll will work for this, unfortunately. I'll set up a simple tool to check eligibility. We could use a bot or mw:Extension:AbuseFilter as well. theMONO 22:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good news, for secure poll doesn't support displaying images. . Thanks.

By the way the AccountEligibility tool(event=9) now in Template:2010POTY/Vote is not for POTY2010 but for POTY2009, see http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&wiki=&event=16 . What to do with this tool?--miya (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll contact Pathoschild to see about an update for this year. – Adrignola talk 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The tool has been updated: http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&wiki=&event=16 – Adrignola talk 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

An edit filter has been set up to keep unregistered users from voting or manipulating the voting pages, without semi-protecting the pages, which would prevent logged-in but not autoconfirmed users from editing the pages (their 200 edits may be elsewhere). See Special:AbuseFilter/77 and the displayed warning at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-poty-vote. – Adrignola talk 04:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Group A and Group B are different

Group A and group B have different captions in the gallery items. A has vote buttons, B has creator/uploader info. I presume we need the vote buttons in B? --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for fixing this miya. --99of9 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To Do List

What is current to do list? (feel free to correct and update)

[OK] decide rules
decide dates
decide categories
decide voting system (if there will be some change)
[OK] create voting pages
[OK] create voting galleries
[OK] create rules pages
translate all above to as many as possible languages
advertise everywhere possible

.. and we can start --Jklamo (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to see if we could get a global sitenotice for the competition. theMONO 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Translations and correct or improve messages and sitenotices. Thanks.--miya (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Above all the translation of these two pages are urgent.--miya (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

POTY barnstar

Can anyone prepare barnstars for this year? Below are the last year's ones.--miya (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

2009 Awards

Done. theMONO 17:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--miya (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ribbons for Category #1 and #2

Can you make ribbons for Category #1 and #2, too?

Category #1 - Small golden star with File:Honorable Mention POTY barnstar for 2010.svg
Category #2 - Small silver star with File:Honorable Mention POTY barnstar for 2010.svg

in addition how about changing the color of ribbons from navy blue to pale orange or red for Cat#1 and pale blue or green for Cat#2, if possible. --60.237.150.151 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry, it's me, happened to log out.--miya (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shall we begin tomorrow?

Let's decide the date for Round 1. The date proposed in #Dates is:

2011-04-29 00:00 (UTC)(Friday) to 2011-05-04 23:59 (UTC)(Thursday)

If it is OK, what to do then is:

Announce "Message 1: announcement" in Commons-l.
Open Round 1.
Make the Sitenotice displayed.
Announce "Message 2: voting round 1 open".

I'll make the last check to the galleries. --miya (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's a go. It's already listed on Meta's Goings-on schedule. – Adrignola talk 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Please take the initiative (announcements, etc.). Thanks.--miya (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it'd be better to just merge message 1 and 2 from Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Translations so that there's one announcement on Commons-l/the village pump, as the actual start time is less than twelve hours away. The message/sitenotice would be deployed later today. – Adrignola talk 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll create a sitenotice and add it on Commons only tomorrow, protect all landing pages with cascading protection, and we'll begin. theMONO 17:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sent the notice to Commons-l and Foundation-l. – Adrignola talk 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

div class="dshuf"

<div class="dshuf"> in galleries doesn't work on my Firefox or IE. Is there any reason? Or is it only on my PC?--miya 22:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's ever worked, actually. – Adrignola talk 01:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that it has been fixed thanks to User:Dschwen. (#Random order?) By the way the slideshow gadget doesn't work on my Firefox, either. Is it only on my PC? If not, where should I report it?--miya 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

IRC channnel

IRC channnel for POTY is available. Please join it if you can.--miya 00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IRC cliant - #POTY2010
Web browser - Connect now!

If there is a better channnel for POTY2010, please update Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Committee#Contact. Thanks.--miya 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Disqualify videos?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all,

I've noticed we have a handful of videos in our gallery...do we want these?

My opinion is that we ought to disqualify them, because this is the Picture of the Year competition.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

theMONO 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, they were never disqualified during the selection of featured pictures in the first place, so why start now? If they were to be disqualified then we might look to the animated ones next as they too could have an advantage in attracting more attention and not being a true "picture". Potentially the process and this may have to switch to "media" rather than "picture" in years to come. – Adrignola talk 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Random order?

