Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Preparation

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fourth Annual Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year

(Preparation) · (Translations) · (Discussion) · Organising committee · (Issues / Help)

Introduction & dates · Voting · Round 1: Galleries · Round 2: Finalists · Results · Download

For reference see:

Request for help

[edit]

making votepages

[edit]

Please help making votepages such as Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/R1/File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg.

At first find red link here:

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, 751-800, 801-850, 851-

and then make votepages using:

{{subst:2009POTY/Votepage}}

Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton did this all done. Thanks!--miya (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

[edit]

I was making warning templates to notify voters whose vote got ineligible:

I tried to make them shorter but couldn't (my English is awful!) - Please help brushing them up!--miya (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some practical considerations

[edit]

Dates

[edit]

How about:

  • Round 1 : January 2010 ("6-20" for example)
  • Final : Feburary 2010 ("1-15" if possible!)

--miya (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too much time, in my opinion. Past experience has shown that people loose interest if the process is too long. For me, 8 days is enough for voting . Also, why not start the final round shortly after round 1 is over, like in the two first events? I wonder if the applications used two years ago could be restored. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there should be only a minimal gap between Round 1 and the final (perhaps a day or two, depending on how long it takes the team to prepare for the final). As for the length of each round, I think the final should be a lot shorter than Round 1 (say, 6-8 days). Both since the final is going to have a lot fewer pictures than Round 1, but also since most people who voted in Round 1 will be aware of when the final will be and for how long it will last, and (in my opinion) not too many people who didn't vote in Round 1 are going to vote in the final. Round 1 has to last for a while to let people who aren't usually active in Commons become aware that the PotY voting is going on (especially so on projects that aren't EnWP), while we don't have that problem in the Final. --Aqwis (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Alvesgaspar and Aqwis. One thing we certainly don't want to happen is for people to lose interest. Too long a gap between voting and results will cause just that. -- JovanCormac 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "8 days is enough for voting"? Such as "Round 1 : January 2010 "5-12" (for example)"?
    As to the gap between Round 1 and the final...if you can restore "the applications used two years ago", that would be very very nice, indeed. There were 501 FPs in 2008. In 2009 there are already around 600 by the end of September.--miya (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree about the 8 days as well. Regarding the 2007 application, I don't know if I can make that, it basically depends on my university schedule. I will know more in a few weeks though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When are we going to start the public vote? I think we should start during late February. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"During late Feburary"? not in January?--miya (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think it will be too early. We're not done yet (which is a big issue) and people are quite busy at this time of the year. Better to get this right than wrong, IMO. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • February seems good to me, and I would also try to keep the voting time short. Most voters will be during the first two to three days, after this few people will only vote, and by keeping the vote time short, people don't have to wait that long until it's clear which one is the POTY. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we also need to be realistic about the amounts of time required for vote-processing; although i 'emphatically agree that we can't affords to have "lag time" in the competition. in particular, after voting closes we need to produce something about the results asap; even if it's a "preliminary report of results, pending verification by the poty2009 committee". once the voting ends, people want & expect to hear how it turned out (also) asap, but at least within a reasonable period of time. even if there are problems (like last year) & we can't produce a final official result, we need to give the "audience" something in the interim.
i was the one who set up the "unofficial results tracker" last year, & in the month before the final decision came out, it got several thousand views, peaking @ several hundred per day. there are people out there who care about this.
part of staging a public competition is about "putting on a show"; we should keep that in mind, as we go through this "adventure" :) Lx 121 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - "8 days " and "During late Feburary"? Then...just for example,

  • 16-23 Feburary (from Tuesday to Tuesday)
  • 17-24 (from Wednesday to Wednesday)
  • 18-25 (from Thursday to Thursday)
  • 19-26 (from Friday to Friday)
  • 20-27 (from Saturday to Saturday)
  • 21-28 (from Sunday to Sunday)

--miya (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hm... what if we stretched it a little, so that we can get in 2 full weekends of voting? i'm just guessing, but i suspect that (on average) our voters will have more free time open on weekends, than during the workweek Lx 121 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "2 full weekends", then:

  • 13-21 Feburary (from Saturday to Sunday)
  • 20-28 Feburary (from Saturday to Sunday)

--miya (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

works for me :) maybe we should tentatively pencil in the 20-28th? i have no really strong opinions about which "week" would be better, but it's worse if we pick an early date & are late getting things done, than if we pick a later date & get everything finished on time... maybe we should also poll the full committee? find out what people's schedules are going to be like (over the course of the contest)? Lx 121 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hm, so much for that schedule, XD to quote robbie burns: the best laid plans o'mice and o'men gang eft agly! ;P Lx 121 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so what are our plans now? Lx 121 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image eligibility

[edit]

How about "all FPs in 2009 (from 1 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2009)" ? --miya (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Delisted files"

There are several files which were both listed and delisted as FPs in 2009. I think they are also "FPs in 2009" and can be added to the candidates. --miya (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree, though we should probably have an annotation @ the image's voting page/entry, explaining the situation. ...god help us, if/when there's an fp that was deleted! XD Lx 121 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on the subject of deleting fp's: this one may be gone soon: over a no-fop/france arguement. i'm hoping it will be a keep. it's an fp/qi/poty2007 candidate/& a potd; it's also an fp on several wikipedias ...i'm glad it's not a 2009! >__< Lx 121 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voter eligibility

[edit]

How about:

  1. You should be registered before 1 January 2009 - 1 January 2010 (on any Wikimedia project).
  2. You should have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project (before the beginning of Round 1)(before 2010-01-15T23:59). Even if you have multiple eligible accounts, you can only vote with one account.
  3. You should vote with an eligible Commons account or a SUL account which can prove your eligibility.
  4. If you fail to vote with an eligible account, you should make it clear that you are an eligible voter in some way (before 24 hours passes after the end of the vote period).(strike this rule per discussion below.--miya (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

--miya (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short:

  1. You should be registered before 1 January 2010 (on any Wikimedia project).
  2. You should have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project before 2010-01-16 (that is before 2010-01-15T24:00).
  3. You should vote with an eligible Commons account, or a SUL account which can prove your eligibility (or an account on Commons with user page linked to your eligible account's user page, and a link to your Commons account from your eligible account's user page, if you can't use your SUL account in Commons).

You can check your eligibility automatically.

Note:

  • Even if you have multiple eligible accounts, you can only vote with one account.
  • Votes from IP users are ineligible unless they are confirmed by an eligible account user as their own before the end of each Round.

--miya (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified (I took hints from meta:Stewards/elections 2010/Guidelines). Checking tool is not arranged yet.--miya (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the time of closure from "before 2010-01-15T23:59" to "before 2010-01-16 (that is before 2010-01-15T24:00)" for the sake of more precise checking of eligibility.--miya (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 1st rule

[edit]

About the 2nd rule

[edit]

I added that "you can vote with only one account".--miya (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the 3rd rule

[edit]

In case someone has a non-SUL but POTY-eligible account in a wiki other than Commons, we may add one more sentence (adopted from meta:Stewards/elections 2010/Guidelines#voters and modified) to the rule 3:

3. You shoule vote with an eligible Commons account or global account which can prove your eligibility (or an account on Commons with user page linked to your main wiki, and a link to your Commons account from your home wiki user page)

--miya (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 4th rule

[edit]

I think the last point makes no sense. You have to vote with an eligible account, it's as simple as that. If you don't have one, you can't vote. If you want to vote, use your account. If you vote without using your account, your vote will be void. No need for extra rules here IMO. -- JovanCormac 11:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the last point do make sense and should stay. However, it's preferred if you use your main account, but there may be other reasons not to do so. So I think this should indeed be there. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please enlighten me, I must admit I can't think of a single reason not to vote with your main account. -- JovanCormac 06:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is an extreme case (at least my example). A user lost/abandoned their main account password, however, the account passed the necessary requirements to vote. From there the user creates a new account. Shouldn't their previous account edits still be accounted in the same way? Why should we deny them from voting if they do indeed pass the necessary requirements to vote from their lost/abandoned account? It's still the same person editing. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in your example setting, how is the new user going to prove that he is identical to the old one without logging in? Why introduce such a complicated option??? Even in the real world, you have to be a citizen of a country to vote in the national election. You're not a citizen, bad luck, you can't vote. Allowing "well, I used to be a citizen, but I can't prove it in any way" people to vote anyway would result in a handful of people actually using that provision, and a gigantic buereocratic overhead for those few that do. Voting requires responsibility. If someone cannot vote with your own eligible account, then he or she is likely not responsible enough to vote at all. -- JovanCormac 15:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they couldn't prove it. Of course it should be proved, somehow. It can be proved through e-mail, confirmation edit or in extreme cases CU (with a good reason within the CU policy). If the user in question has just abandoned their previous account, then they may log in to the abandoned account. From there making a confirmation edit proving that they are user X and Y. Proving eligibility across alternate accounts too. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation edit? That would require having the password around in order to log in, wouldn't it??? When they log in anyway, they might as well vote! Come on, now you're making up reasons! -- JovanCormac 05:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep it simple! Why complicate the rules and procedures only to address some border cases (if any)? Disagree with the last rule. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering if someone might happen to vote without log-in on the last minuite of voting period, or those whose SUL account is used someone else in Commons yet who has enough edits on another wiki... what will become of their votes? But - OK - to "keep it simple" is important. Anyway if we are lucky enough to have a checking software available, these problems would not occur.--miya (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think rule 4 is necessary; if problems arise it can be dealt with appropriately; no need to invent special rules for this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200 edits date

[edit]

AS we cannot have fixed the beginning date of Round 1 unfortunately, I propose to fix the date when a voter shoud have 200 edits - taht is to make 

You should have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project (before the beginning of Round 1).

into: 

You should have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project (before 2010-01-15T23:59).

so that we can ask to set AccountEligibility software like this one for POTY2008 now (if possible).--miya (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Made my proposal simpler.--miya (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make the checking precise: 

You should have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project (before 2010-01-16).

--miya (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accounteligibility tool

[edit]

Can we have an accounteligibility tool like POTY2008? --miya (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system

[edit]

2007 system

[edit]

Can we have a checking software or bot this year? or shall we check votes manually? --miya (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A software would be the best, but I don't think we'll manage to get one for this year's POTY. I think we should try to get a bot. We should check the votes manually too, in case the bot makes some mistakes. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative voting system ?

[edit]

I sincerely hope someone will make an alternative voting system.--miya (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative voting-checking bot ?

[edit]

If we can't have alternative voting system, can we have voting-checking bots ? For example (though I myself am not familiar with bot or javascript):

  1. Prepare AccountEligibility software like http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/ .
  2. Prepare a javascript to check user's voting eligibility using AccountEligibility software in Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting and ask the voters to check by themselves before voting.
  3. Invite voters to use voting template which contains signiture, timestamp, links to contribs, SUL and AccountEligibility software.
    #{{2009POTY/Vote|Your_username in Commons|home=fr.wikiquote.org}}--~~~~
  4. During the voting period:
    1. Make checking bot go through voting pages and check AccountEligibility and add ":" and strike if ineligible (or move the vote to the ineligible vote section).
    2. Make a bot inform the ineligible voters as "Your vote are inelible. You can still post a recommending comment." or like that.
  5. After the voting period:
    1. Make a bot sum up each candidate's score and list in the result table.
    2. Then committee members shall check the result of Top x and the runnersup.(The number of finalists are to be discussed in the section below.)

To use checking bots we may have to modify voting eligibility - in such cases as :

If you have 200 edits not in Commons but in other wikis and cannot use your eligible account in Commons (ex. because of Username conflict).

--miya (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the bot would also need to deal with users who vote more often than the rules allow, or who want to change their votes after they "cast" them (as well as whatever other "contingencies" might come up; murphy's law). there were problems last year thing the automatic vote count "breaking" on at least one page. something happened in an edit of the votes that reset the count, so it started counting from "1" again, in the middle of the list of votes, & did not count the votes above that point. the problem wasn't identified til rather late in the vote processing of R2, & if there hadn't been a manual check of each voting page, it wouldn't have been found at all. Lx 121 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

How many finalists ?

[edit]

If we shall check votes manually, I hope the number of the Finalists to be limited up to 20 or 30. For example:

  • Top 20 files in Round 1 are to be finalists.
  • If some of the category top files are not within "top 20", promote them to be finalists, too.

(sorry for my aweful English!)--miya (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your support. Even 20 files' checking would take a lot of time without a voting software. As to category winners - anyone check and fix them "Top 3"s in each category while the Round 2 are going on.--miya (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a voting software were not available - we may as well consider "Top 10 and the category tops" - to make the cheking period of both R1 and R2 shorter. That is

"Top 10" and promoting any category winners that don't make the top 10.

In POTY2008 R1 the 1st, 2nd and 3d images were within "top 10" files as well as the category tops in thier categories. --miya (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed; but suggest we change the emphasis slightly in the wording:

the R2 "showdown" is about the top 10 (or 20) overall, & the category winners (or we could simply have the top 10, but then why bother with R2?).

for clarity, we should describe the R2 (finalists) as top 10 & cat winners. if a category winner also happens to be in the top 10, it simply fills the requirement 2 ways.

worded that way, it acknowledges the category winners a bit more.... "tactfully"? lol

also support the idea of vote processing (at least) the 2,3,4... per cat, even if we can't get it all done before the start of R2

Lx 121 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To speak tactfully is a little bit hard for me :-). Please modify my wording at any time! Here I took wording from Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting(2009-02-12T03:34):

Simply go through the galleries, and click the "Vote" button below any images you wish to vote for, and vote using the template Template:2009POTY/Vote and 4 tildes: 

#{{2009POTY/Vote|Your_username}}--~~~~

In the Round 1 you may vote for as many images as you wish. The top 10 and the winners (the first ones) in each category will go on to the final round to determine the picture of the year.

If a category winner also happens to be in the top 10, it simply fills the requirement 2 ways.

--miya (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggested reword: "The Round 1 Category winners, 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 simply fulfills the requirement both ways, reducing the total number of Round 2 finalists by 1."
not a big change, but it emphasizes the R1 category winners a bit more :) btw: any luck on getting poty category winner badging? Lx 121 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i find you very tactful & your english is quite good! :) Lx 121 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply go through the galleries, click the "Vote" button below any image you wish to vote for, and vote using the template Template:2009POTY/Vote and 4 tildes: 

#{{2009POTY/Vote|Your_username}}--~~~~

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

The Round 1 Category winners 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.

^how's this? Lx 121 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jury Prize

[edit]

Ok, here are some ideas on how to organize the planned "Jury Prize" competition. Input is welcome.

  1. From December 1st to December 31st 2009, anyone can nominate jury members. No self nominations are allowed. Candidates should have time in early January.
  2. All registered users can vote for jury members (votes for multiple members are allowed). Only support votes are used.
  3. The 12 candidates that have received the highest number of votes on January 1st, 2010, form the jury.
  4. In January, the jury members discuss how they want to determine their winners, and do so (non-public).
  5. The jury prize winners are announced together with the POTY final winners (around February 15).

-- JovanCormac 11:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the part about "non-public" bothers me; the contest's processes should be open & transparent. also, we need to qualify "votes for multiple members are allowed" with some kind of a practical limit (say 12 jury members, therefore (up to) 12 votes per user (for different candidates) for the jury?). otherwise, the process could be vulnerable to manipulation; a small number of users, who wished to control the results, could "stack" the voting. Lx 121 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTY barnstar request

[edit]

We need barnstars for POTY2009. Please make them. Below are the barnstars for POTY2008.--miya (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2008 Awards
I've changed the year. --Incola (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2009 Awards
Thank you, Incola! I updated Template:2009POTY with your new file.--miya (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can we get a design that we can use for the category winners in R1? (1st, possibly 2nd, 3rd, maybe 4th/honourable mention?) ideally, it would probably be best to have a standardized award, where we can simply plug in the text for the appropriate category. if/when we have more time, we could consider awards designed for specific categories, tho i suspect that won't happen this year. Lx 121 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image organisation

[edit]
For category discussion see subpage: /Categories

I prepared Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Preparation/Galleries, using the categories of 2008. Please check them. If a category had over 45 files, I made subpages with number 1 or 2 or 3... If there be no opposition, I will move them to Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries.--miya (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good work!; very much so :)

one point tho, & this is in no way a criticism of miya's work(!); but the sheer quantity of material kind of illustrates a problem...

do we seriously expect voters to wade through all of this stuff!? not to mention the work it takes, processing votes.

when we have to use contingencies like "If a category had over 45 files, I made subpages with number 1 or 2 or 3... ", we're already in trouble here!

the current system is becoming unworkable, because there is too much material to process in round 1; both for the voters, & the committee.

assuming that this year will be "bigger & better" than last, & next year will be "bigger & better" than this year, the problem is only going to get worse.

we need a way of reducing the quantity for round 1 voting (& hopefully deceasing our workload running the competition too, as regards preparation & vote processing)

i've suggested the outlines of a nomination process, in a section below, & will post a draft proposal, when it's ready (asap).

but whether my specific suggestions are supported by the committee or not, we can't reasonably expect to continue the current system for round 1, year after year, ongoing (regardless of whether it's fp only or not).

at some point, the bulk quantity of material will simply become too much.

i'd respectfully suggest that we are already there...

i am of course, completely open to other suggestions for processes that would narrow the poty candidates to a manageable number, both for voters & for us.

but it is time for us to re-think the system, even if we're under serious deadlines here.

Lx 121 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed here, it shouldn't be too complicated for voters. I'd even say they should be on only one page, because it's simply annoying to go back in the browser again and again. Furthermore, it might be a good idea to make the galleries working with Dschwen's Slideshow gadget (which is very nice). --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that would be cool; 3 key questions:

unindenting

1. how much customization can we get (& how much can we get in time for poty2009!), to make this tool work, as efficiently as possibly, with the poty voting process?

2. how compatible is this tool cross-platform & cross browsers? what about mobiles/smartphones/etc? end-user accessibility is important for anything we implement @ a wm project; we can get away with a slightly higher standard here, because the competition is for (presumably) experienced editors, but it's no good if a large share of the voters are looking @ a broken page.

3. order of presentation? this is a more general issue; basically, images that come up early in the voting list will have advantages over images further down. especially images that are burried, waaaay @ the end of a looong page, or (worse) that are burried deep in a series of pages.

this is another reason why we really need to cut the voting choices to a reasonable number per category; but even then, the same consideration applies.

i'm not up on the details of coding for mediawiki, but how much randomization do we/can we implement in the ordering of candidate images? & is it a one shot, or can we randomize/rotate per-pageview/per-user?

Lx 121 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index

[edit]
Index (mainly to see them with slideshow gadget)

Seeing FPs with slideshow gadget is surely exciting. I made index pages containing with 50 files in each page - so that we can see images using Slideshow gadget. The order of presentation is the order of their promotion to FPs. See Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index:

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, 751-800, 801-850, 851-

The number of images in each page can be 25 or 50 or 100 or any, though I feel 100 images in one slideshow may be too many.--miya (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good work, again :) ...same problem tho; we have too much stuff for people to be expected to go thru it all, 50 or 100 per slideshow; even if we broke it up into categories. sooner or later we need a way to reduce the quantity to level people can reasonably be expected to handle. also, i haven't really had time to play with this tool; we should think in terms of flowcharting the end-user/voter's activities. assume: a person watches the slides, all of them, is there any way they can mark choices, or are they just going to have to try & remember which ones they liked, & go back to the gallery pages, then vote? Lx 121 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...it may be incredible for people to see slideshows of hundreds of images. I hope a slideshow of Round 2 (Finalists) could be the level people can reasonably be expected to handle.--miya (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the month (for 2010)

[edit]

How about selecting "picture(s) of the month"? It may be not so difficult to nominate and select 5 or 10 files from the FPS promoted in the previous month (with single vote, announced only in Commons). Though it is too late for POTY2009.--miya (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Added strike.--miya (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting idea, but we'd need a "permanent floating" working group to operate it (& god-willing an automated vote processing system the works !). also; should the pot/month be related in some way to the pot/day? & what about valued images? (quality images we could regard as a lower-rank of fp, but vi serves a different purpose) i do like the idea tho, & i'm up for working on it. maybe we should branch it off from the poty topics tho? Lx 121 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you - pot/month is off-topic, really.--miya (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
shall we start a discussion elsewhere, about this? :) Lx 121 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Village Pump?--miya (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hm, what about if we started a user page draft proposal first? that way we'd have something to present. it's too easy for good ideas to get lost in the shuffle @ pump, & we could end up just getting archived; no action taken Lx 121 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for changes from last years' competitions

[edit]

Valued Image of the Year

[edit]

How about a Valued Image of the Year, with value, not quality, being the primary criterion and the candidates being all images promoted to VI in 2009? -- JovanCormac 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably say it'd be better to do this in June, or there's just too much voting at once. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, Jovan. I think it should be after POTY, per Adam above. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support but i'm concerned if we over-do it on the number of competitions. if we're going to have "of the year" contests, we should probably group them all together. otherwise, it's feature-creep, & over time it just becomes an endless blurr; one contest after the other... Lx 121 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose We need to be realistic at the current stage of the POTY competition. As the original initiator of VI I am flattered by the proposal, but I think it is extremely important to stay focused on the core process, which is selecting the Picture of the Year from Commons FPs. There is plenty of work involved in that process alone. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jury Prize

[edit]

Last year a Jury Prize was discussed, but not implemented in the end. How about trying again? -- JovanCormac 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea,  Support let's go ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the jury be comprised of:

for a total of 12 members. Each of them nominates three pictures. For every candidate, each jury member votes whether he or she thinks that it should win the prize or not. The candidates are then ranked according to the number of Yes/No votes. What do you think? -- JovanCormac 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think basicly also OK. Perhaps a few more jury members. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure: Looking at past POTYs, we'll probably be lucky to get 12 people actively involved in organizing (the 2008 organizing committee had 7 members), so I think if we get 12 people willing to judge it's quite good. Maybe we could design a badge saying something like "This user was a jury member in the 2009 POTY Jury Prize competition" that people can stick on their userpage, as an incentive to run for jury member. Besides, 12 is a good number, with a great tradition . -- JovanCormac 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how about restricting the Jury Prize to works by Commoners (including restorations)? -- JovanCormac 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun:

This user is/was a jury member in the 2009 Picture of the Year Jury Prize competition.

-- JovanCormac 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 12 members is enough, you are right. Let's start. Your poty is also nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the "Jury Prize"? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a prize similar (and running in parallel) to the "normal" POTY prize, with two differences: First, the winner is not chosen by popular vote, but by a jury of 12 (see above). Second, only works by Commoners are eligible. -- JovanCormac 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the idea and hope this time it will be possible to make it work. Also agree with a juri of 12 members, to be elected among the community. If half of them belong to MOP or not I'm not so sure. I would favour an election with no self-nominations, where the 12 best willing to accept the honor were chosen. As for choosing the winning image, why not let the elected juri discuss and decide the system? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be even better, yes. My thought was that half of the jury being "professionals" would add prestige to the prize but then again you don't need to be a photo pro yourself to have good judgement. Also good idea to let the jury decide on the system. -- JovanCormac 06:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that the jury is going to be independent and unbiased - the community is too small. I say scrap the idea. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not see any nead in the jury and its prize.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support strongly :) one suggestion: what about asking jimmy whales to be a "juror"? if not, then let's see who else we could get? this conversation is split in 2 parts (scroll up), & "notable" jurors" were discussed above, & difficulties cited, but i'm pretty sure that we could find some credible people, who would be willing/interested in participating. i'm willing to work on that problem (as long as i'm not the only one doing so!) Lx 121 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose: POTY is a community thing, IMO. Juries are not what I imagine under community. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category awards

[edit]

Last year, we judged by categories, partially by necessity. Shall we make category winners have a more "official" listing this year? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "official"? A seperate emblem/trophy for category winners? -- JovanCormac 07:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least some way of working it into a template, anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did anything happen with this? it seems like a good idea; specific badging for the R1 category winners would be neat, & it shouldn't be hard to do. Lx 121 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support; we'll need to lock-in the voting categories tho, & we should think very carefully about how to do the cats for this. will comment @ the categories page, when i have more time (likely after tuesday 02/feb.)Lx 121 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most important thing

[edit]

Obviously, we can't finalise the lists until January, when the year's over. But we need to have things in place this time. We need to have the bot sorted, we need to have decided on any additional things we have planned, and we need to have backups in place in case people drop out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. I'm working on getting the backups in place and some other stuff. I've given some details on some of the new things/features below.
All members should be aware of the new mailing list - link. Committee members should subscribe to the list. Apart from that, I and Miya are trying to set up an IRC bot (with the help of some IRC bot operators) that will feed the votes through in real time in an IRC channel. It will even notify the users in the channel when a user doesn't meet the nessecary requirements to vote. The last bit will be a bit hard to create. I can't promise we'll get an IRC bot at this time. I'll try to do my best to get one created. We've got an IRC channel too: #wikimedia-commons-poty (which is where the bot will hopefully idle in future). All users are encouraged to join the channel. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 00:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using an IRC bot for voting is an awesome idea. How will it ensure that a user is voting using his real username, though? Say user A doesn't meet the voting requirements but user B does, now A goes on IRC as user B and votes. Are we going to use our Wikimedia passwords on IRC as well? Maybe authentication per e-mail? -- JovanCormac 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would be hard (nice idea, but too much work I'm afraid). It's not exactly like that. We're not voting over IRC. The bot simply feeds through the votes in real time in the channel. It's basically a RSS reader that updates when someone votes on X picture, with some additional info. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's good. I can still remember from the last year POTY that there was a big timeframe between the end of voting and when the POTY was finally known. Most people don't like to wait that long, so it would be great if this timeframe wouldn't be that long again, and the bot might help with this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choice and Presentation of winners

[edit]

Rather than list a top 10 at the end, why not list a winner for each category, then an overall winner (or top three). This would ensure diversity and reduce systemic bias in the winners. It might be something like User:Noodle snacks/poty2009 with some actual effort into the layout and category choices (feel free to edit that page). Note that overall winners will also appear as the winner of a specific category. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting IMO

[edit]

I doubt that my proposition will gain a support, but I would like to share it anyway please. So, here it is: I propose to create a side gallery made out of some of the images that were nominated for FP, but failed to be promoted. The gallery could be populated by the creators and/or nominators (not more than 2 images per person). I propose to include the gallery in POTY 2009 competition only for informational purpose. IMO it will be very interesting and educational to learn an opinion of a much broaded voting than of a usual FP reviewers. Please note I do not suggest promoting those images even, if one will be a picture of the year, but rather look at the voting only as at an interesting info.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting idea. I  Support it. -- JovanCormac 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support it as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support; a brilliantly good idea! i've been thinking about fp, poty, & the whole awards/honours/merits/ranking system @ wmc, but i've been too lazy (& too busy) to do more than write scratch notes (& i rather dread the amount of work involved in getting a community discussion going about possible revisions to a system as well-entrenched as fp) but this is a good & logical step, it should help to open up the debate about some important issues.
one question tho: is there a reason why we should limit this to pictures that were "nominated, but not approved for fp" in 2009?
the system is already sort of problematic, in that we're making a selection of images "promoted" to fp in 2009, regardless of when they were created or originally uploaded to wmc. things could get complicated, but how about creating an "open" category of the competition, for any images uploaded (including significant derivative works/edits) in 2009? conceivably, we do that as either separate from or combined in some way with "nominated, but not promoted".
also: how do we make selections for an "open" category? "nominated by not approved, 2009" and/or "1st uploaded/major edit, 2009"?
then, if we really wanted to get ambitious, we could think about doing other types of media (audio/video), maybe have a battle royale for "best file of 2009", or even a grande combat for "best file @ wmc"... ...some year, in the (distant?) future, after we get an automated vote-processing system that works, lol
(& for the record, i'm willing to spend time working on the above suggestion(s) if any of this goes through)
Lx 121 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we are neither "making a point", nor are we "squaring accounts". we are considering logical, reasonable revisions to the poty contest, with the intent of improving it. matters relating to the fpc process should be discussed elsewhere, & clearly you have strong opinions. however poty & fpc are 2 separate functions. & at some point the logical question arises: is the contest about "poty" or "fpcoty"? because these are two very different things. perhaps we should do both? perhaps we shouldn't. but i am in agreement that a) the fp rating requirement is causing a restriction on the range of candidates for poty, to a degree wich does not reflect the wmc (or wm) community's opinions, as a whole. b) there is a problematic element in defining this as a "picture of the year" contest, when the basic requirement of entry is that the image has been promoted to fp during that year, not created or modified in some significant way, or even uploaded to wmc in the given year. Lx 121 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will have app. 900 fp this year and that is IMHO more than enough (even to compare with number of voters i presume app 1100). Also note that we still do not have any automatic voting system. --Jklamo (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you are citing the total number of fp's created in 2009? we have a process for reducing that to a manageable number of nominations; it's not hard to do the same thing for other images. also; it seems likely that the total number of participating voters will increase this year; isn't part of the plan to get more people interested in wmc? i agree with you about the rather daunting problems of vote-processing, but that is a separate issue. this discussion is about what form the contest should take, in terms of inclusion/exclusion of candidate images. as regards the vote processing; we need to fix the problem, so that we are able to process whatever number of votes we have to deal with reliably, accurately, & within a reasonable period of time. if we can't get a voting system that works, we don't have a competition poty or fpoty. Lx 121 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - A process to reduce the number of nominations? What are you talking about? I can only understand this discussion as a gratuitous brainstorming, unless the people defending the idea are really engaged in organizing the whole thing. But if that is the case please don't call it POTY 2009! Has anyone given a thought on why only the FP's of the previous year were considered for the contest, when the idea first came up three years ago? Or on how to avoid a flood of substandard pictures? Happy New Year! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we are gratuitously brainstorming! ^__^ thank you for noticing, it's an important part of the process. & happy new year! will reply with more later... Lx 121 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
btw; do we have an .svg icon for "gratuitously brainstorming"? or a barnstar, for ppl who are really good at it? Lx 121 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, i stand corrected by user:alvesgaspar on one point. we do not currently have a system in place for reducing the number of poty-eligible fp images to a manageable quantity; other than simply dumping them all into R1 voting. as the total number of fp promotions per year continues to increase, i strongly feel that the current poty system (for R1) will become increasingly impractical. realistically, i think we're probably already reached that point, & i've posted a suggestion/outline for an R1 nomination process in the section below. & i hope that the user will take my above comments in the spirit of humour with which they were intended. Lx 121 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i would like to challenge that on several points:

unindenting

1. fp is not adequate as a filtering system; we have, apparently, approx 900 fp promoted in 2009. presumably that number is going to increase next year.

900+ canditates in round 1 voting is not a reasonable number! sane, normal people are not going to go through all 900 images, even if they are neatly subdivided into categories (how to best/most fairly sub-categorize, i leave as a separate question). probably, most of people aren't even going to properly consider all of the images in the categories they care enough about to vote on.

we already need more filtering, even just for (fp)oty.

2. fp is the product of a relatively small working group of dedicated users. poty is a wikimedia community-wide event. these are different things.

the problem is that the "unambiguous" filtering process is being conducted by a small group of users who have a focussed interest in "fp". the decisions made reflect their tastes/opinions/standards/etc. they do not accurately reflect the opinions of the community as a whole.

"judge's choice" vs "people's choice"

i'm also aware that there are many users who are unhappy with various aspects of the current fp process/system, but for the purposes of poty, that is somewhat beside the point. we're here to put together poty2009, & make it better than the year before, not argue broader issues. that can be done elsewhere.

poty is for everybody; or, at least, everybody who cares enough about wikimedia, to contribute a reasonable number of edits-per-year.

if the competition is meant to only be about fp, then it should properly be renamed: "WIKIMEDIA COMMONS: Featured Picture of the Year"

3. it is also somewhat problematic that our "picture of the year 2009", if limited to fp promotions only, only requires that the image have been "promoted to fp" in 2009, & not created, significantly edited, or uploaded to wmc during 2009.

there is a logical disconnect here...

4. appropos; i'm drafting some suggestions for both a nomination process, & revising the structure & category system of the poty competition.

i know this is extremely late, but i'm focussing on practical options, that can be implemented this year.

the "short"-short version of it would be suggestions that:

a) we set up an open nominating process that allows any qualified voter to nominate/support images in any category. we require a given number "support" votes to pass a nomination (let's say 10, for example). we set a deadline for the nominations to close, obviously.

we setup a page (or pages) for nominations.

do some quickie templates & help/faq's to make it easy to nominate

we spam advertising around wm & anyplace else that's relevant

if/when a pic gets the required (i.e.:10) supporting votes, we clear it for round 1, & move on (minimizing the amount of effort we have to put into processing noms!).

that way,, we achieve 2 distinct goals:

i. we get a reasonably fast & efficient "unambiguous filtering system". that should let us cut the round 1 numbers way down; any image that can't get at least the minimum supporting votes for nomination hasn't got a chance in the competition.

2. we get a clear reflection of the will of the community, for poty candidates.

b) we re-think categories & hierarchy for poty;

as regards fpoty, it would mean that we have a "specific category/categories" for "fpoty", as distinct from other cats, such as: "jury prizes", "open" category (any image created/uploaded to wmc in 2009), & maybe logical groupings of: i. technical quality, ii. artistic quality, iii. educational/usefulness.

we could also consider options like most unique/rare/extraordinary, newsworthy, historic, or etc.

clearly we're not going to have it all sorted this year, but we could do a basic re-working of the system, to make it more logical, & better reflective of the community as a whole.

(done for now; will finish a rough outline draft, & post it here when it's at least minimally presentable)

Lx 121 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old system has worked fine in previous years, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work again. --Aqwis (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
because we have 900+ 890 images this year; almost certainly more than that next year, & more the year after that, etc...
setting aside the massive amount of work this requires from our committee members, how many voters do you seriously think are going to make the effort of going through through a thousand or so images!?
an abacus works fine too, but i prefer to use a PC (ubuntu), for most of my work.
&, for the record, the process did not "work fine" last year. i was covering the finals, & processing the votes for the 50 or so finalist images was a godawful mess. it took a month to get an official, final result! (no offense to any members of the poty2008 committee; there were flaws in the voting system) but, since we still haven't got a fix that allows us to simplify/speed up vote-processing, it makes sense for us to find other ways to make the system work more efficiently.
the committee has already decided to revise the process for poty 2009 in a number of ways; for one thing, there will be less than half as many finalists.
the proposals i'm posting below are intended to offer options that would both: a) make the voting more efficient & reduce our total workload over the course of the contest & b) improve the logical organization of the poty awards system.
i'm not insisting that the committee adopt my proposals, but we do need to think seriously about how we are going to handle increasing numbers of both voters & eligible images, this year, & long term.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Proposal for a POTY Round 1 Nomination Process (rough copy, 1st draft; submitted for consideration/discussion, not an official poty 2009 committee policy document)

[edit]

The Proposal

[edit]

Intro

[edit]

The basic purpose of this proposal is to achieve 2 goals:

1. Produce a more focussed, manageable (for both the committee & the voters) number of candidates for round 1 voting.

2. Reduce the net total workload required in operating the poty competition's voting system (setup & processing).

These considerations apply not only for poty 2009, but for future poty competitions, ongoing; especially if/as poty continues to grow each year.

Essentially, the idea is to add a 3rd-level to the eliminations, & to do so in such a way as to make the whole POTY process easier & more efficient for everyone involved.

In the interest of actually getting this done & posted, i am going to try & do a barebones outline. I will fill in details & add explanations/reasoning later on.

Room @ the bottom for comments, & feel free to annotate throughout. :)

(please use strikethru's though, instead of erasing)

Outline

[edit]

For each category in the poty competition any qualifying image may be nominated, as a candidate for first round voting, by any registered user.

Nominations must be signed.

To pass nomination, the image must received a designated minimum number of supporting votes; required number to be decided by the poty committee, for the purposes of this draft the value is set as (X)

The nomination process will open & close @ designated dates/times, chosen by the poty committee. There will be a clear deadline set for the close of nominations/nomination voting.

Supporting votes must be signed.

Supporting votes can only be cast by users who qualify to vote in poty.

Comments & opposition could be included in a comments/discussion section for each image, but for the purposes of nomination, the voting options are "support" or "don't vote for it".

No limit on the number of images a user can nominate and/or "support", but each nom & each vote edit must be done separately; no batching, automation, or mass/spamming allowed.

If/when a nominated image receives the required (X) number of valid supporting votes & this has been verified by the poty committee, the image is approved for first round voting & is entered into the category/ies of the poty competition for which it qualifies, has been nominated, & passed.

If/when a nominated image does not receive the required (X) number of valid supporting votes by the close of the nomination process, it fails nomination & will not be entered into the category/ies of the poty competition in which it qualifies, was nominated, but did not pass.

Implementation Notes

[edit]

Create a page/set for nominations to be entered on.

Create tools/templates & help/faq's as needed, to facilitate the nomination process.

Massive spam/advertising effort, wikimedia-wide, to explain the changes & how to nominate, etc.

Also make sure the message is clear, re: poty 2009; what stays the same, & what is new/changed.

Use the galleries created by miya as a reference/resource for users to choose nominations from.

Discussion

[edit]

Just for the purposes of discussion, i'm suggesting that the required value of (X) supporting votes be set somewhere between 4-10; an image than can't get at least that many supporting votes for a nomination hasn't got a chance in poty.

Setting the value in this range should allow us to reduce the round 1 voting candidates by at least 1/2; so from over 900 890, down to somewhere under 450, possibly a great deal further. We might get in with under 300 round one qualifying candidates. We could set the bar higher, if we need/want/decide to, or take notes for next year, based on user reactions/results this time around (once we do set a number though, we pretty much have to stick with it, for poty2009).

In between requiring that images be user-nominated for consideration, & the elimination process for nominated images that can't get the minimum number of supporting votes, we should save an enormous amount of time/effort in the poty process (mainly R1), & make if much easier for users to go through the (R1) candidate lists, consider the full range of candidates fairly, & vote.

key point: this process does not discriminate against any image that is eligible for poty. every picture still has a chance, but the ones that can't get through the nomination process wouldn't make it in R1 or R2 either.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can't you put this proposal on a separate page? You're making it seem as if this is the "main" proposal for the 2009 POTY, while it is certainly not. --Aqwis (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's here because the discussion about poty 2009 preparation & changes is here, & i've gone out of my way to make it clear that it's a draft proposal for revisions, authored by me; if we want to move the discussion, i have no objections to moving the outline, along with it. if the committee agrees to create a nomination process, to help reduce the R1 candidates to a more manageable load, then it would make sense to create a relevant page. while matters are under consideration/discussion, it's probably not good to spread things out any more than they already are...
(note: reworded title, as per aqwis' concerns))
I also invite you to use this space to express the concerns/objections that you clearly have, with the proposal :)
Lx 121 (talk)
  •  Comment -- As before, I  Oppose strongly any solution in which other images, rather than the FP of last year, are nominated to the contest. That would be a clear preversion of the existing model and the present committe is far from obtaining the necessary consensus from the comunity to make the change. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you read through the text of the draft, you will find that this proposal is not related to the subject of which types images are nominated; it deals with the nomination process. the discussion of categories of images to include in the poty2009 competition is a separate issue.
also; i'm not aware that the implementation of rule changes @ poty requires a community-wide consensus. poty is not an official wm/wmc operation, & there is no commons official policy about poty. it's a user-generated voluntary activity. the decisions are made by the users who care enough to join the committee & get involved; very much like fp. users who do care enough to do the work are free to join, & if they are unhappy with something, they can seek to change it, or even to fork the project (to give an extreme example). Lx 121 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
btw sometimes a little perversion *preversion* (as per above comment) can be fun! ;P Lx 121 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm ok with an extra layer of screening as long as eligibility is restricted to 2009-FP in the first place (per discussion elsewhere). But we should only add an extra layer if it saves time overall. It's not clear to me that this one does, because looking at Round 1 from 2008, every image I clicked on got more than 10 votes, so would pass this screening test unless X was very high. What's your analysis of how much time this will actually save (both the counters and the voters)? --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i'll try & break this down,l as it works on different levels; sorry it it's a bit rambling & repetitious, i'm doing this extemporaneously; i'll clean it up after it's written.

given that every eligible image passed fp, it is still reasonable (& will become increasingly necessary) to have a process that identifies & eliminate images that aren't going to get anywhere in poty, early in the competition.

eventually, we are going to have to come up with some way of doing eliminations more efficiently.

looking at the numbers from poty2006 to now, the growth rate of fp-per-year has been considerable & projecting forward, numbers are likely to continue to increase (assuming the wmc project continues to grow & thrive, & assuming no radical changes in the fp process or standards). at some point, we need to reduce the bulk quantities to a level that people can handle.

840 is already too many files for us to deal with in the organization & administration of poty & it is far too many images for voters to deal with.

this proposal is my suggestion for how to fix that.

If we approve this change, basically it means a "big push" effort @ the beginning of poty to set this up & get the word out (especialy first-year implementation), but poty start-up requires a "big push" anyway. Once everything is in-place (& more so in subsequent years), the workload for the rest of poty (particularly R1) should be reduced as a result. fewer candidates in R1 = less work & a much easier transition to R2.

we've already agreed to reduce the number of qualifying images for R2 to a more focussed set; so this change, trimming R1 to reasonable numbers, would dovetail nicely.

1. the changes i'm suggesting are intended as a long-term solution to the problem of increasing numbers of eligible images, not just for poty2009

2. the process i'm suggesting is strictly neutral on the question of which images would be eligible; it's a system that is designed to work as an elimination-process with whatever defined group(s) of files would be eligible for any contest. as an aside, it is extremely common for major competitions, with large numbers of potential candidates, to use nominations as a part of their eliminations-process, to help narrow the field to manageable quantities.

3. it is intended that the process i'm suggesting would entail the creation of a number of tools, to make various functions easier/faster; templates/bots/etc. how much of that we would have time to set up this year is an open question, but templates & a basic 'bot should be do-able.

4. year 1 of implementation is also going to be a "learning-process"; we can still expect a reasonable savings in time & effort, but once the process & the tools are in place, it can all be re-used in following years, which should dramatically increase the benefits.

time/effort saving

a) administration of the contest

b) user-friendliness for the voters

basically, the idea is to get the voting users to do more of the work

i. we don't have to create & run the massive array of voting galleries for R1, with every eligible image. we just need to have a page/set that lets users search through the 2010 fp's, & a process for selecting an image for nomination which is reasonably easy & user-friendly, without becoming spam/automated.

we also need a complete listing of the categories for the R1 competition (& how-to instructions)

& a page/set for listing the R1 nominees (one page per cat?)

an image that is nominated should automatically be added to the relevant category nomination page(s). (we'll assume that an image might qualify in more than one category, but each nomination should be a separate process).

then, the voters can go through the list of nominees & decide which they "support"; they can also comment, & the nominator should be encouraged to write a brief summary of their reasons for choosing the image.

this way, instead of us constructing the candidate lists, the voting users build it, one image nomination at a time.

there is also a factor of human nature in play here; it will require some effort by the a user, to complete a nomination "ballot"; more so than simply casting a vote. typically, the nominating user would have to look through the list of 2009 fp's that are eligible, then fill out a nom form, & write something saying why they like/support the image. (tangentially, it also gives users who don't qualify to vote in poty a chance to have some input; we'll need to watch out for "spamming", but that should be manageable. user names & time would be listed for each nomination, & sock-puppetting would be (almost completely) pointless)

the "support" votes would be easy to cast, of course, but the idea is that we've already got a controlled-elimination process in the nominations; not all voters are going to put in the effort to search & nominate. probably, the majority of voters won't bother, most of the users that do put in the effort to nominate won't create more than a few nominations. most voters will just want to look through a list & pick the ones they like.

...in re-thinking this, i'm wondering if we should limit the number of support votes users can cast? obviously a minimum of one "support" vote per category, but should we allow more than that (if so, then how many?), or lock it down? tighter restrictions would help with the eliminations. worth discussing

if users can support as many images as they chose to (x1 per image/per category), the instruction for voters should also have a line about: "please consider your supporting votes carefully; a support vote for nomination does not require you to vote for the image in R1 (or R2), but you should only vote for images that you feel strongly should be entered into the R1 vote, & that you would be prepared to vote for in R1.

(we might also want to consider the range & arrangement of cats; & as discussed on other parts of this page, the recognition of category-winners @ the end of R1)

an image that doesn't get nominated is automatically out after the nom process closes.

ii. we set a reasonable number for the required valid "support" votes; this is critical!

it's the key time-savings for running the contest, but it also needs to be "fair".

the goal is to give every image an equal chance & still end up with an R1 candidates list that is small enough to be manageable.

(the suggestion of 4-10 was just a rough guestimate, & reviewing the results of previous R1 votes, i'm inclined to think my number as too low. maybe we should consider 25 "support votes"? or a number between 20-40?)

in planning, we should probably have the goal of reducing the overall total 890 fp eligibles by at least 1/2, & we should agree on a (rough) target-number per voting category of the competition.

target ranges anyway; enough to have a decent slate of top-quality choices, but not jam a category with more than a voter can reasonably process & decide on.

if we look @ any specific category, assuming an average-to-large group of eligible images, then the nomination process should probably also eliminate the "lower 1/2" of the list of "eligibles" for that category. that's reasonable, i think; since it's an open-nom & open vote by the community, a file that falls in the lower 1/2 as a nominee is toast in the rest of the contest.

we could also consider setting the required number higher/lower in different cats, based on the (estimated) number of eligible images in the cat. (that's something we'd have more experience with in year 2; year 1 is going to be a "learning-experience", that's a given. although we should still be able to make things run significantly faster/more efficiently in year 1).

if we have categories with an extremely low number of eligibles and/or nominees, we might consider invoking a "special rule" to get a minimum number of candidates; hopefully that won't be necessary. we could draw extra attention to neglected categories during the nom process, as needed.

iii. any image that can't get the required minimum by close of nominations is automatically "out" & we don't need to deal with it any further, period. if it hasn't got the required minimum number, there's no point in processing the votes for it.

iv. if/when an image does get the required minimum number of (valid) support votes in a category, it gets promoted to R1 in that cat. so we only need to process enough valid nom votes to pass the image; again, time-saving. & we can do the processing on-the-fly, as images receive the qualifying number, instead of having to bulk-process them all after nominations close.

combined with setting a required minimum number of support votes that hits the "sweet spot" between fairness & not wasting time doing further work with images that won't make it through R1 anyway, this should cut our work-load dramatically.

it will also help to spread out the workload over the running time of the contest, reducing the amount of "concentrated effort" needed @ crunch-times in R1.

as regards the voters, this should make it a lot easier to go through the R1 lists, consider each image fairly (in the categories they care about), & vote.

(the nomination lists should also be of manageable length, given a reasonable amount of effort required to nominate)

as well, having smaller numbers per category in R1 should reduce the amount of "vote-changing" (or the desire for vote-changing, if we decide to ban the practice), & at least help with the problem of giving every image in a category "equal treatment" in terms of their presentation on the voting pages.

(we should also discuss the organization of categories, & continue the discussion of how to recognize R1 category winners, but that's a separate set of topics)

finis, for now

Lx 121 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: images-per-category of the competition; to give loose "ballpark" numbers, i would suggest that 100 images in a voting category is likely too many, 50 would be a lot, & 25 would probably be a number most people could deal with reasonably comfortably. 10 or less is probably too few in R1; it doesn't give enough range of choice. Lx 121 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

back, & after re-reading my great pile of "explanation" above; one thing i should have included early & prominently:

3 key variables in using a nomination process to reduce the R1 candidate images to reasonable numbers (per-voting-category):

1. the number of nominations (per category) that a user is allowed to make.

2. the number of support votes that a user is allowed to cast (per-category).

3. the number of support votes required for an image to to pass nomination (in a given category).

that's what makes the nomination system work. we need to decide on those 3 numbers; if we get them right, we create a situation where we have a good range of choices in all the R1 voting categories, but not an overwhelming mass of "stuff" for voters (& the poty committee) to deal with.

this year, we have 890 fp that are eligible

next year, it will likely be 1000+.

it's good that we're getting so many fp-per-year, but one consequence of this is that we now need to have more eliminations early in the process (the "eliminations" also need to be fair & open).

at some point, someone is going to have to set a rational limit on the R1 numbers. 300 or so total R1 candidates (divided into categories) is probably around the upper limit that we can expect voters to deal with (setting aside the committee's workload). if anything, we could go lower; but 300 is workable.

a voter can scan pages with up to maybe 50 images (max.), make their choice, & move on.

that still leaves us with the work, but 300 is much better than 890.

so, let's say say we take the raw fp list of 890 (fp2009) images:

our goal via the nomination process should be to reduce the R1 voting group (of images) to approx. (1/2 to) 1/3 of the original total; "the best of the best", divided between the different voting categories.

so our decision-making in setting the above 3 variables should be based on those targets.

first year is going to be hard, because we can only guess based on previous R1 results; going ahead, year 2 nominations would be set based on this year's nomination results, etc.

the ongoing result is a process that gets better & more efficient each year.

(which we are going to need badly if the growth rate of fp/year continues)

...i do have some thoughts on where the numbers should be set ranges anyway;but this thing is already long enough, & i think i'll stop now with this topic, & wait for comment from other members of the committee/interested parties.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration credit

[edit]

The prepartion page for next year fails to note restoration credit for restored featured pictures. Editors who performed restorations have been misidentified as mere "uploaders". Please correct. Durova (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's me who is making the FP galleries into tables. As FPs are so many that I used the information written in Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological/2009-A and Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological/2009-B only. I wish the chronological galleries had the information of restoration credit, too!
Well...how shall we credit them? "created by Aaaa, restored, uploaded and nominated by Bbbb" like this?
Just note that - if the image description page lacks the restoration credit, we can't find it (I don't know if File:Early flight 02562u.jpg needs the restoration credit or not).
I ask all of you - if you find a restored FP missing the restoration credit in the prepartion pages - please help and correct them!--miya (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone find a necessary infomation (such as quality improvement credit or like that) missed in the preparation pages, please correct them, too.--miya (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my nominations for 2009 were also digitally restored, as described in file hosting page notes. Adam Cuerden is usually good about annotating his restorations also, and the people I've trained (Jake Wartenberg, etc.) are pretty good with that also. Am less certain about the others. If the editor hasn't been proactive about documenting a restoration then it's difficult to expect credit (not every minor edit upon a historic image deserves to be called a restoration). Sounds fair? Durova (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. When I find restoration credit in file hosting page notes, I'll add it to the candidate table. I still hope you will add restoration credits to Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological/2009-A and Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2009-B (if not yet added) - so that we should not miss any of them.--miya (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you ping me in a few weeks with a reminder, if I haven't? Much obliged for your hard work in this area. This was something I stumbled across by accident in the middle of other work. Things can get stretched a bit thin, as you probably know. :) Durova (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media (press/journalism) relations, PR, & external coverage; aka "There is life... outside the (WikiMedia)Matrix!?" O__O

[edit]

i haven't been following very closely, but is anybody working on getting some attention/coverage of wmcpoty outside of our wikimedia "bubble"?

we've kept this contest going (through not inconsiderable difficulties) for a number of years now, the quality of the (best of the) images is top-level by any reasonable definition, & there are (a lot of) people who would be interested in our "event", if they knew it existed; from mainstream & specialized-topic journalism (i.e.: art/photography, open-source community), to bloggers.

we should consider how to reach them, how to "get noticed", & how to provide professional-quality support services for external coverage

Lx 121 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....is there anyone alive, out there!? O__O Lx 121 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, does anyone on the committee object, if i try & get some "outside" coverage of poty2009? does anyone want to help? Lx 121 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe something like this would be brilliant, but I'm not sure if external people are interested in this. You should also probably call it "Wikipedia's Picture of the Year 2009" instead of "Commons' Picture of the Year 2009". This might be incorrect, but the people have more association with Wikipedia than with Commons (no one out there knows Commons, but everyone knows Wikipedia). --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i'm pretty sure that we can get at least some minimal interest/coverage in "mainstream media" & more than that in "specialist" categories, if we put in the effort to get the word out, & make it easy for anyone who wants to do reporting. the key points of interest for an "outside" audience would be: start announcement > outline of the process, with timeline of events > & the days when there are "results" to report on; i.e.: nomination results (if that goes ahead), R1 results, R2 results/grand prioze winners: 1,2,3,4(?)

we also need to provide 3 things for press services:

1. easily accessible/concise/easy to understand info about what's going on (yes, we need to do the work for them... ).

2. punctuality/timeliness both in producing results, & in getting the announcements out.

3. Clear explanations of the open source licensing rules @ commons, in such a way as to make it easy & practical for the re-use of the poty images & related materials in "ourside reports".


also; what about just using the full title: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS' PICTURE OF THE YEAR 2009, & explaining the relationship wm/wp/wmc (early) in the text of the press release?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of Discussions

[edit]

i've noticed that the discussions on the page are becoming somewhat fragmented, with the same topics being discussed in different sections. that is making it harder to follow developments.

before i start messing with anything, & risk the wrath of the committee, i'm asking for opinions/suggestions/help, on the question of re-organizing the material on this page into more logical groupings...?

Lx 121 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rules

[edit]

do we have a draft copy of the complete rules for poty 2009 anyplace? i've just noticed that we have nothing (that i can find) in the poty 2009 materials about either:

1. how many votes an eligible user can cast, & where, in each round.

2. users who want to change their vote, after casting it.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also, we should be emphasizing that users must sign their votes (& be signed in @ commons when they do vote, obviously).

that was a huge pain in the R2 validation process in poty2008

Lx 121 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Localization

[edit]

I believe that it would be good if the voting and the galleries and all the other stuff that a voter has to read would also be accessible for users who don't speak that much English. This could for example be done with the {{Mld}}, which is also able to get one's user's client language (and not the interface language). --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree; i think the real problem is finding the people to do the translations... we should also try & keep our layouts standardised, simple, & with all the function obvious; to make it easier for people who have limited ability (or none) in any available language.

in theory, we should be able to design layouts that a person could understand, well enough to be able to use it/understandthe basic information being conveyed, without being able to understand the language.

assuming: 1. they know how to edit with mediawiki, & the basics of doing so as a registered user on a wikimedia project. 2. they understand the basic concept of poty, & voting, etc. 3. they can real arabic numerals.

then, our layouts should be comprehensible, ideally

(don't mind me, i just like to play with art/design/ergonomics for fun; lol)

Lx 121 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding people for the translations shouldn't be too difficult. I'm regularly working on the edit requests, where you often encounter people willing to make translations. Jean-Frédéric can probably make French, Bjankuloski06en can make Macedonian, I can make German and formal German and we also have assistants (Kanonkas or Aqwis can make Norwegian, Miya Japanese, OsamaK Arabian, Jklamo Czech and Slovakian, and MGA73 Danish). --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


do we have a list/chart set up someplace, where we can track who is doing which translations, & which translations haven't been assigned? Lx 121 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or, should we make one? Lx 121 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification for the projects

[edit]

It seems to me that during the recent years, the projects were notified via Meta's global notification. However, I don't think that's such a brilliant idea: First, this message gets on a user page that few people only watch. Such important messagess should go on a wiki's village pump, where they'll also get more attention. Secondly, the messages are always sent in English. We should sent them to the people in their language, so that they also understand it. Also, sending such messages by a bot shows we don't care much for the project. Sending them out personally is more formal and gives a better impression of the Commons, as this shows we indeed want their votes and for this, we manually send them messages in their language instead of using a bot that sends an English message on a hardly watched userpage. I've created a draft of how I could imagine such a message (see User:The Evil IP address/poty msg). Feel free to edit it, and I'd be happy to get feedback by you. If you'd be fine with using this message, then we should also let it translate, at least in the most important languages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun...

[edit]

Something I've been playing with, over @ cafepress; mostly just to see how the designs look. I haven't put any effort into promoting it, & it's not really "ready for the public" anyway (although somebody did actually buy one item, much to my surprise).

But, since i was playing, i thought i'd see how our poty stuff looks too:

http://www.cafepress.com/WikiMediaWatch

http://www.cafepress.com/WMWawards (poty & stars)

http://www.cafepress.com/WMWemblems

http://www.cafepress.com/WMW_Wikipe_tan

some of the wiki "icons" are kind of amusing, like the OTRS ticket; the "prizes/awards" mostly look neat; & the pictures of course are great.

was thinking how cool it would be, if we really could do some small prizes for the poty winners...

right now the prices are all "@ cost" (no profits for anyone except cafepress), & it's not much more than just playing with designs & maybe promoting wmc.

but anybody interested in/have opinions on us (poty committee) doing a little fundraiser? profits (if any) to be used for poty winning user prizes; anything left goes to the wmf, maybe? (they might possibly be able to buy coffee & donuts with the proceeds XD)

if so: do we want to setup a cp account specifically for this purpose? i can think of a number of reasons why a jointly administered account would be better for this, if anyone else involved in poty is interested...?

& if not, it still looks sorta cool, seeing the poty bling/merchandise. X)

Lx 121 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • when it's finished, the product description would include as much of that information as fits (200 char. limit). the pages will all refer back to wmc, & might also contain write-ups about the artists, if the page is focussed on a limited number of artists. still figuring out the text, but Kasuga has credit in the header for the Wikipe-tan page. haven't come close to finishing either the organization, or the write-ups yet. haven't done any promotion efforts (& haven't sold anything else, haha) was looking for feedback on the viability/desirability of using this to fund (small) poty prizes, and/or etc. otherwise, it's just playing with the designs for fun, as per the title. Lx 121 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
basic licensing info (cc-by-sa, gfdl, pd, etc.) should already be on each description, let me know if i missed that on anything? it gets massively repetitive & boring doing the product designs 1 by 1... Lx 121 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that you respect the licensing terms even on the products themselves (where you are making a copy of the image). It sounds like you may be in breach of the license if they are without it at the moment (e.g. if the mug you sell does not have the author's name on it). --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which mug?Lx 121 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what you're selling, you have to acknowledge the author on the copy: mug, t-shirt, bib, tile, sticker, poster, magnet, ... Surely you understand the issue? --99of9 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • o__0 how exactly do you suggest one do that? without defacing the images? the products are being "distributed" with the author, source, & licensing info; & the licenses clearly permit "commercial use". the media is "non-digital", real word merchandise, of which you can find many other examples that use CC/gfdl; quite a lot of them sourced from wp. i'd have to check, but i don't think even OFFICE/WMF or any of the regional wikimedia chapters actually literally attach that kind of info to "derivative works"; certainly the wikipe-tan cosplayers don't run around with stickers on their costumes, & the "derived work" images of them are considered acceptable @ commons, without having a more than the basic info about the creator of wikipe-tan. also, sorry to hear you're not keen on the idea of giving prizes to the poty winners, i kind of thought that would be a fun thing to do for them. Lx 121 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's up to you to do it, not me to say how. But since you asked, I believe there is ample space on those products you've put up to have a "Image by: xxxx, (CC/GFDL)" tagline in the corner or on the back of the product. This is standard practice for print media. The (unreferenced) argument that "many others" do it, does not hold any weight. I don't know or care what a cosplayer is, but if it's a costume, I'm sure they could put a designer's label on, as many clothes brands have. Can you point to a particular derived-work image of these clothes on wikimedia that is not appropriately attributed and licenced? If so, it should be deleted. --99of9 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, perhaps your "distributed with" is enough, but if I were you I'd look into it first. --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unindenting

just went & had a quick read-thru of the terms on cc & gfdl; will add live links to the licenses & author credit as given @ the wmc pages, to the descriptions. that should satisfy the concerns you have raised.

no way to add things "on the label/back" as there is none; the cp products have only limited, strictly defined areas that can be printed. the only way would be to add a "watermark" to the image (which is discouraged @ commons), & wouldn't be practical or legible on many of the small items. i would assume cp know what they're doing re: copyright law, labelling, etc. since they are a rather large company, & most of the material they deal with is under far more restrictive copyright.

don't have time to look-up the material right now, but cos-play is a costumed player, & wikipe-tan is a popular subject for cosplayers @ wikimedia gatherings. you can find cosplay images of this by starting in Category:Wikipe-tan & then going into the relevant subcats. you will also find a plurality of other wikipe-tan "dervied works" including real world items. Lx 121 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feb. 1 March 4

[edit]

Ok, it is now 1 February 4 March, 2010 (not good!); time for us to get serious & start making things happen.

So, who is (really) "in" & ready to work on this? So far, miya has been doing most of the heavy-lifting, & the discussion on this page has been pretty dead for a while now...

Lx 121 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

^edited Lx 121 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Willing to help as I can, let's get this thing started! -Nard the Bard 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest! Maybe this weekend? Yet please wait till "AccountEligibility script for POTY 2009" modified (which I asked Pathoschild). --miya (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the discussion about refiltering in the next section, I became anxious - is it really possible/adequate to start POTY without any software which would facilitate voting or checking? I can't make the POTY start now. Sorry.--miya (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Hi, Mya. Is the commitee really prepared for starting the contest? I can't see any definitive written rules or signs that the event is well organized and things are under way. The last two initiatives have shown that without a good organization it will be close to impossible to make the various phases to run smoothly. But maybe I'm just not informed; please forgive me if that is the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Alvesgaspar. As it was proposed to start "late Feburary", I prepared galleries; Juliancolton prepared pages (great thanks!). Yet I'm not sure this is enough (I can't forget what happened last year). I hope for some checking or voting tool, if possible.--miya (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for prefiltering the pool of 2009 FPs

[edit]

I tried to read the tl;dr section regarding the draft proposal above. I gave up though as it had a terrible structure. A simple thing as sentences not starting with capital letters was a turn-off. Anyway, I share the concern that has been raised at some point about considering 890 FPs for round 1 voting. It was overwhelimg already last year, and I think something should be done about prefiltering.

I object though to start a new voting session. The quality of that would be even more random than the FP process, and I am quite sure the needed attention from reviewers would not be there. Many would find it a redundant vote. Last, but not least, it is simply too late!

FPs are the most prestiguous and rigorous review system we have, so it seems evident that any images not promoted as FP in 2009 are excluded from this contest. So if we are to prefilter further, it should be done from the existing pool of FPs. One simple way to reduce those FPs to a manageable amount would be to only consider those which received a number x of support votes in their original nomination. I have investigated how many support votes previous winners have achieved, and here the minimum number of supprts have been 13, so requiring e.g. at least 10 support votes for inclusion in round one would seem like an adequate prefiltering with minimum risk of actually excluding POTY winners.

We should not apply rule of the 5th day promotion as all previous winners have received oppose votes during the FP nomination.

So, in summary, I propose a prefiltering condition for inclusion in round 1 as

  1. Must have been promoted to Common FP in 2009
  2. Must have received at least 10 supporting votes during FP nomination

--Slaunger (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to have missed one key point in the proposal, at least: the pool of images elligble for nomination would still be the 2009 Fp's".Lx 121 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lx, Thanks for clarifying that point. I noticed at some stage it was discussed to include images beyond FPs, and I had not managed to find a place in this tl;dr page where this issue was settled. I think it is a very sensible decision to exclude images which are not FP as then the pool of images would potentially be even larger. --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Slaunger. Thank you for your investigation. That sounds interesting, though I don't have any more time to refilter 890 FPs (I'm not familiar with FP nomination process!).
Can you make an extra gallery prefiltered by such conditions? I think you can add such gallery to Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries without changing rules.
; Galleries of user recommendation
: Anyone can add recommendation gallery here. Make a gallery of your recommendation and link below with explanation and your signature:
* My recommendation (by Example)
* FPs with more than 10 supporting votes during FP nomination (by Slaunger)

--miya (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - I disagree with the filtering. Two reasons: first, this is equivalent to delisting some of the FPs and to deprive their creators/uploaders/nominators of a legitimous expectation, which is IMO contrary to the spirit of POTY; second, the number of support votes has a too large random component to be a fair criterium. Please remember that POTY is as much about people as is about pictures. I don't see any other viable solution than making the users scrutinize the whole set of FPs. Maybe this experience help recognize the fact that the FP bar should have been raised long ago. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dear Alvegaspar: since you have clearly established your opposition to any kind of change or filtering process for the POTY R1; i hereby formally invite you to join the POTY 2009 committee; i feel that to properly understand the problems involved, you should not only look @ this from the perspective of a contributor, or a voter (of whom you are asking much, if you want to force them to sit through an 890-image slideshow!); i think you also need to understand this experience from the pov of the POTY organizers: you should help to set-up, operate, & vote process/verify all 890 items. once you have tried this experience, i believe that you will feel differently. respectfully looking forward to your joining the group! Lx 121 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Lx 121, I’m flattered by the invitation but I already have my share. Together with a couple of hard-working users (MichaelMaggs, Bryan, Dschwen, LadyofHats, pfctdayelise,…), I participated in the organization of POTY 2006 (here). That is why I have so strong feelings about some of the issues. Maybe it will save some time and effort to browse the past discussions on those matters… The main issue here is that I cannot agree with perverting the original purpose of the contest for technical reasons. If it is not possible to run POTY properly this year (as I suspect) than don’t do it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with respect to the too low bar at FP, but here we are with an awful lot of FPs. Yes, it corresponds to an effective delisting of some FPs prior to the first round, but those particular FPS are very unlikely finalist candidates in the first place, and I do not think the enormous amount of pictures to consider will be the needed eye-opener to the FP community. Rather, it will just a lay a very big burden on the few volunteers who are making an effort to try and materialise this thing. Besides, I do not think FP creators have ever been promised that any FP will be included in a POTY contest. They may expect so based on previous years, but sometimes necessity has to trigger changes. The proposal I set out here will effectively exclude the two FPs I have created in 2009 from the POTY competition, but I am absolutely fine with that as I know that they are substandard as compared to what triggers a POTY vote. And why waste so many peoples energy on voting on images on counting them and verifying them, when they will never hit the top 10 anyway. Who cares about being no. 58 or 576? It is not an exact science anyhow. The FP process in itself is also a prefilter, which emphasizes certain aspects such as resolution, which I doubt has much of an impact in the first rounds of POTY voting as realistically nobody would open +800 images in full resolution to assess them prior to voting. --Slaunger (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger, an interesting thought, but I have to say that I don't like the idea of excluding FPs from POTY based on the number of positive FP votes they have received. The problem I see is that I think some "lazier" FP voters probably decided not to vote for an image because they saw it passing anyway if it had more than five supports already without or only little oppose votes. (The phenomenon is probably larger regarding the oppose votes, but I think it exists also with the support votes.)
That said, I think there could be a compromise solution: I don't think there is a big problem if you want to add a specific gallery that lists only the FPs with more than e.g. 9 support votes. (If more than 10 is required there is an additional problem: the speedy promotion rule removes the FPC after five days and the voting period is then shorter and less votes are received.) Then POTY voters are free to evaluate only the FPs with more than 9 supports or the whole set depending on their choice. We would not be excluding any images, but instead just creating an easier way for POTY voters that don't want to review all the FPs.
BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maatti, at least 10 support votes is the same as more than 9 ;-), so I think that part of your concern regarding speedy promotion is handled already. But if the feeling is that we can handle voting on all 870 FPs I have no personal problem with that either. I just fear it will be a very overwhelming R1 vote. --Slaunger (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this. However one point I would make is that, at times, FP is much quieter than other times. Currently there are quite a few nominations/activity. A month or so back there was far less - this might well be an issue too? --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that may be an issue as well. Give me a little time to try and collect a gallery for one or two months showing what would be in and what would be out based on these criteria. It may be that this would show immediately if this is a terrible idea or not... --Slaunger (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to have a look at FPs promoted in jan 2009 and divide them into those that had at least 10 support votes and those that did not. The result is here: The numbers indicate the number of support votes:

At least 10 support votes

[edit]
  • 21
    21
  • 18
    18
  • 18
    18
  • 17
    17
  • 16
    16
  • 16
    16
  • 15
    15
  • 13
    13
  • 13
    13
  • 13
    13
  • 12
    12
  • 12
    12
  • 11
    11
  • 11
    11
  • 11
    11
  • 11
    11
  • 10
    10
  • 10
    10
  • 10
    10
  • 10
    10
  • 10
    10
  • 10
    10

Fewer than 10 support votes

[edit]
  • 9
    9
  • 9
    9
  • 9
    9
  • 9
    9
  • 9
    9
  • 9
    9
  • 8
    8
  • 8
    8
  • 8
    8
  • 8
    8
  • 7
    7
  • 7
    7
  • 7
    7
  • 7
    7
  • 6
    6
  • 6
    6
  • 6
    6
  • 6
    6
  • 5
    5
  • 5
    5
  • 5
    5
  • 5
    5
I had actually anticipated a larger difference between the two group in terms of one being clearly better than the other, but I must say, that for me, it seems like the number of support votes does not give a clear indication about how good each FP is. So my inclination is to withdraw that idea again. --Slaunger (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were right to raise it and for another year it may well be worth firming up these plans (maybe other issues too). I certainly cannot say that the second group contain "worse" images than the first. I think it may well be an effect of activity changing at some times (now - is it best to put in nominations when less people are around or not...:)) --Herby talk thyme 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well it's good that people are finally talking about this; & anyone who thinks that "everything is fine & we should just continue the way we're going" is hereby invited to join the vote preparation & processing working group; i strongly suspect that after processing the first 500 items or so, some people would have a change of heart on this issue! ;P
respectfully disagree with this approach to thinning the ranks tho (& not because the user objected to my proposal, or non-capitalization); the FP process is handlded by a smal group of dedicat5ed/interested users & most wmc users don't participate. not going to get into any arguements about "most prestigious", etc. but if we've established that the POTY starting pool is "all FP promotions of the year", then the first stage in POTY has to be a narrowing down of that list to a reasonable number. if an image has passed FP, then it's unfair to exclude it from POTY simply because it didn't get "enough"supporting votes. the whole point of my sugestion was to include the whole wm community in the nomination process, while still getting an R1 list that's manageable. also; arguements that the nomination process "would be unfair, because most people won't bother" are kind of moot. the same people who wouldn't bother looking thru the 2009 FPs & nominating/voting on a nomination also won't bother looking thru an R1 list that is 890 items long. Lx 121 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it was clear from my own conclusion on the preinvestigation that the proposal I had for thinning down the number of candidates was not a very good one. As far as I understand voting pages are now actually set up for all FPs, but I share and understand the concern from the committee regarding R1 voting and vote couting afterwards. I think it is unrealistically though at this late stage to get the community involved in narrowing it down. It requires a substantally larger effort to select and actively nominate images for R1 voting than voting on a large pool, and the risk is that the few users who nominate will not select images representative for the best of Commons. ow to resolve that then? I am not sure. Maybe bite the bullet and consider all FPs for round 1, but then do maximum efforts in trying to automate the process afterwards? Surely, for the next POTY 2010 we should start very early discuss the process in the FPC circuitry to build a timely consensus on the process and avoid this unfortunate situation in the future. --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open actions

[edit]

Am I the only one, who find it hard to figure out the status of activities that need to be done to initiate round 1 voting and deal with the results and the rest of the process? There are some threads spread out on the page of which some have ongoing activity. Could a summary of the status of tasks please be made here, such that the community has a better possibility to get an overview and also identify areas where individuals could help? Let me just start here with a few items. I hope other community members will help fill in the details. --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility for consideration in round 1

[edit]

Prefiltering prior to R1

[edit]
  • No, at this stage it's too late. Talking more will take longer than counting. Everyone has different ideas and strong opinions. Let's bite the bullet.--99of9 (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 questions

[edit]
  1. Is there an agreed set of rules and criteria for POTY 2009 (schedules, categories, phases, prizes, voting, etc...)?
  2. Is there a piece of software for receiving, counting and showing the votes?
  3. Is there a piece of software for verifying voter eligibility (before or after voting)?
  4. Is there a structured committe with clearly assigned tasks?
  5. Who is in charge? Obviously some authority (and responsability) is needed here.

