Commons talk:Picture of the Year/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dumps

Dear Wiki Commons,

For a long time we have been able to download database dumps of wikipedia for offline use: http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/latest/

And we are now reaching the point where there are some very good reader programs for these dumps: KDEApps Wikipedia Dump Reader - http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Wikipedia+Dump+Reader?content=65244&PHPSESSID=172a310040094b74325d14df367512e6 WikiTaxi - http://wikitaxi.org/delphi/doku.php/products/wikitaxi/index

However, since 2007 you have removed the accompanying image dump, itself very out of date, due to the impossible size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Currently_Wikipedia_does_not_allow_or_provide_facilities_to_download_all_Images

What is provided on the other hand is a dump file of your WikiCommons - Pictures of the Years: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007

Is there anyway of providing this image dump in a way that images to be found in wikipedia are tagged as such, so that a program like WikiTaxi that already has an imported article dump, could use the image dump to reconstitute articles in their original online form, with pictures?

I don't know if this has merit as a technical solution, but i should be delighted if it could be done easily.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.197.85 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

POTY

I think that POTY is just too many clicks away from the main page. It can only be reached by people who know about it. A pity for one of the most relevant activities of this project. --84.15.44.154 08:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An official committee mailing list

I'm proposing an official committee mailing list, instead of using an unofficial mailing list (such as google groups) for each year's POTY. Thoughts? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea. Have preparations for POTY 2009 started already? -- Jovan Cormac 12:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but we might as well start now :). — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, let's move to Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009. -- Jovan Cormac 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll try to help around with the organising when I can (we're getting a bit off-topic here, heh :)). Should we put a notice on VP, AN, FPC talk page, QI talk page, and similar pages for wider attention? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean you don't have a centralized system for wider attention? Better talk to me about that. :P Yes, the word should be spread. (I also agree that the contest should be on an official mailing list, for the sake of transparency). Harej (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Btw. the preparatory action has moved to Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009/Preparation. What about the mailing list, though? Which service should we use to set one up? -- Jovan Cormac 08:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WMF already got a host name we could use, if we have consensus for it (for example, namehere@lists.wikimedia.org). Though, it's not created yet. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Who do we have to talk to to get the list set up there? -- Jovan Cormac 08:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to create a bugzilla report and CC it to Cary Bass. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it that can't be done onwiki?Geni (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Same question, it'd be easier, wouldn't it? →Diti the penguin — 11:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are probably right (both of you). We just need to pay attention that the discussion pages don't get too cluttered, or flooded with off-topic conversations. -- Jovan Cormac 11:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it would be better to have an official mailing list, rather than using an unofficial mailing list for transparency. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What was it that was done on mailing lists last year (examples with details changed to protect privacy if need be)??? Thanks ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we would need some input from the former committee members to clarify that. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What about making the list archives public? I don't see why this should be private (at the time), but a mailing list should be created, IMO. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

links

Link for downloading the archive are not longer working?? please fix this!! Thabet (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Still not working :( --85.181.4.132 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply no-one created downloadable version. Volunteers are welcomed. --Jklamo (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if downloadable versions used to exist, and have since been removed due to the decommissioning of the hosting server? --118.208.57.138 11:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Has stable.ts.wikimedia.org been removed or just move to some other domain? -- Michael F. Schönitzer 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Found & Fixed the link [1] but there are only the files for 2006 & 2007 -- Michael F. Schönitzer 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

the .zip files are both 404, so that's pretty useless too. :( --118.208.17.91 14:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting date

I'm not sure whether it is okay to vote. The preparation page says the voting started, but the voting page states otherwise. When will the voting begin\did it already begin? Tomer T (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I got banner message last week I think its over.. Gnan garra 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant voting in the final round. Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

headline "PICTURE of the year"

You show more PHOTOS and I mean it better you write in the headline"PHOTO of the year" because is different to a PICTURE!--RvB (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reni von bifamo

Perhaps photos have an advantage in the process, but there are non-photos among the finalists from 2010 (File:Frontal lobe animation.gif and File:Buddhabrot-W1000000-B100000-L20000-2000.jpg) and quite a few in 2009, so "picture" is more appropriate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages take for ever to load and no place to get help.

Hi, I'm not willing to wait several minutes while the javascript thing whirls and nothing happens. I can't "log in" or "register" since I can never get the "captcha" right. Whole thing is too much trouble. Where can I get some help and questions answered? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I give up.

