Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010

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


Working on POTY 2010[edit]

anyone working on this yet? Lx 121 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When will the POTY 2010 begin? Why has it not already begun going towards month 3 of 2011?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please respond and give us some information as to which direction POTY2010 is going in. Dankie.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, its been over 3 months. Can a normal user maybe start it? I wanna start looking at pictures! 193.235.138.40 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm setting up the galleries since no other action has been taken. Others need to get on the committee, though. – Adrignola talk 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could email the commons-l mailing list? Or maybe I shall. I see you have. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 06:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

The main 2010 POTY page's color is quite glaring. Is this just me? fetchcomms 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very bright indeed! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
They say yellow is a memory color. Plus it's bright, which draws attention. :) theMONO 04:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Fetchsomms and Bastique, the colour is poisonous and does not fit with the wikimedia style. I don't mind being different from 2009, but this is tooo much. --ELEKHHT 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? --ELEKHHT 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
At least it draws attention. Anyone can make it blue or pink next year :)--miya (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It certainly draws me away from the page, it hurts my eyes, and looks like all those commercial no-content pages. Sorry. --ELEKHHT 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes, it looks like "commercial no-content pages" but these are no-content pages. There is not a lot to say and read, therefore Symbol keep vote.svg Keep this design. -- RE rillke questions? 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like gold. Like gold medals they give at the Olympics. I like it! --NaBUru38 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

This page looks like these in my browser. Is it possible any less browser dependable layout? --Jklamo (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • what browser are you using & what OS/device? Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Maxthon (2.5.15 - using Trident core) on WinXP. I did some more test (some may be visible at browsershots and problem occured also (not suprisingly) on IE 5,6,7. These browsers are not so popular globally (less than 10%), but locally yes (for example app 70% in China); so fixing will be nice (intead install a better brower advice :-) --Jklamo (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

5th anniversay[edit]

just a friendly observation (& one i don't have the time to act on, currently, or i would, than talk abt work for others to do), but since this is the 5th anniversary of poty@wmc, shouldn't we have all 4 previous winners on the page, instead of only 3/4?

also, personally, i'd have arranged the years from right to left (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009); but that's not really important.

the absence of the 2006 winner does seem odd tho...

Lx 121 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

crazy overlay[edit]

... on the page showing f***book and so on icons and occupying a good about of the screen with small window sizes like on netbooks with 16:10 ratio. I suggest to remove this free advertisements for the big data miners. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The design is intended to help viewers share photos they like and generate buzz for the competition. A browser extension like AdBlock can hide it for the few who dislike social networks or floaties. theMONO 00:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It has a specific ID. You may turnoff it using user-CSS or JS. -- RE rillke questions? 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Support immediate removal. I'm fully with Saibo here, this is just as nasty as the other "new" "features". I'm afraid the educational mission of Commons is getting diverted towards mainstream entertainment. --ELEKHHT 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It is specifically included only on Commons POTY contest pages and is transparent. It's not a feature...it's a small box to help spread the word about the contest. I don't even see how you can bring up 'educational mission' here. theMONO 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It is free advertisement for the big companies. Users can "share" this page also by using browser addons/bookmarklets.
By the way: I know how I can get rid of it. That was not my question. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like something, it doesn't mean it should be removed. Please just bear with the contest for wanting to get buzz. And it's not like Facebook and Twitter and Google need advertising...they are big companies. theMONO 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
They do not need because the get it for free - like here. --Saibo (Δ) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I love the buttons, and I think the floating implementation is nicer and less obtrusive than the cruft you see on some other sites. As for how necessary they are... most processes on Commons (FPC as one example) don't really need to be immediately shared outside of Wikimedia wikis. But a picture of the year contest is the kind of thing that interests people who aren't regular Commons editors, or even editors on any Wikimedia project. It showcases our very best content of the year, reminds users of the projects how awesome Commons is, and might just get us some new contributors who see how high-quality Commons media really can be. The use of the buttons is only on one page, and isn't a violation of the privacy policy since they don't use Facebook Connect or transmit any data about your account from Wikimedia. If you prefer not to participate in sites like that for personal reasons, then having the buttons doesn't hurt you. If people are already on Twitter or Facebook and want to share the POTY contest, that will help Commons. Steven Walling 04:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It does hurt, visually, like the rest of the new layout. To me, it does not show anything positive about Commons, certainly not the principles of cooperation and consensus. --ELEKHHT 06:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You disliking the design because it is bold and stands out is not the same as hurting Commons. It's a matter of taste. While you're of course welcome to your opinion, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees that it is a negative. Making it easy to share something important is exactly the kind of spirit that enables better collaboration. Steven Walling 07:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Were ist the x to close this spam window? --Diwas 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, an x to close would help everybody. ---donald- 09:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
+1, I can hide the buttons with AdblockPlus, but I can't figure out how to get rid of that stupid half-transparent frame around them. I can undestand the idea behind it, but it's really annoying that you can't turn it off without messing around with browser plugins or personal CSS/JavaScript. --El Grafo 10:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For me too : boycott POTY without button to hide this ridiculous and ugly bar! (not enought to hide with a complicated work on .js or .css) ----MGuf (d) 10:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
come on, it is really not difficult to put a few lines in your css. ugly-no, useful-possibly -- RE rillke questions? 10:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No enought : everyone need a simple button without a sofisticated DIY! And not everybody will look for a special page to find a special way to hide a simple bar: everywhere on the internet you can hide bars with a "x"! ----MGuf (d) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Rillke, requiring people to hack their skin is an awesome and so easy idea!
The floater does not even have an X to close. However, it would still be free advertising for those companies. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW: email and redditidentica link to the image instead of a working link. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Email link removed due to non-functionality. I removed the drop shadow that made it stand out so much. Additionally, I removed this floating box from the header template due to widespread aggravation and its covering of content. Now Template:Share is placed by hand at the bottom of Commons:Picture of the Year/2010 and in Template:2010POTY/Voteheader, which causes it to appear on the voting pages for images (but not galleries). So people can share the main page, or share a specific image. I hope this is a compromise that will please everyone. – Adrignola talk 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
identica is also not working.
Thanks. Way better now. But - it is still advertising which is against our rules. --Saibo (Δ) 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I believe if it's advertising anyone, it'd be advertising us. I notice this is done by el.wikinews, eo.wikinews, es.wikinews, pt.wikinews, sq.wikinews, and sr.wikinews. – Adrignola talk 13:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's ok for me now. Thank you. ----MGuf (d) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How to turn off[edit]

