Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2011/Preparation

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Picture of the Year
    The Sixth Annual Wikimedia Commons POTY Contest
Thanks for your participation! The 2011 winners have been announced!



To do list[edit]

  • Translate {{2011POTY}} into many languages. Lots were translated last year, so the easiest way (for example Spanish) is to copy Template:2010POTY/es to Template:2011POTY/es, and change the word for "fifth" to "sixth".
  • Discuss voting categories & round/selection structure.
  • Prepare the category galleries once the categories are decided.
  • Prepare the "by-date" categories.

Later:

  • Check that all FP's are included in exactly one category gallery.


Voting categories[edit]

Analysis of last year[edit]

Last year the categories were as follows:

Round 1 voting has ended! Do not vote any more!
Galleries by categories
  1. Diagrams, emblems, and maps
     (18)
  2. Non-photographic art, posters, stamps, and historic maps
     (40)
  3. People and human activities
     (45)
  4. Constructions, architecture, cities, ruins, and related
     (68)
  5. Interiors and details
     (42)
  6. Objects and miscellaneous
     (45)
  7. Rocks and minerals
     (32)
  8. Vehicles
     (49)
  9. Nature views
     (61)
  10. Astronomy, satellite and outer space
     (26)
  11. Panoramas
     (75)
  12. Plants and fungi
     (33)
  13. Arthropods
     (52)
  14. Birds
     (74)
  15. Mammals
     (46)
  16. Other animals
     (39)
  17. Bones, shells, and fossils
     (37)
All or half of the 2010 featured pictures

What do you all think of how that was distributed? What worked well/poorly?

Suggestions for this year[edit]

Category[edit]

I think it's worth trying to choose categories which will have similar sizes, to give each image a similar number of competitors to get through to the next round. --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to compare apples with apples whenever possible. --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair, but not easy to carry out because the sizes of each categories are various. The only possible way, I guess, is to choose the finalists irrelevant to the categories in Round 1 just like they did in POTY2007. See here:
Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Voting#Round 1
In the first round (10-17 January 2008), all eligible voters can vote for as many images in all categories as they want. The top 28 images, by number of votes, from any category will go to the final round - the categories are irrelevant when it comes to counting the votes.
If you still hope to choose category winners, you can choose them from the finalists in the Final round.　--miya (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I counted how many files in each (temporary) category. The sizes of categories are quite different from each other as well as from the ones last year. Perhaps we can choose winners from broader categories such as:

  • Plants and fungi
  • Animals
  • People
  • Nature views
  • Constructions
  • Panoramas
  • Non-phtographic files
  • Objects and miscellaneous

--miya (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slideshow[edit]

Animation Thumbnailing[edit]

Last year some animations were over the 12.5MPx limit for animated thumbnailing, and I believe their votes suffered as a result. I suggest that we upload a scaled down version of each animation (to 12.5MPx) to ensure that all animated gifs are animated in the gallery. --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the question whether they should be in the same category as (non-animated) photos. -- RE rillke questions? 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found 3 gif animations and 1 ogv. Is there any more animated files? They are to be categorized among "Non-phtographic files". --miya (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ◆2011/05-14
    ◆2011/05-14
  • ◆2011/05-14
    ◆2011/05-14
  • ◆2011/06-24
    ◆2011/06-24
  • ◆2011/05-51

Translation[edit]

This year, please use parameter-templates. It is not feasible to translate/change the state (r1 voting closed, ...) in an appropriate time so the visitors get false information otherwise. -- RE rillke questions? 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: create something like {{POTY2011/state}} and all translations use a {{#switch: {{2011POTY-State}} so they are always up to date and do not need additional editing. -- RE rillke questions? 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations. You can test it with (&uselang=de / &uselang=en). -- RE rillke questions? 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules[edit]