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Aren't the candidates supposed to appear in random order (if they don't, the vote will obviously be biased towards the first few candidates)? Somehow that doesn't work for me (they always appear in the order in which they are listed in the page source). --Kabelleger 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They are. But the div we were using doesn't seem to be working. Maybe the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.17 broke the script to do this. But I don't know what handled it before. – Adrignola talk 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The script and divs work perfectly when used correctly, see Commons:Meet our photographers. --Dschwen 04:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! No, it doesn't. I remember now that I wrote a separate routine to shuffle galleries, and a recent MediWiki update changed the HTML code of galleries. Let me see if I can fix this. --Dschwen 04:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Er. It's absolutely inappropriate to run the contest without randomization. We know from past experience that a lot of voters won't have the patience to look past a small subset of images. I see that the div based one is working fine, but I don't know what is up with dschwen's gallery stuff. I'm not really inclined to make a panicked attempt to fix it now that the contest is open. I think the constest should be closed, votes tossed, and restarted once its fixed so it won't give useless results, anything less would be horribly unfair. [Edit: Oh good, he's looking at it] --Gmaxwell 04:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a panicked attempt at completely rewriting the gallery shuffling :-). Seems to work. --Dschwen 05:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

...and - if I may say so - the result is quite cool. All my recent work with jQuery really paid off. --Dschwen 05:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And again you save the day. Thanks! --Gmaxwell 05:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing it!--miya 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dschwen! @Gmaxwell: Or we could simply ignore votes that have been cast before randomization was working (but in this case, the voters should be informed about the problem somehow). --Kabelleger 08:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. We could invite those people who voted before the randomization to redo, I'm not sure how many would be willing. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

from Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010#bugfixes: Is there a way to make the randomization based on the user's name or otherwise static? I thought of taking the user's name as seed for the random function - but sadly is seems not to accept a seed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jury selection

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all,

At Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Jury I set up a brief description of what I wanted to accomplish with a jury system. This had been proposed year and year again since 2008. I looked at the results and I think this might be something interesting to have. Please take a look and give your opinion.

theMONO 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Round 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

Round 1 voting ends tomorrow. We'll have a week to count votes, check them, and maybe get jury picks. I've talked about banners and it's decently likely we'll be able to get one starting on the 15th. So don't worry about rushing.

theMONO 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pages for Round 2

cf.

Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Finalists

Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Finalists/lang

Template:2009POTY/header/Finalists/en

Finalists

Thanks to nice tools:

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/ALL/Table - Heavy table
- Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/ALL/Table - primally sorted by number of votes.
Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/Checking - Top 10 and Category tops(#1, #2)

According to tools [1] and [2] (ask in IRC for password), and sorting in the tables above, Top 10 and Category tops(#1, #2) are these files below:

Astronomy 298 TOP#01 Votelist
Rocks and minerals 295 TOP#02 Votelist
Objects 266 TOP#03 Votelist
Constructions 261 TOP#04 Votelist
Constructions 259 TOP#05 Votelist
Other animals 255 TOP#06 Votelist
Nature 245 TOP#07 Votelist
People 235 TOP#08 Votelist
Mammals 232 TOP#09 Votelist
Other animals 216 TOP#10 Votelist
Arthropods 211 Votelist
Astronomy 206 Votelist
Nature 200 Votelist
Panoramas 186 Votelist
Panoramas 183 Votelist
Vehicles 182 Votelist
Diagrams 181 Votelist
Mammals 181 Votelist
Diagrams 178 Votelist
Plants and fungi 175 Votelist
Vehicles 167 Votelist
Bones and shells 166 Votelist
Objects 161 Votelist
Plants and fungi 157 Votelist
Interiors and details 156 Votelist
Artworks 154 Votelist
Birds 153 Votelist
Interiors and details 153 Votelist
People 147 Votelist
Rocks and minerals 147 Votelist
Birds 133 Votelist
Artworks 105 Votelist
Bones and shells 98 Votelist
Arthropods 84 Votelist
◆　Constructions 212 Votelist
◆　Constructions 209 Votelist

As all of TOP 10 are Category #1 or #2, total is 34 files. The last two files (◆) are runners by to TOP 10, which are so close runners-by that they, I'm afraid, might have been out of TOP 10 with accidental error of checking or voter-warning process. I tried to check their votes throughly, it was too difficult as I can't understand the algorithm of the checking tools and as their votes are so many. If possible, I feel they may be included to Finalists, if Committee members would agree (that would make the total 36).--miya (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