Add the following CSS to your common/ vector.css or click here

.template_share {
    display: none;
}
#TwentyTenPOTYShare {
    display: none;
}

-- RE rillke questions? 10:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, put this code next to the bar, for everyone's use. ----MGuf (d) 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Or follow the example of the French "Bistro" (village pump) for a polemic banner, on top of each day page : Wikipédia:Le Bistro/29 avril 2011 : there is a "x", linked to the syntax and the way to use it. (to translate in main languages, please). ----MGuf (d) 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The overlay is indeed very distracting, and should have a simple button to turn it off. Particularly for new users or ip's who find the picture of the year page a floating overlay that can not be turned off can be confusing (a simple edit on css file is probably more than most web users have ever done). Frankly it looks like an advertisement at first glance, and really does not fit with commons general UI in my opinion. MKFI 11:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a "remove-this-button-pane" as requested by a lot of contributors. Therefore, please edit Template:Share and add this, as I am unable due to my user rights:

{{Add new section|Page=Special:MyPage/common.css|Preload=User:Rillke/hidePOTY.css|Subject=Hiding annoying buttons|Text=X|Tooltip=Click here to hide the button-pane, then click save and return to this page.|Editintro=User:Rillke/ClickSave}}

Here, it is:

X

And it is quite easier to use. -- RE rillke questions? 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

that only works for registered users and puts trash in their common.css.
Sysops: just delete the Template:Share as this is against our policies of no advertising. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Saibo, calling my idea "trash". Can you please estimate, how many IPs will vote here and how many IPs will feel annoyed because they are often at commons? BTW I am not a friend of this pane (I hided it myself) and I am not a friend of so-called social networks. -- RE rillke questions? 11:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not called your idea trash. I have called the stuff that remains after the POTY is over in the user's common.css "trash". Your idea is - except the trashy thing - nice! But it needs to not display the X for IPs - otherwise we will get pages like User:84.58.194.251/common.css.
However, we do not need a X by removing the bar completely.
If "we" advertise POTY in "social networks" then many IPs will visit. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Rarely I would concur with Saibo. This thing may hover over the intro page, but placing on top of candidate galleries is disrespectful of featured content. Advertising F's and T's (did they pay the foundation, at all?), if necessary, could have more tact. Cull and forget. NVO 12:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please at least make it stay in one place where it does not cover page content. Now it moves in the page when you scroll so it always covers some part of the page. Only advanced users or users reading this discussion will now how remove this with css rules, so it needs to be done in some other way so that all users get the change. /Ö 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And at least in Chrome, it seems to prevent you from clicking links on the same horizontal level, even when they are not obscured by the semi-transparent overlay. This is confusing and highly annoying. We should shift it to a fixed position on the intro page only, or just delete it. I also think the whole idea of "spreading the word" in such a scattergun way conflicts with our requirement that voters must have well established accounts (200 edits before 2011). Why tell people about it when they probably can't participate? --Avenue 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably a stupid question. Are all these F and T ads really PD-Ineligible, or they have a threshold of originality? In the latter case, commons cannot host the content. Delete as copyvio and close the case. NVO 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, they are PD-inelig. The rediit face is the most critical, I would say. But.. I think okay. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How to turn on[edit]