I am getting so pissed off right now I am mad I even came here. Last year I couldn't vote because, even when I signed in, it told me I was "not registered", and now this year, I'm clearly signed in, but the "vote" button that I can see is grayed out. I don't have script protections on, all I know is this should be a brainless as taking a piss, and if I can't do it, someone else can't do it too, and that means someone in the tech department isn't thinking about the average user out there. Yeah, yeah, I know that thousands of Wikipedians will have no problems with this, and hundreds of others will have problems but will eventually figure out how to do it, but I'm also quite positive that there are dozens of Wikipedians like me who want to just say, shove this where the sun doesn't shine, I've had it. I can't believe I was stupid enough to try this again this year. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please visit this side: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I remembered that wrong. I wasn't allowed to vote last year because I didn't meet the "edit threshold"[2] (something like 1000 edits?) even though I had in excess of 5000 edits. I may have gotten the history wrong, but I did correctly remember that someone holding the technical reins on this thing probably has only one hand on his keyboard. I'm sorry to be rude, but this is absolutely asinine. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that there are 13 subject categories at 2011's Picture of the Year competition? (And four that refer to specific formats.)
...that twelve of the 32 current top-ranking POTY candidates are either outdoor views of nature (7) or constructions (5), while a further 3 are nature views with a vehicle or animal as a minor feature?
...that there are no cluse-up pictures among nature views?
...that except for the 32 top-ranked media overall, only the top one of each category will be included in round 2?

I will cross-post this, as it's not clear to me which one of these many talk pages actually gets read. Certainly, the rate of replies could be higher.

Samsara (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Final round

Why this picture (112 votes) has not been elected for the final round while this one (111 votes) has been elected? --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 07:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Because of rules. Balloon was 8th in its category and not among top 32, Mona Lisa was 1st in its category.--Jklamo (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Voting for pic above buttons or below?

Please see my comment at "Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2011/Finalists#Voting for pic above buttons or below?". The way the voting page is rendered in Firefox 10, at least, makes it not so obvious which image the buttons refer to. - dcljr (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Decade

I am open to ideas. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"We have a finalist now!"

"We have a finalist now!" it says on the front page of the competition. Does this mean an overall winner? It's not entirely clear. Rd232 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Marking candidates

I was wondering if I should mark candidates. It may look redundant but this way we can quickly generate a candidate list for 2012 effortlessly through template magic and the page would be updated automatically with each promotion. I can do this through bot. This would also denote the year of promotion of the featured content. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I can include the "POTY Categories" into the template as well. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits would look like this. I made one edit with bot to provide a sample. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me - but I think we need to include the POTY category in the template as well. Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Should I apply "candidate" changes to all former candidates with a bot? I have the code ready for this task.

Category code can be done, the issue is displaying it. If it will be displayed as text it needs to be translated. Category structure should be agreed upon as well. If it will be symbols then we need to decide how to symbolize.

I revised the existing category structure a little (moved stuff around) and have boldly created Category:Pictures of the Year (by year) and Category:Pictures of the Year (galleries). I have however no idea what to do with categories such as Category:POTY 2011, Category:POTY 2010 and their content. I have placed them as a subcategory but they perhaps should be handled differently. I am not sure how though.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead with the bot (assuming by "former candidates" you mean candidates from previous years...) - except that we don't want to end up doing a second run for POTY category additions to the template, so best figure that out first. The by year / galleries categories look good. Category:POTY 2011 etc looks to me like the top level category for each year of the contest. Rd232 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the category code: well it needs to be text, really. Isn't this already translated? Is the category structure stable from year to year? It would be harder to deal with a category structure that changes from year to year, but I suppose it can be done. Rd232 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I am using galleries (R1) as input and will mark them if they are not already marked as finalist, first place, etc. I am going to run the code now.

Just displaying the category can be done but don't we want to display something also? Something like the POTY star but different.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 05:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is a good idea to mark picture of the year candidates, the assessments template is doing to many different things already. But if it is done it should be placed after Featured Picture in the assessments box, since being picture of the year candidate is just a side effect of being a featured picture. /Ö 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The code for this had been in the assessment template since 2006. Files from POTY 2006 and POTY 2007 were marked since the beginning. So this isn't a new feature, just an underused feature. I have marked POTY candidates for 2009 and 2010 yesterday so only POTY 2008 (501 files of which 132 already marked prior) and 2011 (601 files of which 37 are already marked prior) remains to be marked. I am holding off on marking the other two years since there is no emergency to mark them.

Sure, I can adjust the ordering but also candidate text may be removed entirely. I am not sure removal of text is a good idea even though I do see the point of redundancy. I just do not see any harm pointing out that a file was considered for POTY but did not make it as a finalist. This can also point people unaware of POTY towards it which would perhaps increase participation. A short term site notice may be ignored. Perhaps only the logo (

) can be displayed without text to back it up.

The main issue (to me) is marking files that went through POTY even if the marking is hidden from the reader. That way we can for example determine all the Featured promotions in 2012 for next POTY or have a category for any older POTY. I feel we are too reliant on toolserver queries which can be naively handled. Toolserver can become unavailable after all (I remember the replag issues from the past).

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Assessment template didnt exist until 2008 so it can not have contained code in 2006.

I think the 2006 and 2007 poty candidates were marked by a bot without consensus before any decision was reached in discussions. Then the bot owner disappeared when he was asked to revert those changes. So that is not a reason to mark more images now, especially by bot before a consensus is reached. /Ö 18:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus against it back then I believe though I could be wrong. Discussions years ago probably aren't very relevant today.

I can revert all candidate markings right away. I can make the template ignore the parameter info as well without removing the markings rendering them useless. Question is, are candidate markings a harm to commons or POTY.

Like I said, I am not marking any more since there is no emergency.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to do something about the redundant text and info it gives for the pure candidates. The extra line of text is not needed, the hidden cat is OK for me. I am inclined to say you should get rid of the (

) logo as well (for pure candidates), unless it made it to the finals, came 3rd, 2nd, 1st. The user browsing the pages already have a lot of other logos (FP/QI/VI) to relate to already. Let us try not to confuse the users too much. --Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing about not marking it at all is users off commons (say on en.wikipedia) will get no hint on the category. I want to leave some evidence such as the logo as I feel POTY should be advertised year-long. I am open to alternatives though. This isn't vital of course but I think it would be nice. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year structure is a mess

I have been going through the POTY pages and it is quite messy. There are far too many <includeonly> categories that transclude to places they shouldn't, too many pages protected for no good reason and overall these pages should be updated to meet some sort of a standard. Particularly earlier years need the most work. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but if you gave some examples it might be easier to know where to start. I'd focus on creating a better structure for the future, and go from there (earlier years fixing is lower priority and can be done later) - but we need to clarify exactly what needs improving. Rd232 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I just want everything to flawlessly function. :) These two low priority issues may be worthwhile to keep in mind:

More immediate problem is the use of POTY in category names and sub-page names. A lot of pages are protected as well (for no good reason), making them editable.

Also <includeonly>'s make it very difficult to update categories since bots cannot figure out where the categories supposed to be. It takes me 10-15 minutes to find a single one on occasions. You can see this problem in Commons:Picture of the Year itself as it is categorized under POTY 2010.

I cannot give examples without going through past POTY pages so consider the number of sub pages:

Smart use of parser functions and reusing the same code each year would greatly improve how POTY is run each year. I can design/redesign all these pages so that they have a master style that can be modified/updated but everything would remain uniform.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters the main page Commons:Picture of the Year should become a translatable template. It semi-achieves this and falls flat on some years. Ideally we should reuse the same templates each year. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely that would be ideal. Of course, we should allow some years to diverge if their content is actually substantially different. But if POTY 2012 is going to be very similar to POTY 2011, I don't see why we need a new set of templates. We can have a master POTY template structure, maybe, that switches depending on the year, so exceptions can be made if necessary. Rd232 (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I meant with smart use of parser functions. :) POTY 2011 has more pages than POTY 2007 naturally. So the master template would be designed to handle POTY 2011 hiding pages that are not used back in 2007 instead of showing redlinks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking POTY candidates through Assessments template

{{Assessments}}

I'd like to mark featured pictures that were considered under POTY. While the general principle of POTY ~ FPs of that year works for the most part, the first POTY included two years (2005, 2006). So the rule does not always work. Such a change would provide some advantages.

By process of elimination knowing which files were POTY candidates before, we can automatically generate candidates for the next POTY. This would eliminate the need for using toolserver for this task.
This input can be used to generate categories so that all POTY participant files are sorted by year.
This would allow various checks such as checking if a POTY file was demoted from being FP. To my knowledge this has never happened but such a check would be possible for all POTY candidates so that we can update the relevant vote page if necessary.

As for the template. The code can operate without displaying the user any output. However, I would prefer displaying the candidate status of the files even though this is quite redundant given all FPs of that year are automatically candidates. This would advertise POTY which did not have the level of participation we would have wished. A lot of wikimedians are still unaware of the existence of POTY and a 2-3 week sitenotice notification IMHO isn't enough. Many wikis have FPs after all, none has POTY.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No visible output please, just categories. It's redundant and clutters the template. Advertising should be done elsewhere. --99of9 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a single line. It can be merged into the "this is a featured picture" line so that wording mentions both. Currently instead of text the template displays a redundant empty line. No one has complained about this for over a month. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any need of this at all. We have Commons:Featured pictures/chronological maintained by FPCBot already, meaning that that there is no ambiguity in figuring out which FP was promoted each year. And there is absolutely no reason to clutter the {{Assessments}} template output with another line with this information. --Slaunger (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained this on your talk page. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 06:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I support:

A hidden by-year-category, if a bot is ensuring the file description pages are up-to-date.
- It is easier to fetch category members automatically (it is also possible to fetch images that are on a given page but people tend to "work with galleries" meaning adding icons and such stuff which is good and intended but will have bad impacts on the machine-readability)
- The bot (operator) must ensure no one is able to hijack the category by removing the template or its params, or by adding the template or wrong parameters while the picture is not featured.
Adding a fixed link to {{Assessments}} pointing to the nomination page.
- Otherwise, when a file is moved after the bot tagged the file, the link points into Nirvana.
Adding a "topic parameter" given by the one who closed the candidature (This image will be added to the fpc category: Places/Panoramas) which also should not change the appearance of the template.
- This will allow easier fetching of information for POTY (and other tasks)

I do not support:

Visible changes in the output in the template.

-- Rillke^(q?) 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally support, but isn't it better to propose this on Template talk:Assessments?.--miya (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wall calendars

Just wanted to let you know that I've made up two wall calendars using selections from the POTY finalists. One of them, File:Best of Commons 2013.pdf, contains selections from the top three places from each year. The other, File:Best of Commons Animals 2013.pdf, contains pictures of animals that were finalists. Let me know what you think! Antony-22 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Animation in banner

I've asked for the animation to be removed from the POTY central notice at COM:AN. Please consider joining the discussion there. wctaiwan (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Change during voting period

I must strongly object to the current state of this page. I came here to see the previous years' winners, and I find that I cannot because someone is trying to be "helpful" (I suppose) by removing most of the information from the page, and leaving only last years' winner with a prominent link to this years' intro page. Thanks, but I'd rather be given the option to go vote or not. Forcing users in one direction like this is not helpful, it's annoying. - dcljr (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I too came here to see the previous years' winners.KhabarNegar (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How to search by size?

I'm looking for a desktop background that exactly fits my desktop size -- is it possible to search through the finalists by size? They're all beautiful, and I've found some that I like, but I have black bars around bits (or it's stretched or pieces are clipped). Banaticus (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)``

I am afraid it is not possible. But you can check Category:Commons featured desktop backgrounds (or Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds). --Jklamo (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request a database query. --Dschwen (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There? -- Rillke^(q?) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unable to vote

I tried to vote for 2013. Though I'm eligible (fulfill all the requirements), but still got an error message. Why?--Kalaiarasy (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess some error message talking about the title-blacklist? This should be gone now. I forgot to unprotect the pages where your votes are saved, yesterday. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Religious Buildings

I think the category Religious Buildings is superfluous. These pictures could easily be inserted into other categories. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Some people prefer smaller and more specific galleries. This is something we should evaluate in the future. —Mono 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Slovak in English galleries

Someone messed up, and I (as an English user) am seeing the Slovak phrase "Hrady, zámky a pevnosti" instead of the English "Castles and Fortifications" on both Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/Galleries and Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/R1/Gallery/Castles. I can't even begin to figure out where this text is coming from. - dcljr (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah. It was because of this. I purged the cache on the relevant pages, and it seems to be fixed. - dcljr (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Paintings

Your "Paintings" section contains a mixture of Paintings, ukiyo-e, engravings, and lithographs. None of these are equivalent to each other. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Downloading Archives of POTY

Is it possible to batch download pictures of the year? There is a comment here from 2008, but nothing else I can find. SabreWolfy (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 gallery broken

Something got wrong in the 2014 gallery: Lua error in Module:POTY/parser at line 14: bad argument #2 to 'format' (string expected, got nil). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed with Special:Diff/191403517. The 2014 /candidates page contains comments in the caption. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke^(q?) 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

emilien le brazidec

Bonjour emilien il ème de pa et impro et ime Emilien le Brazidec (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

POTY 2016

A 2016 edition has not been organised. What happenned? ChoMigg (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Category "castles and fortifications"

This wording is bothering me big time. It's incorrect. A lot of the candidates this and previous years feature neither castles nor fortifications. A castle, in the historical sense, is two things: fortified, and a private residence. The simplest castle would be a free-standing home with thick walls, reinforced door, and little windows hard to shoot into but easy to shoot out of--a keep. Larger castles would have heavily walled yards, gatehouses, moats, and so on. Later on a lot of mansions and palaces were built by rich people who had no need to defend their person and property, but who liked the prestige and aesthetics of castle architecture. Since such homes are intended to be covered by this category, shall we rename the category to be more descriptive? Maybe something like "Mansions, palaces, and fortifications", the latter standing for all large scale defensive architecture like city walls, keeps, military fortresses, citadels, etc. --Pitke (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pitke: I might be responsible for this... I merged Palaces into a proposed "Castles, Palaces and Fortifications" category when categorizing 2016-A before passing that off to the 2016 POTY committee... the reasoning is that it can be very difficult to differentiate between a castle and a palace (and where would a château go?) from just a photo, and we would ideally like to have at least a similar number of photos in each POTY category because of the rule that each category gets at least two photos into Round 2. It's possible that the title then got shortened (I was unable to devote the time to be part of the committee last year or this year). It's worth keeping in mind that categorizing for POTY can be fiendishly difficult and you're never going to get a perfect set of categories. Indeed, categorization is the main reason that POTY starts as late as it does. Now that POTY2017 has started, I don't think changing the categories would be wise... Not speaking for them, but I'm sure the 2018 committee would be extremely grateful for any help you could give next year! Storkk (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Some chateaus (like Chantilly) are palaces, some are castles (like Caen). If a future category encompassed both palaces and castles ("Pre-modern architecture" maybe?) there'd be no need to differentiate anyway. And it's really not all that hard to tell the difference once you know a few principles. In any case, I'm hoping future POTYs can benefit from better categories, this year's is already running so that shouldn't be messed with. --Pitke (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If you can correctly categorize photos of buildings at a glance, helping the POTY committee next year with categorization will save an enormous amount of time. Mandating those helping categorization do research on the subject of each photo is not going to help run a timely contest. Storkk (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Common picture of the year

Who are the winners of Common picture of the year 2018 competition? Hooriscool (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hooriscool: POTY2018 has not started yet. Most likely it will start in May 2019. --jdx ^Re: 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

May 2019... **facepalm** --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

POTY date

There should be a annually fixed date of POTY. It is very confusing, that some years the contest start in April/May, but there has been years with start in June or in February (like POTY 2018). I support an idea, that POTY should be held every year approximately in the same period of the year (probably April/May). Maybe it has been discussed in some other talk... Regards — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. We just have to make sure everything is ready by the time it's scheduled, which hopefully won't be too hard (you're welcome to help). Participation in the R1 has been better than last two R1s, so maybe starting it earlier has a benefit? And I do think we will get less ineligible voters, but I haven't done the statistics yet. Maybe we should schedule it after steward elections (February of each year), so like POTY March/April each year, or maybe check if we clash with any other events? Or, is clashing good or bad? @Christian Ferrer, -revi, Steinsplitter, and Moheen: any opinions? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with @Zhuyifei1999: . In general, we have international events like WLE in May and WLM in September, especially on Commons. In outside on Wikipedia, there are WAM in October-November and Wikipedia Day in January. Where many large Wiki celebrates several events to celebrate it. So its fine to schedule between March and April, IMO. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

All dates are fine for me, anyway my help is limited as the only thing I can do is to try sorting the images. Otherwise I do not have the technical knowledge to start the contest. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2020