I would suggest not to disqualify an image after voting has started. The last-year example just caused confusion. If it is deleted according to our rules that's something different but then, there should be no successor. -- RE rillke questions? 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. A deletion request alone is not enough reason to disqualify an image. --Avenue (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. But there is also question, what to do with images, that were disqualified (but not deleted). Should we add them to this year competition ?
Will you show us which images were disqualified (but not deleted)? --miya (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg was disqualified from final, then all votes for File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg (as replacement for previous one) were deleted. --Jklamo (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was very regrettable that the image was made disqualified in the final round, though it is difficult to add them to this year competition. I agree that "a deletion request alone is not enough reason to disqualify an image." We should make it clear that no candidate should not be disqualified without careful discussion as long as they are not deleted. --miya (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Script[edit]

Ensure this works for all browsers including IE and Chromium before open voting. Last year people thought they've voted with Chrome but the vote was not saved. -- RE rillke questions? 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, its better than before. --Katarighe (Talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Abuse-Filter to prevent[edit]

Some practical considerations[edit]

This page is a work in progress page, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.
Please offer suggestions on the talk page.

Dates[edit]

It is only a plan.--miya (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Round 1 (if possible) 20 April (Friday) 00:00(UTC) - 30 April (Monday) 23:59(UTC)
  • Final (if the checking is finished in time) 4 May (Friday) 00:00(UTC) - 14 may (Monday) 23:59(UTC)
  •  Oppose - that's far not enough time to test everything before you invite hundreds of visitors. Also don't do this so swiftly after the update to MW1.20 or while updating. The results will be a catastrophe. -- RE rillke questions? 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voter eligibility[edit]

This is a proposal:
  1. ...you registered before 2012-01-01
  2. ...and have more than 200 edits before 2012-01-01 (that is 31 December 2011 (UTC)/1 January 2012, 00:00 (UTC) in any single Wikimedia project.

Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another Wikimedia project. For other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL.

--Miya (talk) 2012-04-06T17:11:45 (UTC)

Thank you for your suport, 99of9. Yet there was a new proposal to lower the bar - Mono posted "75" as a temporary number here. When I demanded the reason on mailing list he said Philippe encouraged the concept of lowering the required number of edits to vote ("50" or so). Perhaps it may be more user friendry, I guess. [Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Committee/IRC Meeting 2|On IRC]] it is suggested to make the criteria as “100 edits before 2012-03-01”, or “100 edits on any wiki before 2012-04-01 && registration before 2011-04-01”, but it was also suggested that the exact values should be discussed onwiki. /// Anyway we should have some criteria to check the votes. As these numbers are arbitrary, it may be not bad to lower the number and see what will be the result so long as we can check the votes by Kalan's software. If we dont start the contest in January (like this year) it doesnt have to be "2012-01-01", either. So how do you think about below. --miya (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ...registered before (2012-01-01 / 2012-04-01 )
  2. ...more than (50 / 75 / 100 / 200) edits before then

No opinion? Then how about this.I dont know whic is better - 75 or 100.--miya (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ...registered before 2012-04-01
  2. ...more than (75 / 100) before then

Still no opinion? I personally mailed Philippe who replied that we're not selecting governancewas and reminded me of the feedback in POTY2010 feedback. As there is no objection, let's make the voter eligibility as more than 75 and before 2012-04-01 like this:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before 2012-04-01
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits before 2012-04-01 (that is 31 March 2012 (UTC)/1 April 2012, 00:00 (UTC) in any single Wikimedia project.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another Wikimedia project. For other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL.

--miya (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer 100, but i have no strong objection against 75. --Jklamo (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no strong objection, let's adopt "75" as Mono wrote.--miya (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tools
no exceptions?

Mono posted the text below to Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Preparation#Eligibility:

Due to the large vote volume, we are unable to accept voters that do not meet this criteria as determined by the official POTY 2011 voter eligibility tool.

