Beta testing (all votes cast will be kept) from 25 September 2024, 19:42 until 30 September, 23:59:59. Round 1 from 1 October 2024, 00:00 until 14 October 2024, 23:59:59. Round 2 from 15 October 2024, 00:00 until 28 October 2024, 23:59:59
Done (but might be improved) I just tried bringing back the header top with this new template that is a copy paste from the 2020 version but without the Share + Control Panel buttons. As I'm very unexpercienced with wikicodes etc I was not able to keep the translations that were done in the past. Also, some edits still have to be done with some links and later on depending on the state. If any errors were made or if anyone just wants to improve the header please feel free to edit it. If the header causes any trouble, feel free to delete it back -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half done As time is ticking I decided to help a bit by making a first draft edit of the rules page. Basically I just changed the +2 images to +5%, edited a few words and the old dates that stated "Februrary 2024" with a new temporary placeholder dates that are in the future. Feel free to enhance the page with any other needed edit or to revert my edits. One thing I'm not sure about and therefore didn't edit : the voting eligibility. According to this message, eligibility was changed this year to make it simpler. So :
- For eligibility rule number 1 I have a doubt. This message says that now it's "Registered before the start of the year". Does "year" mean the current year or the year that is in the POTY name? (Is it 01.01.2023 or 01.01.2024 for POTY 2023? Historically it has been 01.01.2021 for POTY 2020 for example)
- on eligibility rule number two I guess that this should be deleted : " by the end of the year the contest is being held for. For example, for POTY 2023, you must have reached the edit threshold before 1 January 2024 UTC. An automated tool has been set up to check eligibility.".
- For rule number 3 I'm not sure if it should be deleted or if nothing changed.
Ingenuity, Rhododendrites and ZI Jony, I created this updated target list for POTY 2024 mass message (6172 users) by adding voters of round 2 that weren't there before (R2 had 3'247 different users that voted). This 6172 users mass message target list could be used to announce POTY 2023 results. I thought this was done in the past but I've not found examples of announcements of POTY results on previous talk pages. So if it has never been done in the past it might not be done as well this year but the list will anyway be useful for POTY 2024. Something that needs to be done though : updating all winners et finalists files Assessments template by adding one of the following according to the score it had :
Ingenuity according to this screenshot there might be some bugs that have maybe not been corrected since :
- Two images are in first place but one has 2 votes and the other has only 1 vote, so the one with one vote should be in second place and not first place
- The last image on second place has 0 vote while the others have one vote so the image in second place with 0 vote should have been in third place
- According to this page and the new 5% rule there should be minimum 56 finalists for this year while there is only 13 images on this screenshot. Is it because the other finalists are displayed on another page ? (If so, there should be a link at the bottom to show the full score of all finalists like previous years. Example : 2022 winners + all results -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last point: I checked again the title of the page on your screenshot and it's the 2023/Results/All page and on that page there's normally all finalists (i. e. all pictures that participated in round 2 and their score), so it's supposed to be at least 56 finalists -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: thanks for pointing out the error with place numbers, I've fixed the script now. As for the number of finalists, that's not a problem - when testing the script I only voted for a few finalists, but that won't be an issue for the actual contest. Ingenuity (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify what web browser you are using and if javascript is enabled? Using chrome on my phone everything seems to work on the gallery page. Maybe you have this bug because now "importScript("User:Ingenuity/poty-gallery.js")" should be removed from your common.js page? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the precisions. After testing it, I found out that the problem doesn't come out of the skin but that it comes out of beeing on commons.m.wikimedia.org instead of commons.wikimedia.org. When I'm on the phone on commons.wikimedia.org using chrome (with "view computer version" selected) the gallery loads no matter the skin I use. But when I'm on commons.m.wikimedia.org, no image load, no matter if it's on computer or phone. As a lot of voters are likely to vote from their phone, it would be nice to have it fixed for commons.m.wikimedia.org. If we don't find any way to fix that then it will be needed to say on the FAQ that it's necessary to use the "view computer version" and to not be on the "m" subdomain -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: votes are stored locally on your computer, so if you vote on one device it won't show up on another. However, if you click the "vote" button again it will tell you that you have already voted for the image. Ingenuity (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, I just compared all json with files displayed and there's two categories that look like having missing images. On the Other places json there is 130 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F " "title": ") and on Other places gallery page there is only 129 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F "View file"). Same problem with Other objects json having 71 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F " "title": ") while on Other objects gallery there is only 69 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F "View file") -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, I checked the finalist generator script and it seems to me that something hasn't been taken into account (but I might be wrong). The problem with line 547 of the code is that is seems to me that it will only gather 30 files when sorted by top number of votes but it will not check how many votes the image number 30 had and compare it with the following files. Because in 31th position (or even in 32th position too) might be a picture with exactly the same number of votes as the picture on 30th position but only one of them is likely to get selected with the actual writing of the script. I think it would be unfair to have two pictures with for example 200 votes in 30rd position but only one of them selected as finalist when there was in fact a tie for 30rd position. There is in my opinion the same problem with the writing of the code on lines 560 to 575 when selecting the top 5% finalists. If a category should for example have 3 finalists, it might be possible that there is a tie for third position and in that case all pictures in that tie should get to finalist and not only a random one of them automatically selected by file name alphabetical order or date of FP promotion. Since I'm not a javascript expert I might have just misunderstood the script and maybe you already have taken this into account but I just wanted to make sure it's the case because to me it looks like it's not the case -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, I checked the gallery voting script and it seems that the verification if the voting is still allowed is not based on a date and time but only on a page that is not automatically updated after end of round 1. The lines 401 to 411 (and 490 to 499 [and 272 to 278]) only check this page (which is not automatically updated at 15 october 00:00:00 UTC but only manually, which means some delay can happen before closing votes, period during which new votes may appear and may need to be undone) instead of checking the time from this page as it probably should. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a minute or two between the votes being counted and the voting for the first round ending, so it's possible that a few votes may not be counted. Unfortunately I can't make (or at least I'm not comfortable making) any changes to the script at this point. Something to consider for next year. Ingenuity (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holauqetal if you connect to Wikimedia Commons in private navigation (or delete all wikimedia cookies) you should be able to use your third vote. Could you try it ?
Yes it worked, you now have 3 votes! The fact that you don't see the green button for the two other ones is a known issue when changing device/deleting cookies but the votes are counted -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, not a big issue but when voting for finalists on round 2, once you have done the 3 votes and try voting for a 4th picture all voting button transform into an unclickable "Vote limit reached" (which is normal). But once you unvote for one of the 3 you had voted for, the "Vote limit reached" buttons don't transform and stay unclickable until the user refreshes the page. I think it should be possible to edit the script so that once you remove one of your 3 votes the other buttons become clickable again without needing to refresh the page -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the newly written script didn't take into account delisted and replaced images and only displayed the old version. Or maybe the script can do it but this happened because the file was renamed in between? (I don't know).
I am bringing to your attention the following issue regarding a former POTY finalist that achieved rank number 4 in POTY 2022. It was discovered that the aforementioned image fraudulently obtained FP status by using an undisclosed completely fake background and was therefore recently delisted from the Featured picture status. There's also no doubt that the false background certainly played a big part in enabling this image to qualify for POTY round 2 and to achieve 4th place in that round.
Someone suggested to directly remove the picture from POTY but I think that when a featured picture is delisted and was formerly a finalist in POTY two possible interpretations of what should be done are possible:
One first solution would be to consider that if it loses it's FP status, it loses it's right to be qualified to participate in POTY and therefore should "automatically" be removed from all pages related to POTY.
One second solution would be to consider that eventhough it lost it FP status, it was at the time eligible to participate in POTY and that losing it's eligibility afterwards doesn't disqualify it automatically from POTY.
In this second case the only way to remove a delisted image from POTY would be with a POTY committee approval. POTY rules state that "The committee reserves the right to disqualify or replace candidates in exceptional circumstances, but will not use this ability without careful discussion." so this is within the committee competence.
I personnaly think that the second solution is the best one as it allows a case-by-case analysis and to keep an image (in justified circumstances) as a POTY competitor eventhough it was delisted. For example if an image was delisted only because it's technical quality (for example resolution) is not considered as good anymore as it was at the time, I really don't think that the image should be removed from POTY, on the contrary it should stay imo. Example : if this delisted image would have been a POTY finalist, I don't think that it's POTY finalist status should be removed.
But of course regarding the present delisted image, since it was promoted to Featured picture based on a completely fake background and that all votes it gathered in POTY were also based on the fake background I think that there would be no objection to delisting the present image. So if the image has been promoted to FP status on the basis of a fraud (for example undeclared fake background), I think it should easily be disqualified and removed from all POTY pages.
I would therefore formally like to ask the following questions to the currently active POTY committee members :
How should delisted featured pictures be treated in the case that they were POTY finalists?
What should be the fate of this image, should it be completely removed from all POTY 2022 related pages?
I'd be opposed to removing a picture from a poll that already ran, as it would be misrepresentative of the poll. Just add a note saying it's been delisted. Nardog (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true that the poll would be misrepresentative and the note would have the advantage of keeping the history visible to everyone. If this is what ends up being done, a link to the delist discussion should also be added.
But then I wonder if on the file page itself if the should be removed or replaced by something else like because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree to remove the POTY award (more than a replacement) on the file page + link to FPC delist discussion on the POTY result. Otherwise it's quite a weird award associated to an embarrassing picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giles Laurent talks about "crime" several times on this page, and how it shall not pay. The uploader never did any crimes or any cheating! They uploaded 59 pictures in two days in 2019, and were never seen here again. The uploader likely never learned about this nomination, nor the win nor the disqualification. And I would be very surprised if they were paid anything. Sure, people were fooled... because they didn't check the an anon-post on the internet! --Enyavar (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar : please don't misinterpret what I said. "Crime should not pay" was said under quotation mark and is an expression that I used as a metaphor. The uploader obviously didn't commit any "crime". The metaphor was used as a way to say that fooling the reviewers (by not disclosing that the background is fake) shouldn't allow the uploader to get an award in my opinion. As for the author knowing that the picture participated in POTY we don't know. But what we know for sure is that the author uploaded this image alongside other pictures to participate in the Wiki Science Competition 2019 in Ireland and won two awards in 2019 and the church picture is one of the two awarded pictures. One of his two winning pictures was honest about being a photo montage (but in that case it was anyway quite obvious) : this picture while the church picture original description was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating. And the author not only won an award by cheating but was also likely paid for it (at least with WSC 2023 I personally had a money prize but for WSC 2019 in Ireland I don't know if there was a money prize but that wouldn't be impossible). Also, just for your information, the author also came back in 2023 with a second account and won two other awards in the Wiki Science Competition 2023 in Ireland -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not a POTY committee member, but if I am allowed to leave a comment here, I would second Nardog’s point of view. IMHO it would make the history of POTYs inconsistent and hard to understand if images were disqualified retrogradely. So better add just a note. – Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original message was adressed to the POTY committee because I wanted to have their opinion on the matter but everyone is of course also welcome to give it's thought! The more enlighted we are with different opinions, the smarter the upcoming decision might be -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky thing. We also delist photos for simply not keeping up with expectations for quality -- remove those, too? After giving this some thought, here's where I land: if a photo is delisted before or during a POTY contest, it should be removed from competition. Once the competition is over, we should only make changes under extreme circumstances, and only if it appears in the top 3 for the year (the three that receive "places" and descriptions). So, for example, if a photo were deleted as a copyvio, I'd add a note to the description explanaining as much. This might be a good candidate for modifying the description. Just clarify it's a manipulated photo. If FPC didn't catch it the first time and it was an FP during POTY, then as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't retroactively remove it from competition. — Rhododendritestalk | 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is why I think a case-by-case analysis should be made and that pictures delisted for quality reasons after POTY should not worry about any other consequence with POTY. I also agree with removing from the competition a FP candidate delisted before or during the competition, even in the case of technical quality, because if it happens it technically isn't eligible anymore to participate.
We have a file deleted for copyvio in 52th position of POTY 2022 and also in 13th position in POTY 2019 and I think that the way that these images actually appear on the gallery clearly shows that they were disqualified because we don't see them anymore and when clicking on them we see that they were deleted. And in order to keep a representative poll and history the votes are still visible which is a good solution. In case the copyvio deleted image is in the top 3 there might be a different solution though (like filling the empty spot with the picture from the previously 4th position and explaining it somewhere).
So if I understand well, for the aurora church picture, you are in favor of keep it appearing on the POTY 2022 result page but to add a note below the "#4 282" saying that it was delisted because it participated as an undeclared manipulated photo? Or are you saying that nothing should be done because it is in 4th position and not in 3rd position? (The file description was already edited to say it's a photomontage after being delisted [but not during the POTY competition]).
Also, should the file page be edited to remove the or replace it by something else like ? Because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the concern about maintaining the integrity of the competition, I oppose the removal of an image from a completed POTY competition, as this would misrepresent the results. The competition has already concluded, and voters cast their votes based on the information available at the time. Retrospectively removing the image would alter the historical record of the contest. Instead, I suggest adding a note to the POTY pages to clarify that the image has since been delisted. This approach ensures transparency without distorting the results.
In addition, linking to the delisting discussion would provide further context to anyone reviewing the results. This would also maintain the integrity of the process by making the community aware of the subsequent developments, while respecting the votes cast in good faith during the contest.
I understand that this situation is complex, but I believe this solution preserves the history of the competition while still acknowledging the issues surrounding the image. Removing the image completely, in my view, would be a disproportionate response and could set a problematic precedent for future contests. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this solution (adding a note on Results page saying that the image got disqualified with a link to the delisting discussion) in case of a completed POTY contested.
But what do you think of the file page itself ZI Jony? Should the be removed (or replaced by something else like ) ? Because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, we should replace the award with a note, something like, "This photo was a finalist of POTY 2022, and it was 4th ranked photo of POTY 2022." However, I strongly against to remove completely! Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, the position / rank is currently not displayed on none of the POTY finalists (except 1, 2, 3), thus I don't see the reason of mentioning this one in particular. Secondly, there's no advantage to keep any link to the competition after a picture has been disqualified, in my opinion. On this point I agree with Giles Laurent ("strange to keep it"). Thus the best solution is for me to remove the award completely. The remaining FPC link is already far enough. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Basile, the position is not displayed on any POTY finalist file and I see no reason to display it.
After removal of the award the following template could be added for full transparency :
{{Template:POTYdisqualified|2022|Church of light.jpg|2024-10-19}}}}
This template is nice, but the icon () evokes me an unwarranted flourish. Something like an exclamation mark (❕️) would be more appropriate to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your comment here I edited the template with an image that is more explicit about the disqualification
For people that didn't see the old version, here is what it looked like (new version is above) :
I think if we do this we should clarify that it is a photo that has been delisted for undeclared manipulations. A photo that is delisted just because it has been replaced by a better photo or no longer meets FP quality standards should be allowed to retain its status as a POTY finalist, but a photo that has been promoted under false pretenses should be stripped of its finalist designation. Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the delist link in itself is sufficient because we can read exactly what is going on with that image (and an image delisted after POTY for quality reasons would never get that delisted link appearing on results, only pictures that fooled voters).
Have there ever been different cases like this? I have the impression that FPs are rarely delisted, and POTY finalists much less often (because they are generally among the best FPs, theoretically the least likely to be criticized, of all). If by chance a #1 FP were replaced by a superior #2 version, there would be no real harm in leaving the POTY award displayed on the page. So while waiting for other special cases to come to light, and spark ideas for modifications, I am of the opinion to use this template adapted to current situations. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (and I don't think there was a previous case of POTY finalist delisted).
Also I think the criterion is simple :
If the picture is delisted because it fooled voters at the time (for example with undeclared photo manipulations), it should be disqualified and lose it's POTY finalist award.
In all other delist cases, the award should be kept as it was fairly obtained.
First, IMO what is displayed on file pages is probably outside the purview of the POTY committee. We can decide what to do with an image with regards to the contest, but how that's reflected on file pages is something that I think could be determined with broader input. That said, I think (along the lines of what I wrote above) that a note on the results page is sufficient in the POTY space. As for what the file page should say, no strong opinion from me. — Rhododendritestalk | 16:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have leapt from a discussion about how to handle these scenarios into stylistic/layout discussions that make several assumptions. Here's my view: whether an image is "disqualified" is a decision for the POTY committee. How to handle the display of subsequently delisted photos is likewise up to the POTY committee. That committee would be wise to take community input into consideration in making that decision. How the committee's decision (and any other information about the delisted photo) should be displayed on the file page is entirely outside the committee's hands and is probably best discussed at a village pump, where you can solicit broader input. Granted, the committee doesn't have any formal authority at this point, so my opinion on the matter has no special weight. What I would like to hear is, insofar as we're going to have a POTY committee, consent to have that committee make decisions about the POTY contest. — Rhododendritestalk | 18:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that disqualifying a picture from POTY is within the POTY committee competences as mentionned in the rules (and I first thought that with this comment you agreed with disqualification). The layout proposals are only proposals/discussions but the formal decision wether to disqualify the picture or not belongs to the POTY committee. I will personally abide by the POTY committee decision on this mater wether I agree with it or not. At this point we still haven't heard Ingenuity's and AntiCompositeNumber's opinions. Once all active POTY committee members will have given their personal opinion, they will need to all agree on a single concordant POTY committee official position. Other users are of course free to say their opinion and voting in the proposals below (or adding new ones) is a way to do so. Opinions from everyone are also always free to change with time after reading everyone's else opinion. I suggest to give a few days to people to say their opinion before formulating the official POTY committee decision wether to disqualify the church picture. There is no need to rush and usually the more we take time to think on a matter, the wiser the decision is -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say “Thank you!” to all participants in this detailed and engaged discussion. First I was hesitant to change the results of POTY retrogradely (hence my initial comment above); but now that you have proposed clear and transparent ways to show that I fully agree that it makes sense to modify the POTY results in this way. Thank you all, – Aristeas (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to join Aristeas in expressing my gratitude to my colleagues for their efforts in reaching a consensus. Special thanks to Giles Laurent for his tireless dedication. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites after thinking about it I think that removing the award from the file page by editing the assessments template and/or adding a new template is also of the POTY committee competence. The award is added by the POTY committee so I think that any modification/removal of it should also come from the POTY committee -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, in most serious photo competitions in the world, cheating or misleading the jury/voters results in disqualification and removal of award. Examples :
- Other disqualification case : but this time it was an AI contest and someone posted a real image making the jury think it was an AI one and got disqualified after truth was found
The wildlife photographer of the year has more than one entry as it has multiple categories and runner-ups. For the wolf example it was too late to edit the printed books of the photograph as they were already printed and sold but they added a notice under the image displayed in the museum (winners always end up displayed in the Natural History Museum of London) and the candidate was of course officially disqualified + award taken from him + banned for life of entering the contest again (source : article) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, the difference is that on your example the picture was uploaded on 19 September 2016 and less than 24 hours later the uploader himself added this to the description : "There is no reflection pool. The reflection was artificially created. A copy of the photo was also uploaded and can be found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Bell_of_Friendship_in_San_Pedro.jpg". This means that the uploader was honest about the image was digitally altered before the jury/users reviewing it so there would be no reason to disqualify that WLM winner.
But on the church example the situation is very different because the uploader intentionally misled any reviewer of the file (and the jury that made it win in WSC 2019 in Ireland) by falsly claiming "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night". To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating and that image should be disqualified from POTY and the award taken away -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm not disputing that the church picture should be disqualified, I was only adding another example of how altered photos have been handled before since there was a question about it. --Cart(talk)15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fate of delisted featured pictures layout proposals
There seems to be a consensus above (at least for the moment) that the church picture should keep appearing in the POTY 2022 gallery but with a note added. There also seems to be a consensus that the award should be removed. This section is solely designed to discuss how the layout of the note and award removal should be. If you disagree with the note and/or award removal, please discuss it in the above section.
These are the most recent layouts that were originally proposed on this page but discussion is now moved to this talk page as more people visit it.
Support I think adding this is extremely important as it allows the community to see in a transparent way what happened to this picture (it fooled everyone with a fake background) and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It did in fact get 282 votes, was #4, and wasn't disqualified during the POTY 2022. Just note the fact that it has since been delisted as an FP because of mislabeling and leave it at that. Nardog (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It got 282 votes and rank number 4 only because it cheated and fooled voters into thinking it was an incredibly lucky photo taken at the perfect time and place, which is not the case as the background is fake. If I had voted in round 2 of POTY 2022 I would surely have voted for it with one of the three votes if I didn't knew the background was completely fake. If I knew the background was fake I would never have voted for it in Round 2, Round 1 and in Featured pictures. POTY rules always allowed to disqualify an image at any time and this is a perfect exemple where this faculty should be used in my opinion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it fooled FPC voters. Let's say the manipulations were disclosed up front and it still passed (we do, after all, promote images with a wide range of photo edits from composites to focus stacks to stitched panoramas to cloned-out background elements, etc.). In that case, we do not have a mechanism to indicate the extent to which images are manipulated, so POTY votes would probably be the same whether or not it was declared at time of nomination. I suppose there's some sort of little icon we could include at the end of the description in gallery pages if there is a retouched template, with hover text along the lines of "this is a retouched image. click here to learn more" with a link to the appropriate file page section where users can read the {{Retouched}} text. — Rhododendritestalk | 17:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fooled FPC votersandPOTY voters because the POTY voters had no information appearing to them on the file page that reality was completely different than what is presented in the picture. But I agree that, in addition to the retouched template (for files that didn't fool FP voters), more information could be provided to POTY voters as well. An easy way to do so would be to simply add for example "Photomontage - [rest of description]" in front of the description that POTY script automatically gathers -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Prefer alt 3. I don't think we need to get into "disqualification" of historical third place finishers. We should just provide what information we can to users. — Rhododendritestalk | 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with giving information to readers but that's not incompatible with disqualifying the picture and to also mentionning it (will add that option) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that not saying that it was disqualified would be the equivalent to keep the award to a file that fooled all voters and that would never had 282 votes and rank 4 if it wasn't for the fake background -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Church of light.jpg#4282 Info : After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information.