A great new idea: we switch it off by default - like on any other page here and due to our principle that we do not do advertising for other companies - and those who urgently want it can simply switch it on:

Should be similar to the following (to be inserted in common.css)

.template_share {
    display: block;
}
#TwentyTenPOTYShare {
    display: block;
}

Great isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I participate?[edit]

What is the procedure for partcipation? Will voters will vote from some selected pictures or I have submit some selected pictures? ସୁଭ ପା/Subhashish Panigrahi 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Eligibility. You will be voting from featured pictures from 2010. However, it appears that you do not have enough edits to qualify for voting. – Adrignola talk 12:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
But you are invited to leave your comments in the appropriate section. -- RE rillke questions? 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Nickel_electrolytic_and_1cm3_cube.jpg -> Page does not exist.[edit]

How can I vote for the file? Is there a template for the voting pages?--Zapyon 08:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I fixed it, but the template to use is {{subst:2010POTY/Votepage}}. – Adrignola talk 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Same thing goes for File:Image of an African Songye Power Figure in the collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (2005.21)-EDIT.jpg when you try to access it from the page with all the pictures. /Julle (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

If anyone can go through all the languages' pages, the button that says "Can I vote? (Read this before you vote)" goes to a bad link. It goes to "Cannot find section" on Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Eligibility. fetchcomms 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Keraunoscopia (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

protected?[edit]

well i was going to tweak the look of the photo captions on the page, by putting the years in bold,

BUT i found, to my surprise, that the page has been "protected" to "admins-only"

was there some reason for this move?

i could understand setting it to "registered users only" (although good form would dictate not doing that, unless a problem develops), but why on earth make it "admins only"!?

o__0

Lx 121 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

just to be clear, i'm talking about the mainpage for poty2010 (since it seems that all, or at least several of the sub-pages linkback to here, for "discussion"Lx 121 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It was mentioned on the preparation page and was not something for discussion as it was requested by the committee. Admin protection is needed for cascading protection to be in place. This is an extremely high traffic page with advertising for it on multiple mailing lists and a global site notice across all Wikimedia projects. It is a vandalism target and so is every template included upon it. Thousands are descending upon Commons with this as the landing page and so this is not a page to be treated lightly. – Adrignola talk 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
ok so i've been all over the poty2010 preparation page, & i can't find anything about it there either? link me please? Lx 121 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

yellow floater on gallery pages ("Round 1 vot...")[edit]

Do you know from where the following text on the POTY gallery pages comes? It is not translated to de and it does get gut off for a slightly increased font size - my standard font size in Firefox. And: why do we need this big thing hovering over the images people are supposed to vote vor? Very distracting.

"Round 1 voting for POTY 2010 is open until May 4, 2011 at 23:59 UTC! Learn more about voting.
Don't forget to check out the images near the bottom of this <cannot see more>"

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That yellow square self-advertisement is extremely annoying. It also blocks the next category right-arrow at the bottom of the screen (at least at my browser size settings)—I'll just use the one at the top. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed it due to lack of translation and the same annoyance seen before with the floating share icons. – Adrignola talk 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Found it: it is in Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Galleries/header. ... I have converted it to a banner on top + i18n. Better now or remove? (I would not oppose a removal). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Better... maybe a different color, though. That's a lot of yellow (gold) going on up there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe simply no color? ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

bugfixes[edit]

hi again;

i'm currently scanning through the poty2010 r1 images on the "all images" page; it is moderately annoying that when i click an image to goto it, then hit the back button to return, the all-images gallery page does NOT "remember" where i was looking, & instead returns to a default "folded-up" state.

which means that i have to re-open the 2 sub-sections, & then try to find my place, again, & again, & again...

>__<

(using chrome on ubuntu, if that's relevant; but i highly suspect this is a "standard" page behavior)

Lx 121 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


...OK, so now the "all images" page is also randomizing image-order, EVERY TIME i go back to it.
i can understand why randomization is "fairer" for voting purposes, but it is incredibly annoying(!!!!), when you're trying to process through the complete set of images...
please fix this? as-is you might as well not have an "all-images" gallery; it's useless, unless you want to just stay on the same page the whole time.
Lx 121 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
and for anyone trying to view the page on a more limited (let's say mobile) device, where one cannot open endless tabs, & flip between then easily, it's even worse! Lx 121 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Most people will open up a new tab to vote on an image, as otherwise they'd have to hit the back button three times after filling out their vote and submitting the page. – Adrignola talk 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
with respect, see my comment about people who are using devices that ARE NOT multi-tab friendly (& who said anything about voting? maybe i'm a non-eligible end-user, & i just want to see the image up-close?) Lx 121 (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I really understand this problem, but randommizing is a prerequirement for a fair election (see Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Preparation#Random_order.3F). Of course it would be better if the randomization would be static for each user. Maybe for next year's poty as this would require some programming effort - I could not find a quick solution. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the effort, anyway; to be clear: i do understand why we're randomizing, i just think once (per user, for an ongoing pageviewing) is enough! ;P Lx 121 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This will require saving the sequence in a cookie or creating the randomisation from (a hash of) the username. -- RE rillke questions? 10:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing something here...[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved– Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the participation rules, they're confusing (to me, at any rate). "Look through galleries for the current round of voting (please take the time to look at all the pictures in any category you choose to vote in!), click the "Vote" button below any image you wish to support, and vote for that image by using the template {{2010POTY/Vote}}, signed with 4 tildes:"... I've been going through the galleries and clicking on the "vote" button, but where do I put the {{2010POTY/Vote}} template? The instructions don't really say. I did use that template on the 2010/Voters page (but apparently I'm not wanted lol)... Now, there is a note that says, "Note: Please include your name on the list of voters..." but this is after the fact, and seems to be a separate instruction. Help please. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to pass. (I will look at mono's tool soon.) That was an edit conflict gone wrong that I am trying to fix. cheers --Guerillero 02:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. So that's all that we have to do: add our name to that Voter list, and then vote, right? I felt like there was an extra step in there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge thats all. I approved you here --Guerillero 02:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much Guerillero! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You do not need the {{2010POTY/Vote}} anymore - there was a JavaScript enabled which uses it automatically (see your edits list some hours ago but the instructions were not updated. I had done so for the /de version and updating now the /en version, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Please proofread. :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, that's much better. Thank you! : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing article order is stupid[edit]

Dear developers of this. I know that you may like the effect of changing pictures, but it is stupid. When I am comeing back from the preview we have to see it again and again and again from the beggining.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

please see → #bugfixes and continue there if necessary. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

Again, as the voting is way too complicated, I am not going to participate. Have no time to waste.--Kozuch (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting using JS button is pretty easy. If does not work in your browser, try another.--Jklamo (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It is way too complicated using Firefox, and even worse using Internet Explorer. If you know of a browser which makes it easy, please tell. Maproom (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

how do the pics get candiates?[edit]

how do the pics get candidates? who does propose the pics? I miss following pic in "People and human activities": Scheibenschlagen --ProloSozz (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All images and videos that became featured pictures (FP) on Wikimedia Commons during 2010 are eligible and should be available for voting. The photo you linked to is an FP on the German Wikipedia, but is not a Commons FP, so it is not eligible. You can nominate it at COM:FPC, and if it passes it will then be eligible for the next year's Picture of the Year competition. --Avenue (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous winners[edit]

The project page doesn't credit the photographers of the 2007, 2008, 2009 PotY competition, and yet not only names, but gives biographical details of the 2006 winner. If it is about the photo, why is the name, nationality or employer of the 2006 winner relevant. If it is about the producer of the work, then credit the others appropriately. The current situation gives the impression that being employed by the USAF is in and of itself notable. Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done--Trixt (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
While I think it is proper that the other photographers are credited, my objection was to the superfluous mention of the employer and position within that organisation of the 2006 winner. I see no justification for it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Caption fix[edit]

As the page is edit protected can someone fix the caption please?

"2007 winner: Broadway Tower in Cotswolds, England" should be:

"2007 winner: Broadway Tower in the Cotswolds, England."

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done--Trixt (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Animations[edit]

I think that for next year, a separate category should be created for animations, or find some other way to separate them from the rest. I don't think it's fair for them to be placed in a gallery as stills, where most people vote without ever clicking on the file description page and so never see the animated version of the file. -- King of ♠ 01:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that tossing animations and videos in amongst the rest doesn't seem very fair. Giving them a separate category in future (as has been done this year for panoramas) might be best. BTW, there was some discussion during the preparation phase of whether animations and videos should simply be disqualified. --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs "vote" button[edit]

The page needs a great big "Click here to vote" button. I have read through the whole page a couple of times and am still not sure how to vote. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Visit this page and click on a category you like to vote in. Then, you'll see the vote-buttons -- RE rillke questions? 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Acceptable change - but if someone reads the eligibility page as he should he will see the links and explanation how and where to vote. No one should vote without reading first. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I found voting really difficult. After going through the eligibility page (which was hard enough in itself), there was no route to where I could actually vote, except by clicking "back" a dozen or so times. And even then, voting didn't work. Eventually I realised that the next trick is not to find my preferred image and click on its vote button, but to wait for 20 seconds or so until the rest of the page had finished downloading, then click on the vote button. I would be interested to know what proportion of users who attempted to vote actually managed it. Maproom (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The "vote" button isn't working for me. Nothing different happens when I click it. I have checked with Firebug that I do not have any JavaScript errors elsewhere. Any help? MC10 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship between voting button and applicable image[edit]

A grey box surrounds the image and excludes the voting button. On the panorama gallery page this leads to a button nearly equally spaced between images and no clue as to which image it applies to. It's not all that hard to remember that the voting button is underneath the associated image but why make it harder than it needs to be. A box around both image and button or text on button reading "vote for the above image" would be useful. Waerloeg (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please notify User:Kalan. He maintains this script. -- RE rillke questions? 10:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Request left on his user page. Waerloeg (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you Kalan. Waerloeg (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

When will the final stage voting begin and the full round 1 ranking will be announced? Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The final will begin after all the votes have been counted and the new voting pages for that round created. Rankings will occur after counts are done. (There's still about 7 hours left). – Adrignola talk 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather a stupid question, but...[edit]

First of all, thank you all for doing this. But my question is, why does the POTY emblem look so similar to Soviet Union logo? Thanks. YurB (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons isn't communist, Comrade. – Adrignola talk 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, of course I know:) I was just wondering where the idea of the emblem came from, it just seems to me that such symbols tend to be some kind of typical, but, as I am from Ukraine, I can't see it the same way Europeans or Americans do, that's why I'm asking. YurB (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It may have been derived from the UN flag. – Adrignola talk 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. It was interesting. YurB (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

time to update the poty2011 mainpage[edit]

r1 voting has now ended; i'd change the notation myself, but since the page was "protected" it has to be an admin :P

Lx 121 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one[edit]

...who does not see a link to POTY on the homepage or on the Community Portal? Do you really think that the sitenotice is enough for this? --Elitre (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do. And based on my data, it's right to consider that. theMONO 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd really love to see your data. I find it amazing that Commons should need a bar with social media links instead of a much plainer demonstration that a contest such as POTY is wanted by the community and pretty much an event here. --Elitre (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to support Elitre. I don't understand why there isn't a very visible link to the POTY on the homepage. I would think that all possible advertiments for the event would be useful, and the most obvious place to advertise must be on the homepage. --Amjaabc (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
for that matter, how much poty promotion are we doing on other wikimedia projects? Lx 121 (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidates[edit]

Surely, there was a candidate at Muhammed worthy of candidacy for this honor?

the rules are fairly straightforward; this is a contest involving every image file that was "promoted" to "featured picture status @ wikimedia commons" during the calendar year 2010.
any images from the category you mentioned, which qualify in this way, were candidates in the round 1 voting; round 2 is the "run-off" vote to pick the overall winner.
images are promoted to featured picture by open vote & discussion & the fp-page; any user is free to nominate any image, but the judging tends to be rather harsh, & highly focussed on technical qualities.
there are other categories for "honouring" image files; Quality Image is a lower-ranking than Featured Picture, & Valued Image is a separate determination, based on the file's uniqueness & usefulness as educational material
more info about these topics is available, if you search help/info on here
it's not a perfect system, but this is an open wiki, so anyone can suggest and/or make improvements :)
Lx 121 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Traslation[edit]

Is it possible to translate at least the essential parts of the voting process so that people who don't speak will be able to participate? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is possible, please see Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Translations, many pages are translated already by volunteers, if you like you can also help in translating.   ■ MMXX  talk  07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

status info[edit]

hi;

was looking @ the new/revised poty2010 mainpage design (looks good; though i didn't have any problems with the yellow on the old one, either)

there really should be some kind of "current status" info; a box or something

at the moment, it should probably say something like

"R1 voting completed, & being processed; R2 finalists are up in the R2 gallery (link); R2 voting is scheduled to begin soon (xx/xx - xx/xx dates?)"