None would approve? OK. I withdraw the proposal above.--miya (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I got another idea: I listed "Nonvoters" in Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Voters/Nonvoters and am re-checking the "Ignored".--miya (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It kind of strange to put in a final round images that got more than 2 times less votes than declined images only because they were winners and/or second places in a category.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is the rule of this POTY as well as the last one (I believe category winners had been adopted to have the variety of the finalists). I wish you had said your opinion before the POTY began. I hope you'll join the preparation discussion for the next POTY. Thanks.--miya (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe #Jury selection (if adopted) may pick up such candidates as such cases above. --miya (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually believe that because nobody from the Committee members opposed your first proposal to include two last images, it means they did not mind it.It is much easier to do now than Jurry selection I'd say, but whatever... As I said, if the images that got more than 200 votes is denied getting to the finals, and the images that got less than 100 votes are getting to the finals, there something terribly wrong with rules.It is like the votes of majority are simply discarded. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I worked on the "Ignored" list on tools twice again and found several voters to be passed: Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Voters/Nonvoters#Pass. --miya (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mbz1. Because those two images have a sufficiently high number of votes, I have no issues with adding them to the list of finalists --Gue rillero 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for approval, Guerillero. I made the Finalists gallery, Small, Large and Index. If these are OK, then we can go further.--miya (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to me we can go further. Its already too late. --Srikant Kedia 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment below.

Date for Round 2

As announced above, shall we start on the 15th? Maybe from Sunday(15th00:00) to the nest Sunday(22th23:59) ?--miya (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to that --Gue rillero 02:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's go for 10 days. I saw some complaints last time that some people missed Round 1 because of a short holiday. --99of9 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ten days it is. We'll run it from May 18 to May 28 (we should be able to get a global banner). theMONO 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"May 18 to May 28", OK - maybe we should use the first day to fix the POTY pages here and there.--miya (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoosh. The deadline flew by. How about tomorrow? If anyone sees hoo, please direct him to me. theMONO 01:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"May 19 00:00(UTC) to May 29 23:59(UTC)"? OK. Then we should update pages.--miya (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yessss, you should !

--Warp3 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the final decision? We have a big confusion about that, on this site there is written "May 19 00:00(UTC) to May 29 23:59(UTC)" and voting really started and votes were casted, but now voting pages were locked. --Jklamo (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the voting mess. Is voting opened or closed? Are the votes already casted valid or invalid? Communicate. Badzil (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Preparation for the (re)start of round 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Today we decided to do the following in order to be able to (re)start the 2nd round as fast as possible. The votes of images which aren't clearly second in their categories (eg. with only 2 votes difference) need to be rechecked per hand (the 2nd and 3rd position of that category). This rechecking will be done in the following way:

All votes filed per hand which are marked as invalid will be rechecked (there are capitalization issue with hand filed templates which the script doesn't recognize correctly)
Double votes will be found and counted out
Per hand striked out votes will be counted out as well.

If that's done, we can restart the 2nd round with the then clear results. As far as I see it now, only the following five categories do have border cases and need a per hand recheck, all other categories seem to be clear. Arthropods, Birds, Bones, Artworks, People. It would be fine if you could give us your opinion about that - Hoo man (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Who and where decided? Undocumented features and hidden discussions (i guess somwhere on mailinglist or IRC) are largest problem of this year POTY. I want to help with vote checking, but i have absolutely no idea, how is this year checking running (and it is not described anwhere in wiki; there are lot of pages with number like Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/ALL/Table or Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/Checking, but no descriptions). A few weeks ago i did by myself manual checking on Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/R1/File:Frontal lobe animation.gif and my result was 186 votes. In linked table is 181 - i have no idea from where this number came from. --Jklamo (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jklamo. Those numbers are come from Kalan's tool output. This year we are lucky to have verious bots and tools to help the checking. Unfortunately there was confusion about how to reflect the output of them. The tool's output was almost correct with some (misterious to me) exceptions. I checked the 2nd and 3rd position of each category and estimated they are clearly 2nd and 3rd even if there are exceptions, and made the list above.