Weak oppose I think this is "less worse" than alt 2 but the lack of the disqualification word seems to imply that the picture kept its award, which is something I don't agree with as "crime should not pay" and it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The result should be crossed out, because it's clear the original background would never have gathered so many supports at POTY without copy-pasted church (perhaps not even passed at FPC) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Rhododendrites that it's most important to convey what happened accurately. While I have no crystal ball, the delisting discussion gives me the impression that FP reviewers would have paid more attention to the modifications had they declared and likely would have found the technical quality of the image to not meet FP standards. On the other hand, POTY voters aren't exactly known for meticulously reviewing the file page for retouching details or even particularly evaluating the technical merit of the photographs. People vote for what they think looks nice, and many don't even go past the thumbnail view. So it's hard for me to say that, had the modifications been declared (and the file got through FP), this image wouldn't have still received significant support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this novel distracts too much and implies intentional wrongdoing by the contestant. This uploader likely never learned about the nomination, the win or the disqualification. The "Disqual-text" needs to be extremely brief (the page(s) it links to can be crazy long if needed) , and be handled in a case-by-case basis given how rare this is. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file was originaly uploaded to participate in Wiki Science Competition 2019 in Ireland and won an award there (and possibly a money prize as well). The original description was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating and intentional wrongdoing. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 4 : new layout with disqualification and information
Church of light.jpg#4282 Info : After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. As a consequence, this image was disqualified. See this link for more information.
Support Personally, I prefer this version also. The symbolic power of the crossed out score is understandable to everyone and complements the text. The text could perhaps be shortened a bit. Suggestion:"After the POTY competition, undisclosed manipulations were discovered, leading to the revocation of its Featured Picture status and disqualification. More information at this link." -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the crossed out numbers, that is clear to everyone. The text is problematic because a photo competition is purely visual and a blob of English text doesn't seem fair nor effective for non-English readers. Also I don't know how important explaining our internal processes is on a gallery. Wikis traditionally just leave a link for those interested to follow. The susinct explanation can be placed at the link. Thus I lean to Alt1.--Commander Keane (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this novel distracts too much and implies intentional wrongdoing by the contestant. This uploader likely never learned about the nomination, the win or the disqualification. The "Disqual-text" needs to be extremely brief (the page(s) it links to can be crazy long if needed) , and be handled in a case-by-case basis given how rare this is. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file was originaly uploaded to participate in Wiki Science Competition 2019 in Ireland and won an award there (and possibly a money prize as well). The original description was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating and intentional wrongdoing. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If no change is done, the POTY 2022 results page would stay as it is right now, which means the picture would still be keeping it's award. I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use File:Placeholder POTY 2022.svg (a pure black svg with no borders) not the current racing box, it is the best I could do. I'm not even sure I support it, but I am just throwing this option out there. The link to could lead to a brief explanation page about the disqualification for those interested. This option expresses how seriously the community values declared manipulations.--Commander Keane (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similarly a layout with transparent image was proposed here but it appears a major problem in the display of the file name below (like here, "Auto Racing Black Box.svg"). Also a black image can evoke a night shot (see the picture #3 called "Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg" for example), thus not immediately something "out of process" in the mind of everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the text "Auto Racing Black Box.svg" that can't be removed is problematic and confusing. Also I prefer when we know what image we are talking about -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Showing a black or transparent box in place of the disqualified image can be confusing. It’s not immediately clear to the community and may raise questions among those who aren’t informed. There should be a clear indication at first glance of what happened. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - A very good idea (not showing the disqualified image), although the filename of the black box must not show. Maybe just create a black div-panel? Anyway, there needs to be a link to an explanation page that also shows the picture, but all details about the why and how should be given there. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of better quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.
Strong oppose If no change is done the file would be keeping it's award. I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally associate black with a kind of mourning ribbon. That's why I like the black laurel wreath as a symbol of the past. On the other hand, a red cross over the laurel wreath is too bold, too artificial. It would suit an everyday graphic, but here I think it disturbs the overall impression. The text next to it, in combination with the black laurel wreath, is clearly understandable for everyone. The 85% opacity setting is ideal, because a flat black in a symbol would be too dominant in relation to the black font. Softened black looks more harmonious. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Radomianin: a black and white ribbon on a black and white picture like this or that finalist would be kind of coherent. Note that there is no way of comparison when you pick up such a page at random. Thus the normal interpretation for the lambda viewer is certainly "nice black and white Laurel wreath" (for a nice black and white picture), more than "past time, nostalgia and lost colors". Black and white smiley ☺ :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your point, Basile. That's a good argument, and I hadn't quite thought of that kind of lay interpretation. I have changed my vote for the crossed out laurel wreath to a weak support. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the green version with the medal () is well known to POTY voters. So changing it to is already a visual equivalent to removing the medal. But then is normally designed to be used for candidates according to it's name and use in the past (so not for disqualified pictures). The black version looks like to me as a completely burnt version of the green one, which I think is a nice symbolic of the disqualification and I like it. The grey version keeps the symbolic meaning of the black one and could be seens as it's turned into ashes after burning and I also like it. It is true though that to a new user unfamiliar with the POTY finalist medal it could look like a simple black and white version of a half laurel wreath but when looking at the text directly next to it with the disqualified word in bold I think that the meaning is clear and that any eventual misinterpretation would only last half a second --
Note that POTY finalists are more likely to appear on the internet search engines, due to the consecutive rise in popularity. So the main visitors will probably not be regulars of the site, but complete strangers. And anyway, the message is supposed to be clear to anyone, not just "just in case". Coca-cola is associated to red color, however, when I see the black and white version displayed on the official site, I'm not starting to think that the company is completely burnt :-) I tend to think that technical or political constraints led to the choice of black and white. Similarly a star ⭐️ is usually yellow, but if you show me a black star ★, it remains associated to the sky, fame and glorious things. Because the shape has its own meaning. Sorry, it reminds me the old focus stacking pictogram which was certainly meaningful to the designer, but probably less so to users. Anyway, it remains a detail, and we will probably not manage to agree here. I am frankly happy to discover that there are quite wacky points of view among extremely rational and influential people like you :-) All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022. However, after the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information.
This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022. However, after the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information.
Neutral I don't like this alternative and would normally vote 'weak oppose' to it but it seems like 3 out of 4 POTY committee members prefer to not use the word disqualification so here is another alternative -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template appearing on alt 0 would still appear but would be edited like this (and one of the alt 1 to 8 would appear above it in a separate box) :
Quality image
This formerly was a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and was considered one of the finest images. See its nomination [[Commons:|here]]. This is a quality image and is considered to meet the quality image guidelines.
If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of better quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.
I oppose all of the current options, including the option for "no action". This is currently set up like the language is already decided, and we've moved onto stylistic decisions, but I oppose the use of "disqualified". We should present information about what happened to potential users, but I don't think we need to make formal retroactive declarations of "disqualified" for historical contests. — Rhododendritestalk | 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add new alts without the "disqualified" word (but I personally think it should be disqualified because it intentionally fooled voters and shouldn't be awarded for it) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Giles. One more suggestion for an alternative on the POTY page (this would be my preference). I'd like an option which provides more specific information. "Delisted" is jargon and someone who doesn't know the context probably wouldn't know what to take away from these messages. I also think we don't necessarily need to get into retroactive disqualification to communicate what we need to communicate. So, for example: "Note: After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information. [link to the delist discussion]". Since this is a rare occurrence, I don't see why we shouldn't be precise about what happened when it does come up. — Rhododendritestalk | 17:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note for people that might want to add new alternatives (alt) : don't hesitate to add them yourself while keeping the same format for voting) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: do you agree we can now close this section? I think everybody had enough time to cast their votes above. With equal weight given to supports and oppositions, the favorite options seem to be #4 for the POTY page and #4 for the file page. If you agree, could you please update the new template {{POTYdisqualified}} with the relevant icon, so that we can use it on the file pages? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment only 3 out of 4 active POTY committee members have given their personal thought on the matter. But the sum of all individual thoughts of POTY committee members is not necessary the same as the formal decision that the committee in corpore will take as to wether the picture is disqualified or not. As Rhododendrites wrote here, the POTY committee would be wise to take community input into consideration in making that decision (but the POTY committee doesn't necessarily need to have the same opinion).
So for the moment there's two things we are waiting for :
1) Ingenuity's opinion ;
2) The POTY committee in corpore's decision wether to disqualify the church picture.
Ingenuity, we are waiting for your personal opinion on the question of what should be done with the church picture. One easy way to give it is by adding votes on the above different proposals (or creating a new proposal).
But you are also free (if you prefer) to renounce to give an opinion on the matter and to delegate the decision to be taken by the POTY committee to the other members of the committee. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: the icons currently used in {{Assessments}} for the POTY finalists were designed by you here and the decision was taken democratically by 11 voters, including a few POTY committee members. The choice to use them or not may be a group decision, but the visuals themselves probably don't need to be voted on by this jury exclusively. The more participants there are, the clearer the consensus. Sure there is no rush, but on the one hand, every day that passes prolongs the undeserved celebration of a finalist photo. I don't know if there are any discussions currently taking place off-wiki about this, but if the template is updated then it will be usable by accredited people. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted the topicons discussion I wasn't sure where to post it. Only an admin could have implemented the request and the Edit request template page said that edit requests made to admins needed a clear consensus so that's why I opened votes there.
As for the change of POTY rules (top 5% of each category instead of top 2 of each category), the actual rules say that it's of POTY committee competence to determine them. Ingenuity had proposed top 5-10% originally and I suggested to use 5% instead. No one else had responded to that change of rules and Ingenuity wasn't even a POTY committee member at the time. So I thought that it would be very wrong that such an important change gets implemented without a proper community discussion involving at least some POTY committee members. I also felt that if there wouldn't have been a discussion, some people would likely have complained that rules were changed without any consensus or POTY committee approval. That's why a formal discussion on changing the rules was opened and I think it's a good thing that people that didn't agree at the time with the 5% had a chance to propose another solution.
As for the disqualification it's again of POTY committee competence like for the rules. Sadly this time they seem to have another vision than the community consensus but it's their competence anyway so I think we have to accept it even if we don't agree with it. Anyway we're still waiting for Ingenuity's position as well as the POTY committee's in corpore's position on the disqualification matter -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a strong consensus against using the term "disqualified" Given that three members have agreed on Alternative 3 for the results page, we should respect that choice.
For the file page, the proposed note is clear and transparent. I suggest we use this wording suggested by Rhododendrites:
"Note: After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations, and its status as a Featured Picture was subsequently revoked. See [this link](link to the delist discussion) for more information."
This message is straightforward and informative, providing viewers with the necessary context without additional complexity.
As Giles Laurent rightly pointed out, the committee’s suggestions should be honored, as they are responsible for these decisions. Thank you all for your cooperation in maintaining clarity and fairness in this process. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)15:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 votes is not really a "strong" consensus. But there might be a stronger consensus of incomprehension among people here for the committee's refusal to disqualify a doctored photo that clearly did not deserve to reach the competition. As evidenced by at least the 6 votes (twice three) in support of option 4 (including that of committee member AntiCompositeNumber). The other photo competitions disqualify their fake pictures, but not Wikimedia Commons? How odd -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the jury has its own rules, but I personally believe that a democratic consensus should not be ruled out here either (re. option 4). I agree with Basile Morin's statement. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Basile. POTY rules state that the POTY committee can disqualify a candidate. In this case we have a picture where uploader clearly intentionally fooled everyone by writing in the file description that it was a single photo when in reality it was a fake background. If this isn't a case for disqualification then I don't understand in what case disqualification would be used. I also think that not disqualifying the picture is extremely unfair for all other file candidates that were honest and didn't try to cheat. Also as Basile said and as seen in these examples, other photo competitions disqualify cheaters so I really don't understand why not do it here. Finally, that "in between" state by not using the disqualification word looks very unclear, confusing and cloudy to me whereas officially disqualifying would make things very clear -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony, so if I understand well you are in favor of alt 7 or alt 8 for the file page presentation? In that case don't hesitate to support both of them so we also have a clearer view of POTY committee preference for the file page (or if you have another idea in mind don't hesitate to add an alt 9) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to restate/reframe: I would support using terms like "disqualified" or "invalid" only where an image's entry into the contest is illegitimate at the time of the contest (or perhaps in extraordinary cases where legality comes into play). If an FP was legitimately an FP at the time of the contest, I think there are a number of ways we can communicate important information to users but don't support calling it "disqualified" or "invalid". Here's how I'd tell the difference: over at FPC, when a promotion is considered invalid, the FP designation is simply removed. We see this happen when, for example, someone votes twice or a sockpuppet sways the result. We don't require a delisting discussion; we just retally the votes and change the status accordingly. If sockpuppetry, etc. is discovered after the image appears in POTY, I'd support being clear that it was not a legitimate candidate (with an explanation). However, if something was not so clearly in violation of FPC rules that the designation can simply be removed (i.e. if we instead need a discussion to debate whether it did, in fact, merit promotion), then its appearance in POTY was legitimate at the time of the contest and I don't think it makes sense to call it disqualified. That's my take with my POTY committee member hat on (a hat, especially following all this, that I'm eager to give to someone else). If you want to leave it up to the committee, that's probably roughly where things will land, but POTY rules are not policy and if there's consensus it shouldn't be up to the committee, I guess that's that. — Rhododendritestalk | 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a picture is found after the contest to be illegal because of it's content or because it's a copyvio or because there lacks the consent of the person photographed for example then the picture is simply deleted from Wikimedia Commons and automatically disqualified without the need for the POTY committee to use it's disqualification competence. We already have example with for example picture #52 of POTY 2022 and picture #13 of POTY 2019.