This may be a good/practical idea.--miya (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds practical, but tool may be erroneous in some cases (like different username on different projects). Any statistic how many cases last year? If only small number, we can handle it. --Jklamo (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"different username on different projects" can be a problem unless we wouldn't decide how to treat it before the vote start. Yet I believe software checking can be equal to every vote - more fair/equal than manual verification (more errors and miscalculation　would happen if checked manually by many people).--miya (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image eligibility[edit]

How about this.--miya (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1
  • All FPs from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.
Final
  • The top 32 images from Round 1, by number of votes, from any category will go to the final round - the categories are irrelevant when it comes to counting the votes.
No candidate should not be disqualified or replaced without careful discussion as long as they are not deleted (ex. A deletion request alone is not enough reason to disqualify an image.)
  •  Oppose I like the (precedent) category based method, it guarantees a diverse final, and rewards contributors of all kinds of content. If an image isn't even top three in its category, it won't be top three in the finals, so there's no point putting it in at the expense of something from a totally different category. --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most category #1s may be within top 32s, I suppose. How about "Top 32 plus Category #1s if they are not within top 32" (sorry for my poor english) to guarantees a diverse final. --miya (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer also category-based method to reach diverse finale. Your proposed modified rule (32+cat tops) sounds better (why just 32? why not 30 or 35?). --Jklamo (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "diverse finale" is important. The reason for "32" is just that it is 4 images in 7 lines. Anyway it may be as many as 32+16 if top 32 be all in one category (though it would hardly happen).--miya (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • The top 32 images from Round 1, by number of votes, from any category will go to the final round - the categories are irrelevant when it comes to counting the votes.
  • If category #1 are not in the top 32s, they will be also promoted to the Final to guarantees a diverse final.

How many finalists?[edit]

How about 28 or 32 or finalists. We may add some more if there are border cases.--miya (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestion? Then let's make it 32 as posted to the draft. --miya (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition we should not disqualify or replace any candidate without careful discussion as long as they are not deleted (ex. A deletion request alone is not enough reason to disqualify an image.).--miya (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32x finalists is OK. Thanks for your work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above (#Image eligibility), "32 + category #1s" may be more preferable to reach diverse finale.--miya (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If no picture of one category is among the top 32s, the picture with the most votes from this category will also participate in the next round in order to guarantee a diverse final. Thus there can be more than 32 pictures in the final." is ambiguous. Galleries by month should not be included, right? -- RE rillke questions? 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. What should we do the wordings be about Galleries by month? --miya (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we change the layout and topic name? - moving "the gallery by month" to the place under the "gallery by category" and changing the topic as "FPs by month"?--miya (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable idea. And changing the wording to "If no picture of one topic category ". -- RE rillke questions? 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Proposed categories as of 14 April
  1. Plants and fungi (31)
  2. Arthropods (50)
  3. Birds (58)
  4. Mammals (20)
  5. Other animals (38)
  6. People and human activities (32)
  7. Nature views (35)
  8. Panoramic nature views (28)
  9. Panoramic views (33)
  10. Constructions, cities, ruins, and related (36)
  11. Architecture (34)
  12. Interiors and details (34)
  13. Diagrams, encyclopedic illustrations, emblems, and maps (27)
  14. Non-photographic art, drawings, posters and stamps (35)
  15. Vehicles and crafts (45)
  16. Skeleton, Mummies and fossils (39)
  17. Objects and miscellaneous (24)
Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/layout

I made category sizes as over 20 and under 60. --miya (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POTY barnstar[edit]

We need barnstars. Below are the last year's ones. Will anyone make the ones for 2011?--miya (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

To be translated after the English version is prepared.

Voting rules[edit]

Until last year it was multiple vote in Round 1 and single vote in the Final. Is this OK? Or should it be multiple vote in the Final, too?--miya (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think for final we should have multiple vote as well but people should be able to pick their first second third etc. A bit like how wm2012:Schedule/Submission review is calculated where there is a 1-7 vote range. Photo that has the highest points wins. This is my proposal. People in this case should vote through a template where their first, second, ... nth choices are structured. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Three winners = three posible votings. And perhaps first place voting = three points, second = two points, third pkace = one point as alternative. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) P.S and think about the big trouble with the round two last year = multiple votings!!![reply]
I don't think we can manage "three points" or "two points" and so on...that'll make things further complicated. Yet if multiple votings are allowed in the Final, "the big trouble" like last year may occur. How about this:
  • In the first round, eligible users may vote for as many images as they wish to support (one vote per image).
  • In the final round eligible users are recommended to vote only once, but if they cannot choose only one of the finalist images, they may vote for multiple images.
--miya (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: "multiple votings" how much? No, I think the rule must be more exact: you can vote for "three images" and not more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no... "and not more" would make the checking so complicated and we would not be able to finish checking.--