I was surprised when the Voting was suspended, but after all it was my fault - I had relied on the output of counting tools (maybe too much) and hadn't filled the checking table with the count of votepages. I'm afraid that was why people doubted the correctness of would-be finalists and hastily suspend the voting.--miya (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I forgot to prepare the result pages as well.--miya (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Finalists (2)

According to the rechecking page the rechecking has been completed? I also struggled to put the vote count on votelists into Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/Checking, doing dupe check on their discussion pages. Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1/ALL/Table is not completed yet. If all the 2nd and 3rd have not changed, the finalists would be the same as listed above. Shall we make the result galleries in Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1 as below?--miya (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Category tops

Diagrams #1 > 187 Vote
Diagrams #2 > 186 Vote
Artworks #1 > 166 Vote
Artworks #2 > 110 Vote
People #1 > 244 Vote
People #2 > 151 Vote
Constructions #1 > 273 Vote
Constructions #2 > 270 Vote
Interiors and details #1 > 163 Vote
Interiors and details #2 > 157 Vote
Objects #1 > 271 Vote
Objects #2 > 168 Vote
Rocks and minerals #1 > 304 Vote
Rocks and minerals #2 > 153 Vote
Vehicles #1 > 188 Vote
Vehicles #2 > 177 Vote
Nature #1 > 256 Vote
Nature #2 > 206 Vote
Astronomy #1 > 305 Vote
Astronomy #2 > 210 Vote
Panoramas #1 > 195 Vote
Panoramas #2 > 189 Vote
Plants and fungi #1 > 182 Vote
Plants and fungi #2 > 161 Vote
Arthropods #1 > 220 Vote
Arthropods #2 > 87 Vote
Birds #1 > 158 Vote
Birds #2 > 136 Vote
Mammals #1 > 244 Vote
Mammals #2 > 189 Vote
Other animals #1 > 263 Vote
Other animals #2 > 222 Vote
Bones and shells #1 > 174 Vote
Bones and shells #2 > 101 Vote

Tops over all (more than 200 votes)

Astronomy #1 > 305 Vote
Rocks and minerals #1 > 304 Vote
Constructions #1 > 273 Vote
Objects #1 > 271 Vote
Constructions #2 > 270 Vote
Other animals #1 > 263 Vote
Nature #1 > 256 Vote
People #1 > 244 Vote
Mammals #1 > 244 Vote
Other animals #2 > 222 Vote
Arthropods #1 > 220 Vote
Constructions #3 > 219 Vote
Constructions #4 > 214 Vote
Astronomy #2 > 210 Vote
Nature #2 > 206 Vote

This looks good. ---donald- (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted it to Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/R1.--miya (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Date for the end of the Final

Hello. The voting button seems ON today (May 29). So I propose to extend the date to end the Final round as "until the end of the next Sunday", that is "until May 5 23:59 (Sunday)".--miya (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(as discussed in IRC) Yes, sounds good as not everybody is active on every day ;) Some people probably are only active on weekends. All contributors should have the chance to vote and we should take the chance to advertise commons. Maybe it could run even longer - but then it would (not sure if needed) end in the middle of the week. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Look what I have found: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Preparation#Dates: Final "May 29 00:00(UTC) to June 7 23:59(UTC)" as set by Beria (2011-05-28, 23:24:07). Then this - and it should go to the front banner somewhere. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I wouldn't oppose to the date of vote closure. Yet can't we make the date as "From may 19 to June 7 (including pending time)" or like that, because the votes cast on May 19 should be treated fairly.--miya (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility of the irregular votes

votes before May 19

Ineligible? Is some warning necessary? --miya (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

votes on May 19 or 20

There are rrelatively many votes cast on May 19 or 20 (or even later, before May 29, if any). I think they should be treated as eligible, because there is no fault on their side. --miya (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing which creates a big bias towards some images - e.g. a non working image randomization - then I see no big problem to treat them as valid. Voting pages should not be editable if the voting is not running and the page does not have a big warning on top. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not single votes

If a voter should cast more than one vote, what shall we do? How about doing like this:

During the voting period - to post a warning to cancel extra votes in their talkpage.
After the voting period over - if there remain any extravotes, make only the last vote eligible.

--miya (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should the last vote be the most favoured one? No, I do not think this a fair idea. As it is impossible to find out which vote was the vote for the most favoured image all should be cancelled (step 2 new). It is stated clearly at several places that there is only one vote in this round.

If step 1 is missed by "us" then "step 2 new" should be used, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you do about "You voted multiple times in Round 2" section in Template:2010POTY/Ineligible? --Warp3 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would do it as the template says: "Your vote has been struck and will not be counted.". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for cross-posting (from Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010#Checking_multi-voting). I've written a script to identify multiple voters, and it seems there are hundreds of voters who have voted more than once. I'll post a list later today. --Avenue (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. See that link for updates. --Avenue (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitenotice

What should we do with Sitenotice?--miya (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Put one up asap. --99of9 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Final results

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

It looks the Top 3 as well as TOP 10 are selected, thanks to the people who did checking and cross-checking. Is there any (big) proplems? Can we announce the Results?

Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/Final

Final # 1 - 241 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 2 - 180 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 3 - 170 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 4 - 161 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 5 - 145 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 6 - 140 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 7 - 120 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 8 - 116 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 9 - 91 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 10 - 88 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 11 - 74 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 11 - 74 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 13 - 71 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 14 - 69 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 15 - 63 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 15 - 63 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 17 - 59 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 18 - 50 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 18 - 50 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 18 - 50 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 21 - 43 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 22 - 40 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 23 - 36 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 24 - 32 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 24 - 32 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 26 - 29 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 27 - 27 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 28 - 25 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 28 - 25 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 28 - 25 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 28 - 25 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 32 - 22 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 33 - 20 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 34 - 9 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final # 35 - 1 votes
Votelist (R2)
Final ## - 16 votes (before it was DQed)
Votelist (R2)

Though there are some discussions on the eligibilty in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010#Almost done tallying results, they would not change the TOP 3 as well as the Top 10. If anyone think the votes mentioned there should be counted off, please add colon ":" to those votes so that the vote numbers of the result pages should be corrected. Thanks. --miya (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another discussion page >> Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/Final/Checking.--miya (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please post them.--Chaser (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As you've noted it wouldn't affect the top 3 or 10. Hopefully the community is not too put off by any missteps. Further delays should be avoided. If any beyond the top ten are in dispute regarding their ranking, we can simply only report the top ten in our results presentation. – Adrignola talk 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, tomorrow, I'll contact the WMF and get the ball rolling for announcing this stuff. If you'd like to help, please contact me (by email or in the IRC channel would be nice). theMONO 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering the question Miya posted in my page: "No"! We can't close the POTY yet, for a very simple reason: There are more than 300 people who voted twice, and their last vote are valid. In none of those counts those votes are counted, and 300 votes can change everything. Béria Lima ^msg 07:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please tell us how you found "There are more than 300 people who voted twice, and their last vote are valid."?--miya (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikitanvir/POTY2010 <- Here. Béria Lima ^msg 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Next year we really need to use Special:SecurePoll. – Adrignola talk 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not going to happen. theMONO 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll see about that. If I let one person shoot down any ideas I had I wouldn't get anywhere. – Adrignola talk 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The 300 votes are votes from users that voted more than once, not complying by the voting rules. Any votes made by these users are invalid and will not be counted. theMONO 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

According with "Saint Mono"? Because there are nothing in the rules about that. Béria Lima ^msg 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. But still, do the rules not say "In the final round each eligible user is allowed to vote only once, for only one of the finalist images." ? theMONO 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: As I had mentioned at /Preparation#Not_single_votes: Why should the last vote be the most favoured one? No, I do not think this a fair idea. As it is impossible to find out which vote was the vote for the most favoured image all should be cancelled. It is stated clearly at several places that there is only one vote in this round. Just to note: Some other discussion about this topic was at /Large#What_happens_if_I_vote_for_more_than_one_picture.3F Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's too late, Beria. Sorry I can't support you in this last stage of the contest. You should have expressed your opinion at /Preparation#Not_single_votes before the Round 2 ended and the checking began. When I proposed to "make only the last vote eligible", no one (including YOU) seconded/supported me and my proposal was taken down - it meant that all the people exept me consider or accept to "make all the multiple votes uneligible". So it's too late to insist the same idea which was taken down in on-wiki discussion before.--miya (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Yet, thank you for expressing your sincere opinion.--miya (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late with this comment. My personal views on multiple votes are that counting just their last vote seems very arbitrary, and counting their first vote seems only slightly better. Short of recontacting all the multiple voters and giving them another chance to choose their favourite picture, the only two fair counting methods I can see are (a) count the multiple votes as fractional votes (e.g. a person who voted for 3 pictures adds 1/3 of a vote to each); or (b) count none of the multiple votes. I thought from the discussions at /Preparation#Not_single_votes and various other places that method (b) had consensus support (although I don't think method (a) was ever discussed), so I've tried to help implement it. I don't have a strong view about which of (a) and (b) would be better. Method (b) is more in line with the rules, but the substantial proportion of voters who voted more than once suggests that the rules were not communicated well enough. Method (b) at least has the advantage that it has already been implemented. Since the results haven't been announced, I don't think it's too late to change tack if there's a clear consensus for change, but so far the discussion seems to favour method (b) over counting just the last vote. What does everyone think about recontacting multiple voters, or counting them as fractional votes? --Avenue (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow.