Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
POTY barnstar 1.svg

/Archived preparatory discussion

Comments on the Competition[edit]

keep the voteing page as clean as posible. Everything that can be put on a subpage should be.Geni 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read all the discussion on the subject before coming in for the first time and changing the design of the page. Alvesgaspar 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just have. No one appears to have given much thought to keeping the page uncluttered.Geni 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. 1st reason: it is supoosed the voters to look at the table (for consensus); 2nd reason: to update the table, it is convenient to have the last votes in sight. And now, if you don't mind, I'll put things the way they were before! Alvesgaspar 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
haveing the voters look at the table to influnce thier vote is groupthink not consensus. Secondly it is trivial to transclude the voteing page on the page the table is on (I rather assumed that updateing was done by bot). Thirdly you appear to have voted I would suggest you take no further role in manageing the elections.Geni 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is bad to encourage existing votes to influence new voters. However, I don't think the table by itself creates a great risk. What we really should do is avoid linking to the pictures from the votes or the result table.. because then some people will only look at the leaders or what their friends picked and then vote for images among those. :) --Gmaxwell 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If their is any need for independence, I have not voted, and I will not do so. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

templates for invalid votes[edit]

I've created two templates to use on the talk pages of voters who do not qualify and who did not provide diffs. For anonymous IPs, we have {{POTY-anon}} and for registered voters with under 100 edits, {{POTY-registered}}. Edit them as necessary. — coelacan — 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I already used one! - Alvesgaspar 12:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I would like to thank the people, who make this contest possible, especially to Alvesgaspar, MichaelMaggs, Gmaxwell, LadyofHats, Dschwen and Bryan. Sorry if i forgot someone. To all of you ... really good work! A big ... Thank You! -- Simonizer 09:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate counts?[edit]

I voted for, among others, picture 15, and many hours ago, but the counts show picture 15 as having no votes. Is there something in my vote, perhaps that I'm one of the few to have added a comment, that is preventing it from being counted?-Gadfium 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no explanation for this, i'll bug Alvesgaspar who is doing the counting. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, there was a mistake in the first counting (the updates are being done by some users, I only did a small one). But don't worry, it will be fixed. Remember that the table is just an "extra fun" for the voters and doesn't show the "official results"! These will have to be counted carefully at the end of the voting. - Alvesgaspar 11:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you ask en:User:Oleg Alexandrov or en:User:Gurch nicely there is a fair chance they will put together a bot that counts the votes for you. The certainly did for the last major lot of voteing on en.Geni 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, the votes are not counted immediately; all votes will be recounted at end of the current poll phase, and the archives will be controled. Don't be nervous.
Note that there will be some delay necessary between this the end of this phase and the start of the next vote, just to validate the list of the 10 finalists. As long as the list is not finalized, the second phase will not start, because it would create an immediate bias in favor of those that were listed first. Verdy p 23:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Order in the gallery[edit]

I noticed in the initial results a stark bias towards the images at the top of the gallery. To counter this, I have randomized the gallery order. In my first pass I split it into two groups around 130 and randomized the groups (using python random.shuffle). I then placed the below 130 group first. We can't easily make the gallery random on every load, but I can come by every few hours and reshuffle them. Future reorderings will be more random than this first top and bottom split.. I wanted to counter the initial bias some. --Gmaxwell 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. --MichaelMaggs 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But we still need a link to the original gallery. Please unlock the new page so I can do it myself. Alvesgaspar 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you have stated that your intention is to bias the results by encouraging new votes to vote for the same things as earlier voters[1]. I think it's a terrible idea. I think it's good that people can look at images that other people liked... but I don't think we should make it easiest for people to ignore all but the few images lucky enough to be selected by the first few voters. --Gmaxwell 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You may surely think what you like and have your own ideas, but you have no right to impose them to the others from the moment you arrive here for the first time. Modifying a page and blocking it afterwards is, to say the minimum, ungraceful to the other users and, in particular, to the original organizers of this competition. You are vey worried about democratizing the election but are using, at the same time, dictatorial means to impose your thinking. I'm moving this discussion to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006. - Alvesgaspar 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, both of you. We shouldn't be having public fights that will harm the reputation of this Competition. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Geesh, not my fault he's copying discussion from my talk page to here. FWIW, I didn't protect the page... Although after his complaints, I'm glad that it is. --Gmaxwell 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While a theoretically random display may imbide some allusion to being unbias, I voted when the imagewerent does that make my choices invalid because I wont alter them if this is the case. Also I would like to be able to view the images that others are voting for to get some idea of they like, especially the the ones with high levels of votes. Can a link to a sorted set of images please be included to facilitate this as I suspect that many people would also like to be able to easily see what people are voting for. either that or a top 20 image gallery at the bottom of the page a originally proposed. Gnangarra 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to link to the ordered gallery. But shall we put it on the bottom of the random gallery, so that you only notice it once you have seen all the images? -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats okay. I just want to avoid the slant we saw towards the initial images on day one. It seems that people are too lazy to view all the images and that there is no way that this will be fair. Ashame.. but at least an obvious slant to the earliest can be avoided. --Gmaxwell 09:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this random presentation the great my concern the potential for stacking of the presentation of images, it also opens the numbering to tampering, when the images are in sequence I can see if one is missing, if the number has been changed but with random sequencing I cant. There should be a link to both formats with equal prominance on the page or alternatively I suggest that voting stop while this issue gets properly resolved. Gnangarra 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tampering was not an issue when the page was protected. Which is why I protected it in the first place. Having the link at the end of the random gallery is a good solution I think, everyone has access in the way they prefer, and earlier images won't get biased votes. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I quote? well yeah I'm going to, your words on Alvesgasper talk page I protected the page. I wanted to stop people vandalising it by adding or removing or changing numbers. oops the trouble with talk pages they sometime cant haunt. I think that the ordered list should be given equal prominance to the random list and that the individual should be able to choose how they view the images. Gnangarra 13:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
My comments don't haunt me - the page is was unprotected from editing by Bryan diff. Check the history, you'll see anons editing it. So take it easy with the attitude, eh? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't. Gmaxwell deleted a bunch of old revisions, which caused the protection to be deleted as well. I only reinstated move protection, but i'll happily semi protect it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Gripe (some pictures don't show up)[edit]

I don't know if this is a known problem or if it's just me, but about a third of the photos seem to be not showing up. Not as in, "the end of the page didn't load", mind you: there are placeholders for these pictures, but these are merely empty rectangular boxes about two-fifths the height of the slide-frames for the pix that do show up. Please let me know if this is something I should be worried about; I really can't vote unless I know what I'm voting against. AnnaKucsma 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have patience, there are a lot of images on the page.. your browser might take a long time to load them. The images will not load in strict order. If you have waited a while and it still hasn't finished, try hitting reload. --Gmaxwell 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's know issue with stupid firewalls on Windows XP...--WarX 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
hah, is this an issue with some image urls containing "/ad/" ? --Gmaxwell 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to check it out on Lestath machine - 1/3 of images doesn't show even after shutting down firewall (on both IE and FF), but maybe windows doesn't turn it off?--WarX 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ps. /ad/ images is not so many as observed missing ones

SVG is unfair[edit]

Because the majority of users cannot see directly svg pictures without importing them to some drawing application, those images which use this format have a serious drawback in the competition. The only way is to substitute them with png or jpg replicas. Here is the list:

3,32,107,133,159,224,229,230,271,274,275,278,288,293,294,304,311

Right now, nothing can be done with the gallery blocked to editing - Alvesgaspar 18:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Users can click on the images and see a large size image just like any other image. Unlike raster images, SVGs will not have any noise or sharpness problems which need to be inspected at high magnifications... nor should they have too many fine details which need to be enlarged to be visable, since they were created for use on Wikimedia projects exactly as we use them here. In any case, if there is an improvement to the gallery we can agree on, I'll be glad to make it. --Gmaxwell 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should explain on the voting page what a user has to do if some of the images can't be seen. What software do they need, exactly? I've not experienced this, as I can see them all perfectly (both in Firefox and in IE) But it's not as if there are problems with the images themselves, and it wouldn't be right to replace them with downgraded versions just because some voters are using less up-to-date software. They will come into their own by next year, maybe, by which time the software should be more widespread. --MichaelMaggs 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem with them being seen, unless I'm missing something the only complaint here is that if you click on the image on the image page you won't get a huge image like you do on our featured raster images. If you some reason you need to zoom way in, you would have to load the image in inkscape. I don't know why anyone needs to see a SVG at a larger size in order to compare them... but perhaps thats just me. --Gmaxwell 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of SVG versus PNG has been discussed in the FP candidates pages in various occasions because many people (like myself) cannot see the images in full size without importing them to Inkscape or other similar application. What I understood is that it might be a limitation of Wikipedia rather than the result of using old software in our computers (I use IE7). I know there are plug-ins in the web to update the browsers but very often they don't work well or make the systems to crash, and people do not trust them. I intend to upload a PNG version of my SVG FP's in the list. Alvesgaspar 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But what is the problem to use direct link to imege, eg: like that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/POL_gmina_Szczaniec_COA.svg/1500px-POL_gmina_Szczaniec_COA.svg.png

to see full sized image made by MW renderer?

--WarX 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'full size' with SVG really. All sizes are valid. If you simply want to see it big, you can do as WarX suggests. --Gmaxwell 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There is, cause there is hardcoded maximal dimension of rendered PNG from SVG file (bu there wasn't some time ago)--WarX 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see perfectly WarX image in "big" size. But that is not possible with the pictures in the gallery. I see the thumbnails, I can still see the pictures inside their files, but then, the only way to enlarge it is to use Inkscape. - Alvesgaspar 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, go to the image pages, and at the top add links like WarX's to larger versions. --Gmaxwell 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

fixed a diff[edit]

I fixed a diff for a user[2] whose vote was already behind the counting line. Please make sure that this vote gets counted. — coelacan — 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... archiving the votes after a dateline changes the rule: how are users supposed to change their vote? Do they need to insert their new vote in the archive, below their old vote which is striked over, or in the current page? Do they have to strike out their vote in the archive if their new vote go into the current page?
Does this mean that votes can't be changed?
Really, all votes will need to be merged and sorted by user and date to make sure that the votes are not counted twice, or incorrectly deleted.
Things would be easier if MediaWiki included a vote/polling extension to make sure that votes are counted properly; the database of votes would not be editable directly (stored in a namespace), except through the polling page, but this database could be viewed: this should be a simple list with minimum formating: the poll options, the user identity and the date; this extension would also make the necessary to avoid mltiple votes or to allow changing votes (but it would maintain the history of changes). The special namespace would be shared by Commons on all wikipedias so that users can vote using their identity on the local wikipedia: in that case the link to the history diff would be transmitted automatically to Commons. the other option is to have each Wiki project to maintain their own local vote/polling database, and then at end of the votes, all databases would be closed simulatneously (protected) and sent to the wiki where the vote/poll was organized.
Verdy p 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To change a vote, just cross out your earlier vote and re-vote immediately below, as per the rules. It doesn't matter if that's 'above the line': votes will be fully re-counted as the poll closes.--MichaelMaggs 07:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Finishing this round one day earlier, or starting the final one day later[edit]

I would prefer that we have one day between the rounds for the organizing stuff, so that we have appropriate time to check the votes and the counts and fix flaws we encounter etc. But shall we finish this round a day earlier, or start the final a day later? -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Start the final one day later. — xaosflux Talk 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We have advertised widely the ending date of round 1, and we shouldn't change it now.--MichaelMaggs 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But what do you say about taking a day for the organizatorial stuff? A good idea or not necesarry? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good idea, and it may even be worth having 48 hours - 24 to double-check the counts and post the results, and 24 in case anyone complains about the results. It's important to make sure the posted result are correct and accepted before allowing the final to start, as once it does we don't we don't want anyone to say the the list is wrong! --MichaelMaggs 07:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 48 hours is a good idea, then I can spent my friday evening on stuff that has to be done. I will probably not available on wednesday and thursday. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree 48 hours is a minimum. In the first 24 we count the votes carefully (this has to be done systematically by more than one user, so that the numbers are confirmed), publish the results in the page and publicize them in other sites; in the second, we wait for a possible contestation and prepare the opening of the final. I think we should all agree before on the procedures and get organized for executing these tasks, improvisation isn't a good idea. Alvesgaspar 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What to change to then?[edit]

Current:

Voting for the finalists takes place from 1 Feb to 14 Feb (inclusive)
Voting for Picture of the Year (the final) takes place from 15 Feb to 28 Feb (inclusive)


Proposed:

Voting for Picture of the Year (the final) takes place from 17 Feb to 28 Feb (inclusive)
The winners will be announced on 03 Mar
? — xaosflux Talk 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems ok to me. Alvesgaspar 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List[edit]

I converted the ordered list in the "How to" section into a real ordered list (made with HTML). It was made by manually writing "1." before. --80.63.213.182 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well someone changed it. Initially it was NOT an ordered list, so using "*" was correct.
And you should have better used the wiki format for numbered lists (using "#"). Verdy p 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Preparing for the final[edit]

It's bad timing, I know, but I'm afraid I will be away on holiday and probably without internet access from this Saturday until a week later. That means I won't be around to finish off stage 1 and to help start the final. Sorry. I'll drop in from an internet cafe, if I can find one, but probably not for long. --MichaelMaggs 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

final gallery[edit]

i know it is maybe just too much extra work, but would be posible to create a final gallery with the pictures in order acording to how many votes they got. i am rather curious to see such a thing -LadyofHats 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have computed the current list of top ten after the general table; it may give you some idea of the ongoing poll; but it's not definitive (it's just to allow people to reorient their vote if they want to reach the consensus); but i don't want to show the images there on the page because it would influence votes too much, and i did not want to show more than 10 (to avoid influencing people to get other images currently ranked 11 or more, to a better position: it's up to people to choose which image they want in the top 10, and up to them to change the current trend.
Anyway, most votes occured during the first hours by most frequent users of Commons; the rate of votes is now much slower, because most interested people have already seen the announcement of the vote at the top of Common pages or on their localized main page; so may be the trend is already a good indicator of what will be the list of finalists.
Because these votes are now paced a lot, we have plenty of time to validate most notes now, and verify the conditions for participants. I have helped controlling the votes by normalizing the format when this would have caused a counting bot to have difficulties to parse the lines. Now It would be helpful if some were controling the exhibited diffs, or checked that voters with signatures on Commons are effectively allowed to vote (look at the list of their contributions in their "Special:Contributions?user=xxxx" page: the vote is valid if there are at least 3 pages of results, with 50 per page)
Note that not all localized main pages exhibit the banner announcing the vote... Verdy p 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To Do list in preparation for the final[edit]

Please add to the list below, and strike out once done. --MichaelMaggs 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC) :

  • Check banners for the final. In some languages, the middle link points to the stage 1 voting page, not to the final voting page.
  • Modify counting bot to count final votes.
  • Check original publicity to-do list here and re-do as much of the publicity as possible as the final starts
  • Decide on additional publicity for the winner. How can the winner best be shown off to the press and others outside Commons?
    • The winner should have an article written on his work in Commons and other wiki projects, which would appear in the main pages together with a photo. This is obviously easier if he is an wikipidean and is happy to provide the necessary details about his person. - Alvesgaspar 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Self and others[edit]

Maybe it is not a big problem, but the best image now is picture from United States Air Force. I think about category the best picture made by wikimedians. What do yoy think about? Przykuta 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should. Next year better :(. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
we can't change the rules, now; look at the second image for a high quality image made by a Wikipedian...
Remember that the vote is not finished, that there will be a second round with 10 images (so things may change significantly during the final, when the dispersion of votes for other images will be reported on other images. Finally there will be 3 honor places! Verdy p 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We would have to exclude much, then... all historical pictures, e.g.. In my opinion, anyone (including the USAF) who released his work under a license that allows us to use it here, is perfectly eligible. -- 790 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The leading picture has/had (?) fake colours on top of that and just scraped through being elected... But that's democracy I guess... Lycaon 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Many competitions have various categories, and "best photo by a Wikimedian" in addition to an overall best, as Przykuta suggested, seems quite reasonable. Also we could open up the competition to images that are not featured, since having a broader variety of points of view can turn up some pictures that either weren't nominated, or were rejected by the participants in the vote for that week. A future competition might also give time for people to debate the merits of the photos, for example after the first round; this would give users like Lycaon an opportunity to voice opinions for and against the selections.
These things are easier to see in hindsight than in foresight. The organizers of this PotY did a great job making it happen, and they deserve thanks for doing the work that got hundreds of Wikimedia contributors to vote in the first Picture of the Year competition. Fg2 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

lost Votes[edit]

  • I just wanted to check and maybe reconsider my vote, casted 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC) > diff. But I can not find it, neither on the current page nor in the archive.