Lx 121 (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that current status is total confusion. --Jklamo (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Voter notification?[edit]

Should voters on the disqualified copyvio image and the Garden of Earthly Delights be notified on their talk pages to return here and cast new votes? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they should. --Tomer T (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done -- RE rillke questions? 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

email POTY link is broken.[edit]

The share POTY by email link is broken (at least on the en translation), with the link parameter being interpreted as the alt text. (Its protected so I can't fix it) Bawolff (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you know how to fix it, you can start a discussion on the relevant talk page with {{editprotected}} tagged at the top and explain exactly what needs to be changed. Should do the trick : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It was broken also in the first round... where it was removed then. In the round 2 I already had removed the email link in some templates... but apparently it is still somewhere (also difficult due to i18n and subtemplates):
Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/en did use User:Mono/Sandbox2 - changed
Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Finalists/Large did use Template:2010POTY/Finalistsheader/en - changed
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostar bridge image manipulation[edit]

Extremely manipulated photo.
Actual original photo

I'm quite concerned about the POTY candidate File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg. It is a highly photoshopped image, where I think the manipulation has gone overboard and beyond what's acceptable for documentary use. The sky has been entirely replaced by a blue sky from some other photo, except that the real sky is still reflected in the river surface. The colors are also excessively boosted to give the scene an unnatural HDRI-like look that doesn't match the actual lighting conditions of the actual photo at all.

I'm pretty sure most of the voters are unaware of this situation. Thoughts, anyone? --KFP (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very, very heavily retouched yes. But - click the file description: there is a banner even directly under the image stating exactly this. It is nice (see also its FP discussion) - but I wouldn't use in in an Wikipedia article. But: Commons is not "Wikipedia image host" only. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you write a comment at Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Final/File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg#Comments more people will see that and some may agree with and vote for something else. /Ö 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at the past winners of POTY? They're all pretty much massively digitally manipulated with the HDR look. It's not a big deal, if you ask me. The end result is what we're voting on, not how it got there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As above. I do not see any reason to change my mind. I've voted for this image and I don't feel misled. Patrol110 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The color difference between the sky and water is really disturbing... ---donald- (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First time I've participated in the POTY elections, and I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. While some retouching is to be expected, such correcting for light exposure and other technicalities, pasting a fake sky is beyond retouching; it is creating a pretty, fake image that never existed in reality, and I don't see how a project dedicated to hosting "educational media content" can prefer artificial beauty over accuracy. Rami R 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking multi-voting[edit]

How are we going to check for double or multi-voting (people voting for more than one image)? I have to assume there is a better way that digging through contribution logs of voters.--Chaser (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to write a little code to pull usernames out of the voting lists and check for duplicates. I'll go ahead and do this later today if noone objects. --Avenue (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be an ideal solution. FYI: I've noticed that many of the multi-voters don't qualify anyway.--Chaser (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, it looks like multiple voting is a bigger problem than I realised. There seem to be several hundred editors who have voted more than once, so it may take a little while to tidy them all up. There are dozens who have voted 10 or more times. Only three of them (Coercorash, Fjfjfjfire, and रामा) have voted for every image, though. --Avenue (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've uploaded a list of the 703 multiple voters here. (Now also at User:Avenue/POTY2010/Multiple votes.) They made 3260 votes in total, compared to 3297 votes from once-only voters. --Avenue (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The list does include some people who voted twice or more for a single picture, and not for any others. --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to identify those voters specifically? My thinking is that if they've expressed a clear preference, it's fair to count just one of their votes for that preference (e.g., Tomeasy).--Chaser (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been doing that as I go through, at least when I've noticed. It would be better to extend my script to check for this too, so none get missed. That's on my to-do list. --Avenue (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. There were twelve such voters, three of which I had missed. These are now corrected. --Avenue (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you for all your hard work on this.--Chaser (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. It has taken more time than I expected. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


I've now taken the multiple voters out of the count for the top half dozen pictures. File:Laser Towards Milky Ways Centre.jpg is clearly going to be our picture of the year. --Avenue (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Now more than half the multiple votes have been omitted. Together with a little targeted vote checking, this has identified the pictures in second place (File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg) and third (File:Sarychev Peak.jpg), with 183 184 and 169 valid votes respectively. --Avenue (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vote totals[edit]

In case anyone's interested, here are the current totals I get after removing votes for multiple images. Fourth place is still undecided. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture Confirmed votes Unchecked votes Maximum possible
20080406165033!V-22 Osprey refueling edit1.jpg 16 67 83
2h Namur 13.jpg 23 56 79
4th FW Strike Eagles assist shuttle launch.jpg 21 51 72
AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpg 48 54 102
Apollo 17 Moon Panorama.jpg 21 21 42
Beloeil castel 1 Luc Viatour.jpg 18 39 57
Buddhabrot-W1000000-B100000-L20000-2000.jpg 11 25 36
Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg 33 53 86
Charging Leopard-001.JPG 39 39 78
Clavaria zollingeri 90973.jpg 9 0 9
Dundasite and Crocoite.jpg 27 0 27
Flea Scanning Electron Micrograph False Color.jpg 1 0 1
Frontal lobe animation.gif 19 0 19
Galerie Lafayette Haussmann Dome.jpg 25 0 25
Golden Gate Bridge at sunset 1.jpg 22 57 79
Jokulsarlon Panorama.jpg 15 20 35
Lake Vuoksa 1.jpg 111 13 124
Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg 25 0 25
Laser Towards Milky Ways Centre.jpg 243 0 243
Lone House.jpg 114 42 156
Michael Gernhardt in space during STS-69 in 1995.jpg 11 32 43
Mirounga leonina.jpg 144 22 166
Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg 184 0 184
Pelecanus conspicillatus pair swimming.jpg 36 0 36
Placid death.JPG 33 55 88
Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg 32 0 32
Radiometer 9965 Nevit.gif 29 0 29
Red eyed tree frog edit2.jpg 72 24 96
Sadhu Vârânasî .jpg 34 26 60
Sarychev Peak.jpg 169 0 169
Schloss Lichtenstein 04-2010.jpg 120 45 165
Schwappender Wein.jpg 66 75 141
Sépulture de Teviec Global.jpg 33 13 46
USA 10187 Horseshoe Bend Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg 65 12 77
Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg 32 61 93


For next year[edit]

It seems many people unwittingly voted more than once. This picture got one valid vote and a dozen or so votes by otherwise eligible voters that were not counted because they also voted for other images in the final round. Deciding whether it's their fault or ours probably would not be a useful exercise. But I think next year we should make the message more prominent so that fewer people disenfranchise themselves. The alternative is checking as we go and notifying people--do we have enough people interested to undertake that? Anyway, I think it's safe to assume that a lot of these people would have voted for a single image if they'd known. I cannot be sure without running the numbers, but it might have affected the result. Let's avoid that possibility next year.--Chaser (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... I figured out some other stunt to rob the list into the 3 photos with the highest votes (which I did recently). Laser Towards Milky Way Centre (243) is the golden pole position leader that tops the winning party(1st place). Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007 (184) (despite the fucked up manipulation thing) ranks a silver runner-up (2nd place). Finally, Sarychev Peak (169) is able to make it to the brown side (3rd place). 1007D (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, hello User:Chaser. It's very intresting to see you. 1007D (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we know each other?--Chaser (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat like that, but how many pictures you uploaded, my new friend? 1007D (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of running the numbers, I've run a similar table to the one above, but counting instead votes by voters who voted for more than one image. The Sarychev eruption photo comes top there. If all their votes were counted together with the single votes, the laser photo would still come out ahead., but Sarychev might come second ahead of Mostar. (There are enough unchecked votes that it's still unclear.) --Avenue (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I think you'd have to check all the not verified's in that list. Many, perhaps most, of the unverified votes that were disqualified for voting for more than one image would not be eligible anyway. Also, the Mostar image's total in that table is wrong.--Chaser (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Many, yes, but "most" is a bit strong. Of the votes by multiple image voters, 1203 have not been checked, 1014 have been checked and found eligible, and 1017 were checked and found ineligible (generally for reasons other than voting for multiple images). So the eligibility rate among the checked votes is very close to 50%.
You're right, the Mostar image's total was wrong, and so were all the others. I'm sorry - I had included ineligible votes as eligible by mistake. This is now fixed, and the Mostar image does better than most of the others. The laser image would still be well ahead in the combined totals. Mostar would be second, and Sarychev almost certainly third. --Avenue (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am able to check revisions of the Second Round voting page to look for the right voting counts, so we'd twist a wrench by fixing the numbers. 1007D (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Mirounga leonina.jpg (166) is a fourth placer. 1007D (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Flea Scanning Electron Micrograph False Color.jpg (1) is the mosting losing loser of all time in terms of voting duties. 1007D (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the blame for the multiple vote problem is the "push to vote" buttons. An uninformed user might assume that the button would automatically replace his previous vote. Rami R 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility rule[edit]

Header added. --Avenue (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

p.s a new members p.o.v new members should have been given a chance to vote for p.o.t.y as well,pls dont mind my two cents, wikipedia belongs to the human race all of it isnt that so regardless of their date of joining —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.153.64.138 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite the way it is written, I think the restriction is aimed more at reducing cheating and vandalism than at keeping out new members. --Avenue (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting closed[edit]

I made a few inelegant edits to the finals page to close voting. Protecting the pages would be ideal, but I doubt people will go looking for them with the links missing.--Chaser (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost done tallying results[edit]

I think the results are in and done: Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/Final/Checking. Is some checking of the vote-checkers customary for redundancy's sake? How should we display the results? The top ten from 2009 are displayed, then the category winners. Years prior just had a straight ranking of the finalists. Like previous years, we have several ties in the rankings, starting with two tied for 12th place with 73 votes apiece.--Chaser (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is fruitbowlwithmelons in last place? That's almost insulting considering it had far more votes than any of the last place images before the fiasco. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what to do with that one. It was listed at DR in good faith with legitimate reasons, and then information surfaced indicating that the licensing was actually valid. I don't have any strong feelings about it. If consensus supports counting the number of votes at the time it was de-listed, then we could do that. Otherwise, we could just not list it in the final results. It's an unfortunate situation.--Chaser (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there were 23 votes; 22, if Lx_121 voted twice (legitimate vote elsewhere, perhaps, and protest vote here). Doesn't look like Avenue went through the list to filter and weed, so I'm not sure what the results are, but if the people who voted only cast one vote, I say that definitely counts. The image was never reinstated, perhaps, but if it's going to be included in the final listing, then that's fair game for the votes that did make it before the image was DQ'd. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't go through the votes for that image (or its brief replacement), or consider them when determining whether someone had voted multiple times, on the grounds that both were removed from the competition and (as I recall) the voters were encourage to vote again elsewhere. I think that if the fruit bowl image is included in the table, its entry should at least say more clearly that it was removed or disqualified. I don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be put into rank order. Another possible solution would be to leave it at the end, but set it off more clearly from the others with a horizontal line or other formatting. If it is to be ranked, I think we should add a new column of vote counts as of the time it was disqualified, and see if we can use that to rank the image while retaining the existing order of the other images. I'm happy to check this image's votes for multiple voting if people feel that ranking it would be worthwhile. --Avenue (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess the thing to do would be to check as of the time it was disqualified to see if voters had voted for other images then, rather than after they were notified and chose to vote for other images.--Chaser (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. --Avenue (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This was easy enough to do by hand. A couple outstanding issues. יוסאריאן also voted for another image, but before this first image was disqualified. To me, neither should be counted. There's also a protest vote from Lx_121 that came after the file was DQed. That vote is otherwise valid (that person is eligible and did not vote for any other images in the final round).--Chaser (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I'd tend to disagree about יוסאריאן, though. I see the vote counting for the disqualified image as answering only a hypothetical question (how would the image have compared to others if it was accepted as a valid entry in the competition), not as part of the real count. So I wouldn't want to omit someone's vote from the real count for another image solely because they also voted for the disqualified one, any more than someone who voted twice for a single image. It seems like only a technical violation of the rules, not one with any real effect.
I do agree that it makes sense to remove their vote from the count for the disqualified image, and probably also from the count for the other image at the time of disqualification since that is also part of the hypothetical comparison.
I acknowledge Lx_121's protest, but I believe their vote should still not be counted in that comparison. Perhaps it could be noted separately in the results table. --Avenue (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree to your proposal regarding Lx_121. Regarding יוסאריאן's vote, I don't understand, but whatever you want to do is fine with me.--Chaser (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The image I voted for can be placed fifth, while the Top 4 images I talked about above can be used too. 1007D (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, someone brought my attention to this discussion - was there a problem with my vote? יוסאריאן (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You voted twice in the final round [1] [2] when you were only supposed to vote once. One of those images was disqualified.--Chaser (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Correction of the vote count

If people here think the votes mentioned above should be counted off, please add colon ":" to those votes, so that we can correct the number in the Final Results and the Finalist page. Thanks.--miya (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Final results

Please see and check Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Preparation#The Final results. Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A confession[edit]

I am one of those who voted twice. I din't mean to, and I was aware that I was not allowed to vote twice. Here is how it happened.

I voted (with some difficulty, it was hard getting registered to vote, and then hard finding the place where I could use my vote) for a picture of a tree frog. Some time later, I was looking at the images and reading the chat about them. I clicked below one of them (an observatory with a laser beam going up into the heavens) intending to read the chat, but accidentally hit the "vote" button, which I was surpised to find was still active and had registered a second vote.

I am not complaining, and I don't want my vote back. But I hope that next year, it will be made easier to vote deliberately, and harder to vote when one doesn't have a vote left. Maproom (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel very sorry to hear your case. I sincerely hope the next year committee will find a good way to prevent such troubles. Thank you for your feedback (You can also post your comment to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Feedback).--miya (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I had pretty much exactly the same thing, except I struck my vote on the second one. My first vote was still voided. Not fair! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Contacting the winners[edit]

Can someone add contacting the creators of the winning images to the to-do list for next year? When I contacted Yuri Beletsky, creator of this year's number one, he was delighted to hear that one of his photographs won the contest. We even got some positive coverage from their organization.--Chaser (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)