miya (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC) How about this text. It allows mutliple vote, but doesn't allow voters to vote for an image which they don't think good enough to be a finalist or the winner of POTY.--miya (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Round 1, eligible users may vote for as many images as they think worthy to be a POTY finalist (one vote per image).
  • In the Final, eligible users may vote for as many images as they think worthy to be the POTY (one vote per image).
I prefer last year (and previous year) proven rule. With muliple votes in final two rounds competition does not make too much sense. --Jklamo (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we adopt the last year's rule (single vote for the Final), we should decide how to treat multiple vote and announce it before the vote start. For instance "the committee will count only the last (newest) vote as eligible".--miya (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Round 1, multiple vote - eligible users may vote for as many candidates as they wish to support (one vote per image).

In the Final round, single vote - eligible users may vote for only one finalist. Note: if a voter cast more than one vote, only the latest (newest) vote are counted as eligible"

Accepted & will be implemented in the App: Only 1 vote, otherwise remove previous votes. -- RE rillke questions? 08:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system[edit]

MONO wrote on 03:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC): "the committee also decided not to implement a voting extension or voting tool; a voting button script will be used instead." I'd like to know how is the voting button script like - the same one as last year's?--miya (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"One page per user" sounds good but there is no precedent and I don't know whether we can manage it (at least I cant). I prefer "One page per picture" for this contest.--miya (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's fix it as "One page per picture" like the years before.--miya (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testing the button[edit]

In case we adopt "One page per picture", we should test the button. I made a test gallery, Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/Example. Will anyone activate the button script and test it?--miya (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy and modify poty.js and activate MediaWiki:Common.js button script if possible.--miya (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The voting script should check eligibility. User:Kalan/poty.js does not. There are also cross-browser compatibility-issues. I though you have an improved script. Why no one is said this before? This is pretty frustrating.
Will someone improve the script? Otherwise I will do but this will need 14 days of time. -- RE rillke questions? 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believed Mono was busy improving the script, but he stopped editing for more than two weeks (gone even from IRC #poty2011), and I don't know whether he would come back or not, nor what kind of script he was preparing. So I gave up waiting and tried to re-start the preparation with our old script, though I can't prepare nor improve any script. Rillke, your voting script would be a button system? Can you join IRC #poty2011?--miya (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke, will you improve the script? I believe we can (rather should) wait 14 days. If your script can check eligibility, it will be very helpful and save much time of checking in the end. Will you tell us how your script will work (button or not, etc.) so that we can prepare the documents and votepages? Thanks.--miya (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply improve Kalan's script to use jQuery, avoid evil eval, the solution, look and feel is open. Just tell me what you want and, if possible, you'll get it. One could, for example, make the whole image a button like


Head of Milvus migrans (file description) Voting statistics

But if Kalan agrees to improve it himself, I would be pleased and can save a lot of time. -- RE rillke questions? 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This button looks nice. I just suggest that displaying each image's topic (such as "Head of Milvus migrans") would be a really hard work, while several files has long topic (for example, File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg or File:Turtle golfina escobilla oaxaca mexico claudio giovenzana 2010.jpg). I believe No.(No.201108-32 means the 32nd image of 2011 Aug FPs) and the link to file description page is sufficient as below.--miya (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I withdraw own idea with image number--miya (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to test the button script here and show the rest of us how the button would work.. Thanks.--miya (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope I find the time this weekend to code this up. It's just an incredible workload on Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 20:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pathoschild kindly updated his tool: http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&event=24 .--miya (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my former idea to show the No. on buttons which may be not simple as a template. I post some other samples:
Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg (file description) Voting statistics can you fold this(above) long file topic?
Vote for this image Voting statistics - file description
Click and vote for this imagefile description Voting statistics

Now I feel any idea is ok as long as it suits the template.--miya (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last two samples are also nice and will create less problems. -- RE rillke questions? 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The voting App is now ready to use and for translations but not entirely complete (error handlers for failed edits missing and perhaps more). You can test it on Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/Example.-- RE rillke questions? 18:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking system[edit]

As far as I heard, we have a checking system (Kalan's tool), an improved one compared to the last year's. --miya (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Source code? JavaScript or Toolserver Tool? -- RE rillke questions? 20:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I know is just this output.--miya (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intransparent³[edit]

Why and who is responsible for making everything that intransparent?