It seems mine and a couple of other votes got lost with this edit > diff. --Tsui 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your information. Apparently that was the result of a clumsy (or worse) edit by a new user User:75.5.9.244. Please be patient until we put everything as it was. Then, you'll be welcome to change your vote. Alvesgaspar 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is fixed now - Alvesgaspar 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then there is another missing incident, I can't find my vote. --Brianmc 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I found my vote here. There are dozens of votes that follow mine in the history of that page... Someone has screwed up, and this needs fixed. --Brianmc 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm real troubles here then. I has foreseen this stuff, that is why I archived with history kept. I think I am going to run through the entire history to see whether there are more missing votes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote counting[edit]

I have updated the vote counting using a semi-manual method. And I propose to go on doing it (twice a day) until our bot awakes from its long sleep. It is a very simple method based on a Word and an Excel files and I'll be glad to pass it to others interested in using it. I also think it is time to bring a little excitement to this (boring) page. I intend to include a shortlist with the most voted images (about 20-24), like it is in my userpage here. Please confirm it is ok. Alvesgaspar 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. --MichaelMaggs 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not link a page with your own preferences. This is really not fair! You may link a shortlist according to votes only! For this reason i had to remove the link to your personnal page from the voting page! Verdy p 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put the shortlist again in the voting page, although not as a link to my personal page. These are not my preferences, just a gallery with the best classfified images! This was part of the plan since the begining and already some users has asked for it (please see discussion above and opinions of other users: MichaelMaggs, LadyofHeats, Gnangarra, Lycaon). Please write your opinion here before removing things! Alvesgaspar 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The section below the shortlist on your Userpage said And my pictures..., listing your FPs and their numbers. Although I'm sure it was not your intention to campaing for votes, you have to agree this practice was questionable. The new solution is fine by me, although I can see GMaxwells concerns about those pics getting an unfair advantage by increased exposure. This can lead to a positive-spiral effect. And after all the vote will be skewed. --Dschwen 09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are right, I'm sorry. I didn't notice it was still there, but it is fixed now. As about the "positive-spiral effect", let me quote what I have explained before concerning the "consensus" in this voting:
Let me now try to explain a little better what I mean by “consensus” in the present case. In the beginning of the voting period I expect everybody to vote in their preferred pictures, not giving much attention to other’s choices. But when this phase of the election approaches its end people will be changing their votes, if they are allowed to, in order to optimize its potential. For example, if two of the pictures of my first choice don’t have any chance of being among the ten best, then I may want to considerer other equally good options, but with better possibilities of promotion. Doing that, I will be using my vote the best possible way.
  • As you might remember, this idea was here from the begining: a gallery with votes attached. We have removed the whole gallery from the main page (that was your idea) because it was not practical.Alvesgaspar 10:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


POTY 2006 Final page[edit]

We have to decide now, to avoid possible problems in the future, on the details of the final voting page. In the present format (Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/final), we have a voting section and a result section, with a table. Because there will be only 10 candidates (or a little more), I propose to insert a gallery just before the vote section, with all pics and up-to-date votes. Please comment. - Alvesgaspar 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The Gallery will be small enough. A clear ranking will be determined by the pre voting rounds, so there should be no need for image shuffling. Except for tied votes, but I guess this will have negligible impact. --Dschwen 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I support adding the gallery to the page. 10 is not too much. I also hope to find some time to do the Dutch translation; I can however not guarantee that I will manage to do so (luckily most Dutch can read English quite good.) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why I won't vote[edit]

I've been invited to make my choice for the picture of the year. I am honoured but I won't do it for two reasons :

  • I think it doesn't fit with the aims of Commons : uploading pictures on Commons allows sharing a media basis for all Wikipedia articles, providing possible illustrations. In my mind, first quality for a picture is to be illustrative. Of course good illustrations have to be also good pictures, it's a matter of self-requirement. Thus I agree with featuring the best ones : it shows what is expected so uploaders make an effort preparing and selecting their contributions. It helps making articles better : more comprehensive and more pleasant. But it is not a competition : one day ten pictures may be featured, another day none. So why now deciding one is the best ? What does it mean ruling an esthetic competition ? How could we compare seriously birds and people, landscapes and machines ?
  • pictures may be either personal works, either public ones (old ones or often from US government institutions). For example, some of the featured pictures of 2006 are very famous public pictures, already noticed for their high quality of both theme and composition. I find it unfair to put them in the pool of a competition.

But now the competition is on, what I can only say is just : do it for fun, just fun.B.navez 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, thanks for the remarks, but I think everybody around here does it for fun, just fun. So where would you draw the line? At FPs, QIs, or POTY? --Dschwen 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Conflicting edits... And I was going to say exactly the same: I believe most of us do it just for fun. And if as a "side effect" Common beneficts from it, good! - Alvesgaspar 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1st phase - closing rules[edit]

We need to get organized for the closing process. Here is a series of subjects that need our attention before the end of Phase 1. Please comment and validate the following list of tasks. Also, we need volunteers for all this work and the colaboration of, least one administrator. Alvesgaspar 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Rules for accepting/rejecting votes

  • Multiple votes: when a user has more than a voting entry (a line with 5 votes or less, signed and dated), the oldest entries are not considered.
  • Votes by anonymous users and non-signed votes are not considered.
  • Votes by users with less than 100 edits in Commons or in their home wikis, at the time of the voting, are not considered.
  • Voting lines with invalid diff's are not considered. An ivalid diff is a link that does not prove the relation between the username used to sign the voting and the user's home wiki.
  • Voting entries with more than 5 votes are not considered.
  • Self-votes are not considered. When it happens, only the offended votes are disregarded, the rest of the voting entry remaining valid.

2. What to do after the closing time (2400, Feb 14)

  • Archive the voting lists and verifiy, history line by history line, if there were any votes deleted either by accident or not (this has already happened at least twice). Reconstruct when necessary.
  • Block the voting lists, which should never be altered. All counting, formatting and manipulations are to be made on copies.
  • Copy voting archives to text files and make all verifications, according to rules above. Flag the voting entries and/or the particular votes to be disregarded in the final counting. This is a large amount of work!
  • Make the counting. There should be, at least, 2 independent and identical countings.
  • Make a double-check on a shortlist of the best 20 pictures (the most critical in terms of promotion).
  • Publish the results in the voting page.
I thought the voting was 14 February inclusive. But never mind if I were wrong. I can access a computer during lunchbreak, which is 11:30 UTC to lock the voting page, if there is no other admin to do so. I think the best way to count the votes is to create, depending on the number of volunteers, 3 to 5 batches of votes, which should all be checked independently by two volunteers. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But you are right, I've just made the correction - Alvesgaspar 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone checks all the diffs and puts all the votes into one file, I am happy to be one person who makes an independent counting. And I would use IRC to find an admin to close voting, at that time. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to have the feel, I started checking the votes in the 1 Feb archive file. In the first 15 lines of voting, 6 are invalid! The most difficult task is to count the edits. All we get with the command "Special:Contributions/username" is a list of contributions, not a number. So, we have to count them, line by line. Is there a simpler way, or can we use a bot to do the work? Another problem is that, as the author of some pics in the competition, I should not be responsable for this work. We really need some expert help here! Alvesgaspar 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • PS - I think this verification should be done before the closing of phase 1, because most of the invalid votes can be fixed. Alvesgaspar 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I can wednesday morning do some counting, but not all, and I can also create a tool that returns whether a user has more or less than 100 contribs. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, thank you. I'm working on archive 1, sending messages to all users with invalid votes (two of them already corrected their entries). If my results are not considered because I have pics in the competition, no problem, I'll pass it to other volunteer. But I would like to hear other opinions on this. Alvesgaspar 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Put this in your monobook.js file:
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="/w/index.php?title=User:Kylu/editcount.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"><\/script>');

//[[User talk:Kylu/editcount.js]]
Then on all user pages, in the toolbox you will get an 'editcounter' link. It's slow, but it works. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit counts are, or have been posted on the respective talk pages of the archives. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent work, Bryan! In the meantime, I have finished the verification of archive 1, including "diff's" and edit counts in home wikis. Messages were sent to the users who did not observe the rules and we already have some positive feedback. In the archive 1 talk page I'll put a list with the invalid votes and the actions taken. Alvesgaspar 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Archive 1 done. Alvesgaspar 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm now about half way through archive 1. If you can verify the votes from archive 2, I hope to have that counted before tomorrow. but it is very much work, so I cannot guarantee anything. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have started archive 2, hope to have that finished today. We need more volunteers! - Alvesgaspar 13:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Archive 2 done. Check the talk page. Alvesgaspar 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have managed to find some time during school, so archive 1 has been counted. Starting on 2. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Archive 3 done. Check the talk page. Alvesgaspar 09:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Archive 4 done. Check the talk page. Need edit count on archive 5. Alvesgaspar 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Archive 5 done. Check the talk page. Alvesgaspar 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a first non-official estimation of the finalists. Please see the shortlist. Alvesgaspar 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Offering a zip of all 2006 POTYs at download.wikimedia.org[edit]

I had a good idea! We can offer a ZIP of all the 2006 FPs at the same time as we announce the result. I think it will be popular. I talked to user:gmaxwell and he said it will be easy to prepare. (All we need is hi-res files, plus thumbs, plus index page/s displaying thumbs and license info, and maybe an 'about'/'readme' page that promotes Commons and WMF.) Then we can put it up at http://download.wikimedia.org/ . Won't that be cool?

We can also do archives for 2004 and 2005, but having the 2006 one would be nice, when we announce the winner. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That is an excellent idea, go ahead! Any idea of special prizes to the finalists and winners? Alvesgaspar 08:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See here -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

can somebody double check my edit count?[edit]

I had over 100 edits before the POTY contest began, but I received this note[3] on my talk page. If I'm getting this, I'm probably not the only one. Can someone double check my edits, and if all's well, maybe look into what's up? — coelacan — 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't panic, that was a mistake and I'm sorry! Your vote is good :) Alvesgaspar 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon for the finalists[edit]

Here is the project of a template to include in the finalists' picture files. The ribbon was designed by LadyofHats - Alvesgaspar 09:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a little bigger? Please check also the templates for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd prices on the archived preparation discussion. Alvesgaspar 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Featured picture Picture of the Year 2006
Finalist

Out of town - Things to do before the final[edit]

I’ll be out of town, with no access to the web, from tomorrow, Friday, to next Wednesday. For the Phase II to start at 0000, February 17, we will have to publish the official results as soon as possible, so that there is still some time for contestation. Because very few of us are involved in the verification and counting of the votes, I don’t believe that will be possible before tomorrow, late afternoon. Furthermore, we still have to go over all the preparation work listed by MichaelMaggs above (Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006#To Do list in preparation for the final). Maybe the beginning of Phase II should be postponed for 24 hours, please take that into consideration.

There is already a preliminary (and unofficial) table of results, prepared by myself, in Commons:Picture of the Year/2006#Totals to date - Totais - Totali - 票数统计 - 票數統計 - Sonuçlar. This should obviously be confirmed by, at least, one more independent verification and counting.

Please don't forget to insert the Finalist Ribbon in the finalist picture files. Alvesgaspar 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


I completed my counting. Please see User:Pfctdayelise/potyvotes. I found the same top 11 as listed at POTY 2006 shortlist, although voting totals varied. What to do? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait for my counting. It should be done in a few hours. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
# Id B A p
1 254 45 47 46
2 265 32 34 33
3 137 31 32 31
4 266 31 30 31
5 61 30 33 31
6 315 29 29 29
7 11 28 27 27
8 272 27 25 25
9 5 25 25 25
10 303 25 26 25
11 284 25 26 25
12 114 24 23 24
13 56 24 23 23
14 99 23 21 21
15 281 22 22 22

Finished my counts I have put my top 15 in the table right. Comparing that to Alvegaspar's and pfctdayelise's results, they are almost the same. There are however some discrepancies, especially around the 10. As a side note, I want to point out that there were some votes in the last archive that were not marked as invalid, but were. This might explain the difference, but it could have also been mistakes from my side. So, what to do now? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found out. I marked it on my paper as "check when behind computer", which I forgot to process. There are no difference in the top 15, except for 284. I think that we can agree that pictures 5, 11, 61, 137, 254, 265, 266, 272, 284, 303, 315 are selected for the final, all having 25 or more votes, as established by 3 independent counts. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Results: I think that a table of final results should be published together with a gallery of the best 15-20 pictures, like it is now in the voting page. The table can be imported from Excel and upoloaded as a jpeg image, this is simpler and safer than a HTML table.
  • Gallery: better to have a normal gallery of the finalist pictures in the final voting page, to force the voters to open them in full size. There are obvious differences in size and photographic quality betweem them and that should be made clear. I suggest using the same numbers as in the first phase, so that no hierarchy between the images is implied.
  • Start of Phase 2: have you come to a decision about the begining of phase 2? Don't forget to insert the banners in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and the other places in Commons: main page, FP candidates page, Quality Pictures candidates page, Picture of the Day, etc. - Alvesgaspar 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can have the preparations done this evening. I was also thinking about some extended gallery; see Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/Voting phase 2/gallery. Have fun on your holidays, -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean the 2nd phase will start tonight, right after publishing the results? A little risky... I like very much your idea for the gallery, with the extra information about each picture (like the POTD). Thank you, if I only could take a short look at the competition during the next days... Alvesgaspar 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I plan to start tonight yes. I will try to ask the opinions of as many users as possible, but if I'm not in luck, 24 hours later is also possible. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the final page to Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 and the previous page that was there to Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/pre -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't be here at 00:00 UTC, so unless somebody else opens all the respective pages and places all the banners, I postpone the opening to tommorow morning, 10:00 UTC -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Considerations for the future[edit]

What are we learning from this about how to improve things next time? Leave comments on Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006/Future. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Publishing results[edit]

I would prefer not to publish any intermediate results, as this can/will greatly influence the user's vote, especially in the last few days. Exchanging counts on user talk pages is fine to me, as it is very unlikely that voters will look there. Any comments? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Suppress publication. But I am happy to see it looks like a very broad competition. Very interesting :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What if there's a tie? 70.104.16.244 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Really no idea. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but we should indeed think about what to do in that case. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be amazing! Since we are already awarding 3 things, I think it's not a big deal. We basically have 3 choices: 1) jointly award, 2) Re-vote only on those two, or 3) take whichever had the highest number of votes in the preliminary final (and if they are equal... um... no idea :)). I would go for just jointly awarding. But it would mean soooooo much work checking the votes history to be sure :). --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting system:Full of flaws[edit]