No, I don't want to join the team this time. But maybe these questions will help to re-start the process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Committee, but there isn't any structure or list of tasks. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline & Summary

[edit]

Since the page above this point is getting rather fragmented, I am adding this section so that we can list the items that the committee agrees on, & intends to implement. Items should only be added here once we are agreed that they represent "official policy"; & ideally this section should remain @ the bottom of the page so it's easy to locate.

i'm not going to add material here right now, because i'm busy with some other writing, but i invite the other comittee members to summarize areas where we have reached consensus (like the voting rules?).

when its done, we can probably publish this (or the relevant parts) as a separate page, outlining the contest process.

16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ^ moving this down, since it's gotten buried, & we clearly do need something like this Lx 121 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I posted at the village pump asking more editors to participate in the planning process so we can get voting started. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though hesitated to start several weeks ago from severarl reasons, I still hope to see which are the best images of all FPs in 2009. If "Prefiltering prior to R1" is not indispensable, let's start without it. I hope we'll able to end the POTY at least by the time of Wikimania 2010's opening!
If any kind of filtering system is necessary, I think anyone can make temporary result pages in each category which will show voters how many votes each images are getting while Round 1 is going on. --miya (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO-DO LIST

[edit]

1. Galleries - R1 done - R2 pending

2. Voting categories - done/any revisions to category system need to be done NOW - finalized (consider revisions for next year?)

i.) create special badging for category winners? TO DO(?)

3. Vote pages - R1 done - R2 pending

4. Vote processing system - not done?/URGENT! R1 in place - R2 ?

5. Lock-in agreements on POTY 2009 procedures, awards, etc. (Jury Prize?) - confirm finalization, finish drafting material for current & future use?

i.) establish who is available/willing/when for POTY 2009 work? - help needed!
ii.) rough-out schedule/dates - R1 done - R2 pending

6. Final draft of rules/instructions for competition, & all related materials/tools. - confirm & finish drafting material for current & future use?

7. Translation - partial - more work needed?

8. Establish start date dates for voting - R1 in-process - R2 pending

9. Notifications @ all wiki-projects - done? (except meta) -seek more promotion?

10..._?

4.Vote processing system

[edit]
Round 1 - checking manually?
[edit]

I'm afraid we have to check the votes manually in Round 1. I think we may make a temp-result table which contain files with more than certain number of votes (may be 10 or 30 or 50...) in order to see which votepages have higher priority to be checked because of its inclusion/exclusion to Round 2 (cf. Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking or Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking/R2. --miya (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final - using SecurePoll?
[edit]

As Kanonkas suggested that we should use mw:Extension:SecurePoll, I wikimailed to Tim Starling and asked whether we can use SecurePoll for POTY. He kindly replied that

  • We can use it for the final round. There's no interface for dealing with large lists of candidates, so it would be rather tedious to use it for the initial round.
  • To use SecurePoll we'll have to ask Tim to create votes for POTY.

Perhaps we'll be able to save time with SecurePoll in the Final round. If there is anyone who knows MediaWiki well, please help.--miya (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use SecurePoll, can we publish the list of "who voted to which finalist" after the Final?--miya (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I aske Tim Starling to create vote for POTY (Final). The biggest reaon to use SecurePoll is to prevent people from losing interest in the Final result. Using SecurePoll we may publish the Final result in a few days.
I hope we can configure it to be public; even if that is not possible, we may publish the vote (who voted which candidate) after the vote closed.--miya (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5.procedures

[edit]
Rough schedule

I hope to make the date of each round as Friday to Friday which contains just one weekend, because two weekends may bring too much votes for us to deal with mannually (at least I don't think I can). If we have to check the vote of Round 1 mannually, we can't set the date of the Final beforehand. --miya (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably ask some of the other POTY participants to help verify votes. If we have 4 or 5 people checking, I think it should be ok. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Translation

[edit]

Urgent: Template:2009POTY/header/R1

8.dates for R1 voting

[edit]

I propose to have Round 1 "from 7 May to 14 May (Friday to Friday)". As I wrote above, "from Friday to Friday" with just one weekend in a round may be manageable. --miya (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's open the Round 1 on May 14-21. --miya (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Notifications @ all wiki-projects

[edit]

We can announce at:

  • MediaWiki Sitenotice
  • Mailing lists
  • Village pumps

Maybe at IRC and Twitter, too?--miya (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can take the village pumps, but I would need translations for everything other than English or German (French might be possible, too). We should also try to get some mention in Signposts and the like. If there's some Twitter account, of course, it should be used. Social networks become more and more important in our life. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hash tag like #poty2009 may work.--miya (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd say let's do it. In the meantime, I'll make sure to contact the English and German village pumps. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, but I skipped Meta, because I consider it useless to contact them (it's probably not the home wiki of anyone). --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Finnish Village Pump has now been notified. I also updated the Finnish version of the main POTY2009 page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff for next year POTY

[edit]

Some things that I noted just right now: Voting is extremely complicated. There's too much formating to do. It would be great if there could be some JavaScript that first detects if you're eligible for voting (probably using the API) and if so, adds a button which automatically adds the vote. The second thing would be to add a "Return to" link to the galleries on the voting pages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't know how to use JavaScript. Anyone is welcome to add a button or "Return to" link on the voting pages.--miya (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index pages update

[edit]

I update {{Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index/Category}} and {{Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index}} for more useful including in translated pages.

  1. In both pages "Index" word converted to {{{Index|Index}}}
  2. In {{Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index/Category}} categories names converted to named params (with previous english names as defoult value). New calling format:
{{Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index/Category|Index=<Index>
|Diagrams         = <Diagrams>
|Artworks         = <Artworks>
|People           = <People>
|Constructions    = <Constructions>
|Objects          = <Objects>
|Nature views     = <Nature views>
|Panoramas        = <Panoramas>
|Plants and fungi = <Plants and fungi>
|Arthropods       = <Arthropods>
|Birds            = <Birds>
|Other animals    = <Other animals>
}}

Cheers! --Kaganer (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. It would also be great if the numbers of the index could be localized (there are languages that use different languages than the European ones or that have different separators), but {{Formatnum}} can't handle this (yet). --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done (all transcluding updated) --Kaganer (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ineligible voters

[edit]

I created a template for ineligible votes at {{2009POTY-ineligible}}, which is localizable. Please use it so that everyone understands what's happening. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful template! Thank you, The Evil IP address.--miya (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a sharp ( # ) doesn't work at the top of the template, I made a little change to the template. Please use as follows :
Through votes, add 1 colon ( : ) just after the sharp ( # ):User's signature (Not eligible for votingSUL)
#: {{2009POTY-ineligible|Username|User's signature}}
If the vote is the first one, add 2 colons　( :: ) replacing ( # ) with:
:: {{2009POTY-ineligible|Username|User's signature}}
Template:2009POTY/Vote-1 (redirect to this template) is also available.
#:{{2009POTY/Vote-1|Username|User's signature}}
--miya (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Round 1

[edit]

Closing Round 1

[edit]

It's 2024-12-03 7:12(UTC) now. When it be 2010-05-22 00:00, please close the voting (I'll be ofline, moreover, don't know how to make the javascript off). Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking

[edit]

I made sortable tables by category so as to use for counting and checking votes. See

--miya (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important to check are these:
Two of them should be in the top-10, and two should not. --boivie (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting.--miya (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the number of finalists

[edit]

See Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2009#Too little finalists?. Thanks.--miya (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mw:SecurePoll in the Final

[edit]

As mentioned above mw:SecurePoll extention may be helpful. In enwp en:Special:SecurePoll you can find two Polls are open till 23:59 UTC on May 27, 2010 (en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election). If you are enwp editor "who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to April 1st", you can see how it works.--miya (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed last week (and again on this monday) to Tim about several points. The result was ... I'm going to write its detail in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2009.--miya (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Final

[edit]

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2009 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2009 Picture of the Year is open now.
Voting is open from 4 June 2010, 00:00 (UTC) till 11 June 2010, 23:59 (UTC) .

čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | français | हिन्दी | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Bahasa Melayu | русский | +/−

Preparation for mannual checking

[edit]
The voting header for the final (like POTY2008 Final header)

Template:2009POTY/header/Final/lang

Signature template

[edit]

Voting template: 

#{{2009POTY/Vote|Your_eligible_username}}--~~~~

When ineligible: 

#:{{2009POTY-ineligible|User's_name|User's signature}}--~~~~

When duplicated (Final is single vote): 

#:{{2009POTY-dupe|User's_name|User's signature}}--~~~~

Voting page

[edit]

Template:2009POTY/Votepage is modified to create voting pages for the Final. 

{{subst:2009POTY/Votepage}}

Checking page

[edit]

To check voting mannually it may be convenient to make a checking page like Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking/R2 or Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting/Voting checking.

  • Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting/Voting checking/Final]]

Date for the Final

[edit]

Next thing to do is to decide when to start and till when. I propose the voting date to be "from Friday to Friday" for the Final, too. How about "from 2010-06-04 (Friday) to 2010-06-11 (Friday)" ?--miya (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sooner the better, so is OK with me. --Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Hope to finish POTY before Wikimania!--miya (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for next time

[edit]

perhaps we should revise the R1 voting rule to "one vote per category"? - would produce clearer R1 results & make the R1 winners more meaning full.

though i signed this when i posted it, sorry! Lx 121 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple votes

[edit]

Some users miss the "Single vote per eligible user"-rule, like this one. Do we really have to check all pages for mulitiple votes before announcing the winner? And what to do with such users? Strike all their votes or ask them to strike some themselves? --boivie (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a message on his talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So did this one as well. --Elekhh (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be politely letting them know on their talk page. Have you done this? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009/Preparation&oldid=746257155"