I won't enter anything in a page that is not on wiki and is not driven by WMF. The one who made this form also failed to tell the user whether the password is visible to him/her or not and how the data will be used and whether the IP-address will be saved and so on.

Is there a voting extension? If you want to start in 10d, I am seriously concerned and I will block the voting if I should find out that there are too many gaps and unknown points. -- RE rillke questions? 09:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mono told something about a voting extension and you set up galleries... is there a working voting system? -- RE rillke questions? 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what Rillke feels about wufoo.com site - people should be able to join the committee without using unknown forms "in a page that is not on wiki and is not driven by WMF". Wikimail is safer and easier, for instance. // I don't know if there is a voting extension. I only hear that there will be a checking system better than that of last year. I made galleries because they are necessary whether there be a voting system or not.--miya (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also generally oppose the move off-wiki. I have just directly signed up to the organizing committee on the Committee page. --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you subscribed to the POTY mailing list? And join the IRC channel #POTY2011.--miya (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. --99of9 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email to 99of9, but I will re-iterate some of the points. The software that runs the Wikimedia Commons, MediaWiki, provides no way to accomplish what the external tool does efficiently. Absolutely no personally identifiable information is collected by the form (the password field clearly states "Type a password used for our help system. Do not use your Wikimedia Commons password"). No IP address information is collected and the Wikimedia Foundation has cleared the use of the form in an email sent to me; I am a trusted user and I am most certainly not attempting to mine data or hijack accounts. In favor of openness, the committee also decided not to implement a voting extension or voting tool; a voting button script will be used instead. I also doubt that voting will begin in 10 days due to the lack of translation and promotion at this point. I would like to remind users who object that these decisions were made almost a month ago and no objections were raised at the time. I would also like to remind the editors that this a committee effort that strives for consensus, but must operate in a manner that creates a successful contest. No editor has the authority to "block the voting" and such an action could be considered malicious. Like many large-scale community efforts, like the English Wikipedia's main page content selection system, is rather closed atypical to the wiki nature. This might be considered off-putting, but it is a "the ends justify the means" scenario designed to create a fabulous contest. theMONO 03:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, it was malicious that when clicking the voting button with certain browsers, the vote was not saved and the fact that the committee did not care (in time) enough about the questions of confused users. Consider also watching COM:HD and COM:VP, please.
I am just annoyed by the fact that there are no information-updates. First, you promised to write a voting extension for MediaWiki, which I believe is a good idea because we not have a suitable one, yet and the source code will be published so one can ensure there are no manipulations possible. But such development needs time, I know.
Finally, thanks for the message, now I am a bit more up-to-date. If you want translators, you should perhaps ask at COM:VP, Template:Requested translations, IRC (wikipedias), ... I don't do so because I don't know what you exactly want to be translated and whether the English version will change after translation is done. -- RE rillke questions? 10:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, do you really expect someone to step through the jungle at Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Template for translation? If you don't oppose, I am going to refractor some pages this weekend to make translation possible for everyone. I am in UTC- time zone and if I've questions concerning how you imagined this POTY, I will attempt to contact someone in IRC. -- RE rillke questions? 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing categories for some images[edit]

Hi Miya, Thanks for the work you've done making the galleries. There are a handful which are in the wrong category IMO. What is the best way/place to change these? --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries?--miya (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Eligibility" page[edit]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Eligibility
Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Eligibility/en

I made Eligibility page modifying last year's version and Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Preparation. Please check it. Thanks.--miya (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC) And of course please improve it. I know my English is aweful. :)--miya (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Introduction" page[edit]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Introduction
Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Introduction/en

I started Introduction page. Please check and improve it. Thanks.--miya (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting "subpages"[edit]

ResolvedRE rillke questions? 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/Example.jpg

  • Should they be located at Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/'ｃ'<name>.ext or at Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/<name>.ext
  • Should our visitors be able to vote using the App on this page or only on gallery pages?