The current voting system is full of flaws, IMO. I should not speak as the process is about to complete. But, by present system of voting a person can vote more than once. If I have multiple accounts on various projects where I have more than 100 edits I can vote more than once. e.g. I have more than 100 edits on enwp, enwn, commons, meta, hiwp. If I do not make a link for connecting all these projects then I can vote 5 times for a single piture, which can play major role in changing the winner picture of 2006. So, we should take care these notes in future. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But please contribute improvements for the future to Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/Future. Because this can't be fixed anymore. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Roughly 1/3 of votes are invalid. Quite depressing... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What does everybody think what this is caused by? Unclear instructions or just ignorance? I personally think it is both of them, although the latter one plays the biggest role. And unfortunately that is very difficult to fix. I was just thinking of a javascript solution that would show for anonymous voters a big red "Did you read the instructions?" banner, but I am not quite sure whether that would be a good option. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just too complex... --Gmaxwell 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created a step by step guide; see User:Bryan/Diffmaking. I also created User:Bryan/Scripts/Poty anon.js, which will show in big red letters to anons "Did you read the instructions?" and show a link to those instructions. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It now has an edit count feature and warns people with less than 100 edits to provide a diff -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's fantastic!! Go Bryan! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Watching the recent votes, it actually seems to have worked. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I created {{no diff}}, which you can use to strike votes; the syntax is * {{subst:no diff|'''5''' I voted for this picture but forgot to sign it!|~~~~}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Final voting - but no information on the main page[edit]

Hello, the POTY-template on the main page has been removed, right now, when the final voting has started. The hint on top of the page is so small, that it's almost impossible to find. The template was much better to direct the user's attention to the voting. Greetings, -- DianeAnna 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, now I have seen, that it has only been removed on the German main page! I will put my question there. -- DianeAnna 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"This page has been locked to prevent editing"[edit]

... which kind of makes it tricky to vote. Tompw (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit this page, which is not protected: Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/Voting phase 2. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Worth protecting the archived votes - I see someone has been back and stated that there diff was valid - in practice not easy to find - a new vote might be better? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • According to the instructions, the new votes should be put below the old ones, to facilitate control of double-voting. That's why we can´t block the archives. Also, at the end of the election everything will have to be verified again by more than one user. Alvesgaspar 11:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I understand and as it will be checked a time or two it isn't an issue, regards --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding a leaderboard?[edit]

Are we going to have a leaderboard during the last few days showing votes per image, as we did for stage 1? That was I think always Alvesgaspar's intention: to allow voters to switch their votes away from an image which is unlikely to win and to support a preferred image that has a better chance. I would also like to do this, although I know there were some dissenting voices during stage 1. I prepared a page for this ages ago, see Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/final/progress‎, but it may perhaps be easier now just to list the votes against the individual images in the gallery. --MichaelMaggs 14:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I strongly object against publishing votes see my comments some sections above. But if there is consensus to change, i'll be fine. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree. As a matter of fact that is part of the phylosophy of the election as it was thought and implemented. In the section "How to vote", of the POTY page, we can read To facilitate consensus, and avoid the dispersion of votes, your vote can be changed during the election period at any time [...] You can do this as many times as you wish. Remember that this is not a strict "democratic election" (since any user have access to the whole voting information) and that having fun is an important part of the process. By showing the progress of the results we are just facilitating the consensus (which is an important concept in Wikipedia) and contributing with some aditional excitement. However, we have seen in the first phase that the idea didn't really work, since very few users came back to change their votes. Maybe we could publicize the end of the election through the usual channels. - Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

History checking[edit]

I have posted to the talks of the first two archives also the changes to the history of the pages. In case an edit only added information (i.e. cast a vote), it is not showed. Only in case information is removed or changed it is shown. This way we can easily check whether there have been vote manipulation. It is necessary to carefully run through the list and check the diffs that have not been made by trusted users. I have already checked the first one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice work, I wouldn't know how to do it... But don't you think it is a bit early to check the votes in the archives, considering that they may change? One question: are you sending messages to the invalid votes users during the check? I did it in the first phase (and I'm doing it now) and got some corrections. Alvesgaspar 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not done all of them. Will start doing them now. I have already started checking yes. I noted the current revision, and and will check all the changes by the end of the competition. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How to make a diff link? Different critera[edit]

I'm having trouble with some users who do not accept my vote striking. The problem is this guide does not match the instructions given in the section "Who can vote" of the main page. In the instructions, there is an indication to refer to the local IP address in the diff link (which is correct IMO), in the guide, to the number of the picture. I think this should be fixed as soon as possible. Alvesgaspar 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That is a terrible mistake I made. I have fixed the guide, but what are we going to do now? With those old votes? -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we simply have to accept as valid the vote of any user who has followed the instructions in the old guide. There is perhaps a theoretical chance that somebody might have used the loophole to cheat, but I very much doubt that in fact that will have happened. Many users are genuinely struggling to work out what a diff is!
I agree we should accept all those votes. Anyway, this is not a big deal! One thing is certain: we will have to think of somethig simpler but effective for the next time... Alvesgaspar 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sample votes[edit]

The example votes are 9 and 5. Is this bias? Why not change them to, say, 19 and 25, which aren't actual contenders? Or a and z like the other example? Speaking of which, why two sets of samples? Jnestorius 02:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures not showing[edit]

I noticed someone mentioned up above that a certain type of image often wouldn't show up, but even for the final vote now, the only pictures I can see are 4, 5, and 11. Any idea what the issue is or how I can fix it? -Bbik 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Try following this link -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, doesn't change anything. Oh well. -Bbik 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You might have problems with your cache. Try hitting Ctrl+F5 on the page then. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Still no luck, even several times in a row, after restarting Firefox, restarting computer... It seems to be the same issue as with the gallery sections of pages on Wikipedia, which I can't seem to fix either. Guess I'll just put it down to being another random stupid quirk of my computer. Thanks, though. -Bbik 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would vote but[edit]

I'm confused by the instructions and as to whether I qualify to vote. No offence intended but it seems one has to be something of a Wikipedia enthusiast (I'm resisting using the word "geek"!) to understand it all. the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.92.203.221 (talk • contribs)

Phase 1 Gallery[edit]

Where can I find the gallery for the first phase?--Vaya 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/gallery0. If you are interested in an archive containing all FP of 2006 including descriptions and such, please keep a close watch to this page, this is soon to be announced! -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Vaya 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote checking and counting[edit]

OK, what's the procedure now? What needs to be done?

I am willing to tally votes if someone else first ensures that all invalid votes are struck/marked ({{inv}}), and all valid votes are unstruck. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to do both. But double counting is always good. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Checked all the diffs and edit counts. Currently checking the history to see whether there are lost votes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I just restored about 15 lost votes. All histories are checked now. The only thing that might have to be done is checking for duplicate votes, but I think that I will do during the counting. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Message: Final results[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,
The Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition is now over, and the winner has been selected. Thank you for voting.
Of the 662 Wikimedians who voted, 83 selected the following picture as the Wikimedia Commons Picture of 2006:


Polarlicht 2.jpg

The Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights, shines above Bear Lake, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Taken by Senior Airman Joshua Strang.


Second was Sans Domicile Fixe with 78 votes and joint third were Blue Jay and Hoverflies mating in midair with 70 votes each. We congratulate the authors of these pictures for their exceptional quality.
Some user comments:
  • Fantastic! Love the earth.
  • Crazy. Wish I could vote for them all.
  • If I had to pic one thing I'd like to see, I'd go with that. Stunning.
We are also proud to announce the release of an archive of all the 2006 Wikimedia Commons Featured Pictures. You can find more information on Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/archive.
Thank you all for voting,
The Commons community


Proposed message. It's a wiki, so feel free to edit it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked language per your invitation ;) Jersyko 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also tweaked --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
some changes added --mfx Q&A 14:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Bryan. Great work. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Announcing[edit]

MichaelMaggis and I have publicized the results, and I have informed the authors of the first three of that their image was winner. I also sent the message the the mailing lists and have posted on the Dutch Wikipedia VP. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Tie[edit]

Moved -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC) What's the latest count? The figures in the proposed message on the project talk page are not the same as these. If there really is a draw for 3rd place we should award two equal third prizes. It's unfair to Fir002 to demote his picture to 4th simply because he got fewer votes in round 1. That was never a published rule and it's not right to introduce it now, after the event. --MichaelMaggs 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm recounting this tomorrow. I hope this will solve the problem if not, it might indeed be fair to give them both 3rd prize. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm re-counting tonight. We cannot afford to have people complaining and ... being right about it. Alvesgaspar 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I recounted 70 for both. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too, I'm sending results by mail. In this case, I agree with MichaelMaggs, we should award two 3rd prizes - Alvesgaspar 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU[edit]

An enormous thank-you to all who organized and worked on this project. Job well done! Fg2 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And special thanks to Alvesgaspar whose idea it was. MichaelMaggs 09:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the first class work to all who was involved in the realisation of the POTY competition!! --GeorgHH 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all previous speakers! And hey, guess whose voter comment is the first to appear? ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

must paticipate this year[edit]

wow, i didn't even know there was a picture of the year, otherwise i would have voted for the bluejay.

A message[edit]

I just got this message on my talk page that I wanted to share with you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for running this competition this is very positive for the global evolution around the wiki projects. I'm so proud and happy for this little success, thanks to you and everyone who participated. The comments are trully moving ... When I so this poor guy, it was a sunday early morning rue royale in Paris, I knew I had to shot this heartbreaking human being, it was strong, I knew it like an intuition ! I love the wiki philosophy and it's general developments, I will try to upload more photographs in the future ...

Best regards from Paris, ERic Pouhier

author informed?[edit]

Has anybody send a notice to Air Force about this? Maybe would Senior Airman Joshua Strang be interested to know that his picture is elected picture of the year 2006. --Walter 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's been done. --MichaelMaggs 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good. And is any responds recieved so far you know? (for wikizine) --Walter 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Try asking User:Bryan who sent the email. --MichaelMaggs 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I sent him an email to his personal account as well as a cc to the 354 FW Public Affairs office. He found out he won a few days ago, that was the first he heard about the competition. He was honored though - not sure if PA will run a story on him or not. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.1.207.21 (talk • contribs) at 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to post it here, but this is the message that has been received by Tim Starling:

Hello, I stumbled across the post that my photo won Commons photo of the year and your comment about had anyone contacted me. No I had not heard a word but when I found it, I was floored. Thanks for recognizing me and please pass my thanks on to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again! SSgt Strang

-- Bryan (talk to me) 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Digg coverage[edit]

We've been dugg.[4] --Dante Alighieri 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

awesome! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also coverage here: http://www.didntyouhear.com/2007/03/20/wikimedia-commons-has-some-great-photos/ --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
See Google: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also appears on 09 April 2007 page for Wikipedia:Astronomy_Picture_of_the_Day. Noisy | Talk 09:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific category?[edit]

I think it would be interesting to split this award into two categories: photography and illustration. This is too much just my point of view, but sincerely I cannot understand why the picture of a bird during winter can be better than the animation of the Newton's cradle, which is much more creative and hard-to-do. Anyhow, just a suggestion. All the pics are great, anyway! Congratulations. --Tonyjeff 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

numerical ordering of the results[edit]

why does the numbering jump from a 2-way tie for 3rd, straight to 5th place?

was there some decision to "merge" 4th place because of the tie, or is it an error, or...?

o__0

Lx 121 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)