In my opinion the church was illegitimate to enter the contest at the time of the contest because it's qualification was based on the fact that it was falsly presented as being a single shot with a real background. Therefore all votes made to promote it to FP were made by beeing completely fooled about what they were voting for and in my opinion we can call a picture that fooled everyone an illegitimate picture because the supports were not legitimately obtained. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that FPC rules state that : Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
Therefore there is absolutely no doubt in my opinion that the church picture was illegitimate to reach FP status because it was clearly violating FPC rules -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm completely on the same wavelength as Giles. I admit that I don't even understand why this disqualification is not automatic, because the entire discussion has already taken place on the delisting page, and the votes are both explicit and consensual. The committee would only have to refer to this page to justify their decision. Yes, a "dis-qualification" should come from this lack of "qualification", since the necessary prerequisite for acceptance to the competition is success at FPC. Failure in FPC automatically results in non-qualification, so similarly, it seems logical to consider that the loss of FP status retrospectively causes the withdrawal of this right to qualification. And yes, if this obvious case of cheating or violation of the rules is not considered "disqualified", then in what case is the famous "disqualification" mentioned on the competition page applicable? I also think that a bit of rigor and severity would refine the level of requirement of the contest, and its credibility rate, by clearly highlighting the unacceptable limits, and the stakes of non-compliance.
Once awarded, the QI status cannot be withdrawn, but it is different for the FP label, and it seems to be the same for the POTY finalists too. Otherwise we can open a new section here or at the Village Pump to discuss the opportunity to dispel any ambiguity by modifying the rules page for the next contests to specify that there will be no disqualifications, no matter what, just possible updates. I understand that taking charge of this update does not make the organizers jump for joy, because it is a rather unsavory mission, compared to the management of all the beautiful winning images that are not problematic. And it is also a photo that concerns a previous year. But the committee is independent of the year of the competition, so it is difficult to recall the jury at the time. Also, when we write "This formerly was a featured picture", we understand that the FP status has been withdrawn. Similarly, when we read "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year", we understand that the image is no longer a finalist. This revocation is in my opinion explicit, and synonymous with disqualification. Shouldn't we simply accept an obvious fact that is already reality? Agree to use the appropriate word for an objectively equivalent situation? -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong; I get where you're both coming from. I get that you both feel strongly (and that you're not the only ones). Here's where I'm coming from: I'm less thinking about this specific case and more thinking about a heuristic POTY can use. Here's where I land: POTY only includes FPs promoted in the previous year which are still an FP at the time of the contest. Those delisted beforehand should simply be removed from competition. Once the competition is over, if becomes whether the FP promotion was valid at the time. When it is discovered that an image was promoted because of sockpuppetry, because of a double vote, or that the image was improperly licensed/stolen, FPC doesn't require a new delisting discussion, with multiple possible outcomes, to determine whether it should be delisted. It is simply removed (or, in the case of copyright, just deleted -- no delisting discussion required). In these cases, the FP promotion was simply illegitimate; no consensus on delisting needed. On the other hand, if the quality is no longer up to standard, if manipulations were discovered, if the description was found to be inaccurate, or if any of a host of other reasons come up that we don't consider to automatically render the previous nomination invalid. Instead, we open a delisting discussion to see if there's consensus to remove it. I'm thinking about "was an FP technically an FP at the time of the contest", not "would an FP have been an FP If voters had all the information". Let me be clear: it absolutely should've been delisted, and should've never been promoted. This isn't about retaining some kind of credit for a deceptive image but thinking about what procedure makes sense for POTY such that it can be applied again in the future. I proposed some wording above, but I'm not opposed to something stronger if it's the strength of language that gives folks pause. I just don't want to create a precedent that delisting = retroactive disqualification if a handful of people demand it enough times on the talk page. Other than making claims about formal "disqualification", I think you should say whatever strong language you think is most appropriate on the file page. — Rhododendritestalk | 13:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is just a question of having a "standard procedure" I think one could easily be elaborated and I already proposed one here.
Basically once the contest has happened :
If the picture is delisted because it deceived voters at the time (for example with undeclared photo manipulations) or because it was promoted only because of a sockpuppet, it should be disqualified and lose it's POTY finalist award.
In all other delist cases, the award should be kept as it was fairly obtained.
(And if a picture is illegal for any reason like licensing it's already deleted from Wikimedia Commons without any action needed from POTY Committee)
We currently have 18'869 featured pictures and pictures delisted because they deceived voters at the time with undeclared photo manipulations are extremely rare. Such cheating pictures that got POTY finalist award are even more rare and can be counted on the fingers of a single hand.
Deceiving the voters is such a such a crass violation of FPC rules that I don't see how it couldn't trigger a disqualification. Using a sockpuppet is serious cheating. Deceiving voters is serious cheating. If sockpuppeting could trigger a disqualification I don't see why deceiving voters couldn't.
There is no other wording than disqualification that would make sense to me (especially if rules allow it) and a cat should be called a cat else things look unclear, confusing and cloudy -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Giles, for the energy you spend to assert your point of view, which I share 100%. I also think that we should call a spade a spade, and that if "disqualified" is the "strong word" to use, then let's stop beating around the bush. I also agree with your suggestion of "standard procedure". In fact in this situation, the question of "was the FP promotion valid at the time" or that of "was an FP technically an FP at the time of the contest" clearly induces a negative answer. The photo is fake! It's just a scam. So what, valid?! Well... no. Technically cheat. And otherwise, in which case the POTY candidates would be "invalid", I really don't see a more trivial example. Exactly the same in the case (potential) of double voting or sockpuppetry. If the FPC is not valid, then neither is the POTY candidate. Since winning the FPC is a prerequisite. There really seems to be a problem of judgment here, or of bias. And what worries me, above all, is that this tolerance for cheating risks constituting a precedent, like "we didn't disqualify the previous fakes, so why prevent the next ones?" That's the "standard" in my opinion, calling things by their name. Or, is it a question of interpretation of the written rules? Or of drafting? Perhaps it is necessary to agree and to specify whether or not a retroactive disqualification is possible or whether the disqualifications are valid only for the current year, or during the competition. To date, it does not seem to exclude retroactive exclusions. Current text is "The committee reserves the right to disqualify or replace candidates in exceptional circumstances, but will not use this ability without careful discussion." Should the wording be changed? I don't think so, but if others have another opinion, we can discuss it. The only thing I am firmly convinced of is that we are facing "exceptional circumstances" now. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with Basile and I can't think of a better example of "exceptional circumstances" justifying a disqualification.
So if there's the word "disqualified" below a photo on the results page, it will have such power as to deter future misleading nominations at FPC, but if there's a great big note that it was found to be heavily manipulated and subsequently delisted at FPC, that sets a terrifying precedent that encourages cheating? To repeat my position, I think the POTY committee should absolutely disqualify images if something like this happens before/during the POTY competition. The question here is about retroactive disqualifications, and what I want is to be able to communicate clearly what the threshold is/was for such things. "Undeclared manipulations" are quite variable, and I can imagine a case where an image was promoted without such a declaration but there's no consensus to delist. I can also imagine many ways for past FPs to be delisted that shouldn't disqualify them (several of the images from the first competitions on quality reasons, for example). I'm likewise concerned about the precedent an extraordinary case would set for these reasons, which is why my thinking is that POTY rules should follow FPC rules. My sense of "disqualification" at FPC is like when sockpuppetry gets an FP promoted or when it turns out the photo is a copyright violation. In such cases, it's not "delisted", the FP star is just removed (or the page deleted). In those cases, we should retroactively disqualify from POTY as it was never a valid FP. However, if a delisting discussion is required, with multiple possible outcomes, then the FP status isn't simply removed; it's replaced with a "delisted" status. In those cases, assuming it takes place sometime after POTY concludes, how is the POTY committee supposed to distinguish between them? All this said, it's clear a few people feel very strongly about this, and I understand why. Here's what I'd propose: have a way at FPC to distinguish [delisted for reasons that would've prevented it from becoming an FP in the first place, had they been known] (i.e. disqualified) from [delisted for other reasons] (i.e. delisted). This would apply not just to POTY but would involve a modification of the {{Assessments}} template so that the church/aurora composite would display something different from a photo that just isn't good enough anymore. Does that seem reasonable? — Rhododendritestalk | 13:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the message without the disqualification word looks like this : "We found out that we were deceived by this image and it's FP status was revoked but oh well no big deal it can stay in the POTY competition and keep it's well deserved award" which makes no sense to me.
I understand that you agree to disqualify such deceiving images when they get caught before or during the competition but I don't really understand why not do it retroactively as well. Nothing in the rules forbid doing it retroactively and to me this case clearly falls into the "exceptional circumstances" that allow to disqualify the picture even retroactively.
The threshold in which "undeclared manipulations" is not acceptable is already clearly described in the FPC rules : "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer.Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction.More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates."
For the church picture the case falls in the worst possible case : "Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.". The image was falsly presented as being a single shot when in reality the sky was fake.
FP procedures are what they are right now. Deceiving images can only lose their FP status after going through the delist formal process right now. But I don't see why this should have an impact on disqualifying the picture from POTY contest. POTY rules clearly already give discretionnary power to the POTY committee to disqualify pictures even retroactively. All it needs is a POTY committee consensus to do so. So I don't think changing FP delist procedures is necessary as in the end, even if it would be the case, that would change nothing to the fact that it is in POTY comittee sole hands to disqualify a picture from POTY.
If you want a guideline list of threshold conditions for a picture to be disqualified by the POTY committee here is a suggestion :
1) The image needs to have been promoted to FP status by deceiving voters (for example with undeclared manipulations) or by sockpuppetery. This means that there will never be disqualification on the ground that a picture no longer meets the standards of quality of today.
2) The image needs to be delisted before being submitted for decision by POTY Committee. This step will already include an analysis as to if the undeclared manipulations are small and acceptable or if they are that important that they deceive the overall look of the image. If the image doesn't get delisted it's that the community thinks that the undeclared manipulations are acceptable. If the image gets delisted (on the ground of undeclared manipulations) it means there is a community consensus that the image is deceiving.
3) The POTY committee takes a decision. Here again there will be an analysis of wether the undeclared manipulations are acceptable or not since the POTY committee has a discretionnary power on this matter. If an image barely passed in the vote to be delisted it might be that the consensus exists by the community but is not as strong as something close to unanimity. We could imagine that such scenario would be a gray area were POTY committee could decide to keep an image eventhough it had undeclared manipulations because the POTY committee thinks for example that the undeclared manipulations are small and insignificant. But if an image is delisted with votes close to unanimity (for example 80%) then the consensus is quite strong and that probably means there's good reasons for the POTY committee to also disqualify it from the POTY competition -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree It makes sense, yes. Thank you.
Now there's something very clear within the votes above, section "Latest layout proposals for file page", an obvious consensus for the option #4 displaying the text "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19." With 6 supports and no oppose, this part of the discussion is probably constituting an easy start after 1 month. Because the rules don't say that a POTY finalist can be only half disqualified, or half valid, or half POTY finalist. It is either valid or not valid, either finalist or non-finalist. Disqualified or not. For FP candidatures, there's a distinction between "this picture is a featured picture" (which means currently) and "this picture was a featured picture" (which means not anymore). But at POTY, since it's an annual contest, all the candidates display the message "was a finalist" (in 2022, or 2021... or 2010, etc.) Thus, the distinction should lie in the nuance between "is a valid POTY finalist of 2022 in 2024" or "is a finalist of 2022 revoked in 2024". Disqualified or not, that is the question.
Since the discovery of the montage, the file page has undergone a lot of modifications (until yesterday) by different users, but it's important to remember that at the time of the competition (and of the FP nomination) the description was just "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the Víkurkirkja church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night." If we all agree with the banner "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19" (with a link to the FP delist nomination), we should logically agree that the POTY award is also revoked on the main page (POTY 2022) because this page of votes gathering 440 supports is just inadmissible as part of the contest. How many +1 would have this image garnered for the church only with an ordinary sky? Which rank in the competition would have this finalist reached without the fake background? We don't know because the FP nomination would have possibly failed with enough reviewers voting "{{O}}nothing special" or "too ordinary". This is how things happen usually. Unless the candidate is really awesome, it fails. It could have been a minor modification, leaning to "kept FP status" but it was not, and it was "delisted". Now also, this is a real case. Not a guess of a possible case. We can imagine a lot of diverse situations which all would lead to diverse discussions and various consensus. But this one happened in reality. I have no idea how to deal with the potential "delist and replace" FPs, but 1) fortunately it never happened, 2) certainly we will be able to find fair solutions together. Now we just try to find a fair solution for this delisted FP specifically. It would be quite incredible to have the word "disqualified" on the file page, but "not disqualified" officially.
Look at this 3rd place displaying the text "This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2022." The image enjoys the prestige of an "award". If the 4th place is not disqualified after having lost its FP status, then we understand that it also keeps its POTY "award". Why an award for a fake image which deceived us clearly? Yet the rules stated a possibility of "disqualification". So it is not an unfair decision. It is simply a foreseeable consequence according to the terms of the competition. But we must be explicit and know what we are talking about. Hence the interest in naming things. In 2024, either the image retains the prestige of its 4th place award, or this status is updated. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giles noticed this error (and a few others) early (towards the bottom of #Bug reports), but I don't think we pinged everyone who voted. Let's do that, but first @Ingenuity and Giles Laurent: if it no longer appears in the gallery, will POTY still count them as valid such that these users will be prevented from re-casting their third vote? This is largely a question of how it counts votes -- do we need to blank those accidental R2 voting pages to free up those users' other vote? — Rhododendritestalk | 13:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The photo doesn't stand a chance of winning, but it would be really wrong to not give those voters their full three votes and 'ping' them about this. --Cart(talk)13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The voters will be able to cast their third vote, however they may need to clear their cookies (or use another device). That page doesn't need to be blanked. Ingenuity (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a problem with the script when recategorizing images and that caused some images to mistakenly appear as finalists and some other finalists to be missing. More information about this : here and here. To solve this, poty admin script needs to have a line of code added so that when an image is recategorized, the "category" value of all json files are edited.
The mistakenly added finalists were removed from the finalists json and will not have their votes counted nor will they appear on the final results. The votes casted there also don't count for the 3 votes limit and users that voted there can vote again like this user (but will need to clear cookies or vote from another device or from private navigation mode).
Deleting the pages is not necessary as it doesn't impact the script but I think it would be a nice thing to do just to avoid any confusion about them. Here are all the pages that could be deleted : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
I also think that pinging these users is a good idea. Pinging all of them here but since there's 31 of them I'm not sure the ping will work.
Short summary message to pinged users : one or more of your POTY votes in round 2 was added to a picture that was mistakenly appearing as finalist for a short amount of time. You can therefore still add new vote(s) until you reach a total of 3. To do so you will need to either clear cookies or vote from another device or from private navigation mode. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I'm not interested in the picture of the year, or any other FPC related events, please don't ping me in the future. Wilfredor (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As POTY 2023 is coming to an end, I just wanted to take a quick moment to thank every user and every POTY committee member that helped POTY 2023 happen this year. Your contributions were appreciated. Big thanks also especially to Ingenuity that rewrote the scripts at an impressive speed. I wish you all a beautiful day and thank you once again -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1!! As one who didn't do anything to make POTY happen this year, a BIG thanks to the committee and everybody who worked on this. --Cart(talk)15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to announce the winners for this year's Picture of the Year contest:
First place: A farmer packs incense sticks in Quang Phu Cau, Vietnam. Attribution: Vietsui / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Second place: Protester carrying a sign with a slogan at rally in support of Ukraine, outside Ohio Statehouse, in Columbus, Ohio, United States, 26 February 2022. Attribution: Becker1999 / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: Common chameleon (Chamaeleo chamaeleon) in Kapıçam National Park, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. Attribution: Mkrc85 / CC-BY-SA 4.0
This year saw a great turnout, with around 130,000 votes cast by thousands of users. Thank you to all the people who helped to keep this contest going by voting, testing the new scripts, and leaving feedback. Ingenuity (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for everything! I find it very interesting to compare the Round 2 results with the Round 1 results and see how some files that were previously very high had a much lower result in round 2 and vice versa. We can see how the maximum of 3 votes per user from R2 vs the unlimited votes per user in R1 has an influence as well as categories influence.
Also little stats information : there was 2'530 total users that voted in R1 and 3'247 total users that voted in R2 so the contest kept attracting more people -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple results. This is all in the photo. Thank you for your continued support. I wish all staff members even greater success. 松倉傑 (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many features have been requested to be added to POTY 2024. Here is a quick recap of them as well as new suggestions that I added. Pinging Ingenuity since he's the one that wrote the code. These are just requests/wishes but it doesn't necessary mean that they will be fulfilled :
Edit the script so that the first person to vote doesn't get the file added to it's Watchlist. I had to manually remove dozens of pages from my watchlist because of that in POTY 2023. One easy way to do so would be to have the person who clicks on initialize round 1/round 2 button to be the one to create a blank page. This way only one user would automatically have all the pages in watchlist. This was the solution previously used before the new script.
Make a special page where a user can see all of its votes with the files displayed (because only looking at the contributions you can't see the file directly displayed)
Users that go on the Help page and click the green "Click here to ask a question" button are redirected to a page where they can ask their question but where they can't read other users questions before posting it. This results in many persons asking the same question because they were not able to see if someone had already asked that. So adding a direct link to this page might be a good idea.
Add a fifth button to the POTY admin interface that ends first round but without automatically starting second round. Round 2 voting page needs to be created (when clicking on "End round 2" new button) but without the possibility to vote before clicking the button "start round 2". This will allow to have a bit of time to check if everything went well with the script when selecting the finalists for round 2. This is especially important as an issue happened this year.
The poty admin script needs to be edited so that when a picture is recategorized, the "category" value of all json files are automatically edited. So for example if an image from another category gets moved to the Arthropods json, not only will the Arthropods json category value need to be edited but also the All data json. If creating new jsons for each months, they will need to be edited as well. This is very important in order to avoid this issue that happened in 2023.
Not only give information about uploader and nominator below each file but also about the author since the uploader is not always the author.
Edit the script so that it ignores the "This is a photo of listed building number 1066500" that many pictures had in the description because of templates such as {{Listed building England}}. Many pictures had that appearing here for example.
Watchlist: I guess it depends on the preferences whether the page is watched – and one can (but doesn’t have to) set different preferences for page creation and editing existing pages. The API allows overriding the preferences, though it doesn’t have a setting “do as if the page already existed” (but this can be worked around by the script reading the preferences and manually setting the appropriate action). On the other hand, pre-creating the pages is also possible, in which case the appropriate watchlist action is quite clearly not watch regardless of the preferences (one may want to watch all images they voted for, but the person administering the voting won’t want to watch absolutely all images).
Done
Delisted
Half done As time is ticking I decided to help a bit by making a first draft edit of the rules page. Basically I just changed the +2 images to +5%, edited a few words and the old dates that stated "Februrary 2024" with a new temporary placeholder dates that are in the future. Feel free to enhance the page with any other needed edit or to revert my edits. One thing I'm not sure about and therefore didn't edit : the voting eligibility. According to this message, eligibility was changed this year to make it simpler. So :
because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment I’m not a POTY committee member, but if I am allowed to leave a comment here, I would second Nardog’s point of view. IMHO it would make the history of POTYs inconsistent and hard to understand if images were disqualified retrogradely. So better add just a note. – Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
282" saying that it was delisted because it participated as an undeclared manipulated photo? Or are you saying that nothing should be done because it is in 4th position and not in 3rd position? (The file description was already edited to say it's a photomontage after being delisted [but not during the POTY competition]).
Question How do other photo competitions in the world deal with this issue?--Commander Keane (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
_auf_Bl%C3%BCte_im_FFH-Gebiet_%22Viernheimer_Waldheide_und_angrenzende_Fl%C3%A4chen%22.jpg)
Support I think adding this is extremely important as it allows the community to see in a transparent way what happened to this picture (it fooled everyone with a fake background) and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose It did in fact get 282 votes, was #4, and wasn't disqualified during the POTY 2022. Just note the fact that it has since been delisted as an FP because of mislabeling and leave it at that. Nardog (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Prefer alt 3. I don't think we need to get into "disqualification" of historical third place finishers. We should just provide what information we can to users. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Neutral I prefer Alt 4 because the text contains more information and is therefore more coherent. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak support Works for me, but Alt 4 is better. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Church of light.jpg #4
Info : After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. 
Strong support - A very good idea (not showing the disqualified image), although the filename of the black box must not show. Maybe just create a black div-panel? Anyway, there needs to be a link to an explanation page that also shows the picture, but all details about the why and how should be given there. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose If no change is done the file would be keeping it's award. I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
either -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
-- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
looks like to me as a completely burnt version of the green one, which I think is a nice symbolic of the disqualification and I like it. The grey version keeps the symbolic meaning of the black one and could be seens as it's turned into ashes after burning and I also like it. It is true though that to a new user unfamiliar with the POTY finalist medal it could look like a simple black and white version of a half laurel wreath but when looking at the text directly next to it with the disqualified word in bold I think that the meaning is clear and that any eventual misinterpretation would only last half a second --
Agree It makes sense, yes. Thank you.
_-_edited.jpg)
_-_Climate_Lab_Book_(Ed_Hawkins).svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_delisted){kind=link}