-- RE rillke questions? 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work!
  • Whether with File: or without depends on which suits to the script more. If there is no difference on the part of the script, isn't it "the shorter, the better"?
  • Voters may like to vote using the App on this page as well as on gallery pages. But if it is rather difficult, a button to jump back to the gallery ("history.back()" or like that?) may be OK. --miya (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no opposes, I am going to create the subpages without File:. -- RE rillke questions? 10:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify Template:2011POTY/Round1header or create something new to suit for the voting script. Thanks.--miya (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date to start Round 1[edit]

Now the voting script is nearly ready (except translations), let's fix the date of Round 1, if possible. How about this.--miya (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of POTY 2011
from 26 May 2012 00:00 [UTC] (Saturday)
to 4 June 2012 23:59 [UTC] (Monday).
  • I think we must ensure we addressed all last year's flaws before. Perhaps someone could make a checklist? And of course we need more test voters. I will set up a more extensive test environment... -- RE rillke questions? 08:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The big problems of last year were
    • divergence between the manual checking and the script checking of voter eligibility
      We are going to use only the script checking this time.
    • Multiple vote in Round 2
      We can stop Multiple vote by script or filter; we decided that the latest (newest) vote will be counted as eligible.
    Do you remember anything else? Perhaps we should check 2010 feedback again.--miya (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testing period[edit]

Perhaps we should have a testing period like open beta test - for example:

  • from 2012-05-26 to several days later
    • Only announcing on Commons-l and Commons sitenotice
    • Asking voters to test voting (their votes will be counted as eligible) and report bug if any.
    • if script works well on test voting, then let's announce on foundation-l and central notice that POTY is now open until 2012-06-XX.

--miya (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. This way we will also get more translations before the big fuss starts. -- RE rillke questions? 19:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see...

I posted a sitenotice for beta test in Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/en#Round 1 (Open Beta testing).--Miya-test (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open as a beta testing.
Help reporting bugs and internationalizing the contest. (Learn more...)

-- RE rillke questions? 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

full opening and centralnotice[edit]

It seems voting script is working well. Can we go on from beta testing to full opening around tomorrow? If so, how can we display the central(global?)notice? (Sorry I dont know how to do that.)--miya (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We need Meta-admins for that. For example User:Beria is a meta-admin. Just post an e-Mail to the POTY-Mailinglist. I tend to say we could even start today, if we get the banners up. Mono made some suggestion, in IRC, perhaps we can simply use them. -- RE rillke questions? 09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special candidates[edit]

Complicated, indeed. It is included in Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2011-A and has been featured at a 2nd attempt here >> Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pieris rapae ce1.jpg (2nd attempt).--miya (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the featured version is File:Pieris rapae edit2.jpg. I'll correct Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2011-A.--miya (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link in Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/Arthropods[edit]

Vote link for File:Pieris rapae edit2.jpg in Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/Arthropods links to unexisting page Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/File:Pieris rapae edit2.jpg when it should link to Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/R1/Pieris rapae edit2.jpg. /Ö 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link corrected. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 14:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R2 voting[edit]

At Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Feedback#Voting system, some users wanted multiple votes or a system of preferential voting in R2. This could be implemented in the App.

A nice demo on how it could work is at http://jqueryui.com/demos/droppable/#photo-manager (of course not moving to trash but an ordered list like http://jqueryui.com/demos/droppable/#shopping-cart). We would just have to know how to count those preferential votes. -- RE rillke questions? 22:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preferential voting system sound like nice compromise between single and mulitple vote. But the system is not easy to explain (and all explainations must be translated), also changing rules during the game is not a good idea. So my opinion - nice idea for next year, but not for now. --Jklamo (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will have less work. Very goood. -- RE rillke questions? 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2011/Preparation&oldid=124964711"