Do you have plans for the 2020 competition? 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: 2020? 2019 has not started yet. --jdx ^Re: 03:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant the competition held in 2020 which would select the best picture of the previous year (i.e., 2019). Now, I understand that Commons:Picture of the Year/2019 has already been created. Thanks anyway. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Scheduling

Just curious: why does POTY typically run in March + April? I would think that for pictures from 2020, it would start a little earlier in the year? Not a big deal -- just wondering. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I have raised similar question two years ago. POTY should have fixed (±) date over years, imo. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Many of the entries on the Picture of the Year are photos of paintings, maps and other privately owned images. Also many of the photos are greatly enhanced using photo editing software. I thought this was a contest for real people to take real photos. JaspersamsoN22 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not exclusively a photography contest. Photographs and scans of existing works on paper and even computer-generated imagery can be nominated for Featured Picture, which is the basis for this yearly event. But your heading says "copyright infringement" -- which images are copyright infringement? All photos and the subjects of those photos should be either old enough to be out of copyright, published with a free license, or subject to an exemption like freedom of panorama. Whether or not the objects themselves are privately owned doesn't factor into it. There is a solution, however, if you don't want the paintings, etc. to win: don't vote for them. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

POTY 2021

Hello, when will be scheduled POTY 2021 R1, please? Thank you! 37.171.233.83 08:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

POTY 2021 will happen (hopefully!) at some point in the next few months - specific dates have yet to be nailed down :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Has picture of the year been cancelled?

There was no POTY in 2021, why is this?--Aalaa324 (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There will be a POTY for 2021, but it usually happens later in the year. It takes a lot of work to gather and organized the pictures and voting. They are always looking for volunteers if you are interested in helping. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If one were interested in helping, how would one get in touch with Them? Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You can message the members from last year's committee. I believe that @Firefly may be taking the lead this year again, but @Moheen and @W.carter can also help get you. Just make a comment on their user talk page. Also, there is an IRC channel mentioned here [3] that might be helpful as well. I don't use IRC so I don't know much about it. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not available for working with POTY this time. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2021

It is May already and still nothing about Picture of the Year 2021. Some thoughts? (just to push the things a bit).--MrPanyGoff 12:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture of the year 2020 looks like it happened in fall 2021 so it could be a while if it's going to be on the same sort of schedule DogsRNice (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Making for less aggressive archiving

There's nothing on this page, which makes it look rather barren and the project moribund. So, I've changed the auto-archiving settings. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've extended it further to a year, and have unarchived a few still-relevant discussions. -M.nelson (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about naming this contest

Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Change_the_name_of_POTY_from_"POTY_[year_the_photos_were_promoted_to_FP]"_to_"POTY_[current_year]" — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

POTY 2021 will not be held?

This thing is officially dead, right? Kruusamägi (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Bilderauswahl

Moved from Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2021/de

Wer zeichnet sich eigentlich verantwortlich für die Bilderauswahl für die Picture of the year-Wahl? Wurden eigentlich alle hochgeladenen Bilder durchgeforstet um eine gerechte Wahl durchführen zu lassen? Viele User (wie ich) lassen ihre Bilder erst gar nicht prämieren, weil das eine zusätzliche Arbeit bedeutet sie für Exzellente Bilder, Qualitätsbildern oder Wertvollen Bildern zu nominieren. Und mindestens 33 % meiner Bilder der letzten 2-3 Jahre gehören in diese Kategorien. Wenn ihr eine gerechte Wahl haben wollt, müsst ihr einfach auch nicht als Exzellente- oder Qualitätsbilder nominierte Dateien durchforsten. Herzliche und nicht der Wahl zugeneigte Grüße Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricardalovesmonuments: Any picture that received featured picture status in 2021 is eligible for the Picture of the Year contest. I do not know if people are patrolling all uploads for potentially good images. If you think an image should be considered, you can nominate it for featured picture, and if it passes, it'll be considered in the next Picture of the Year voting. Legoktm (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricardalovesmonuments: Vielleicht ist es nicht gerecht, dass nur exzellente Bilder fürs Bild des Jahres nominiert werden, aber auch exzellente Bilder gab es 2021 über eintausend, kaum jemand kann so viele Bilder durchgehen. Deshalb gibt es Kategorien, aber wenn alle im Jahr hochgeladene Bilder teilnehmen würden, würden diese Kategorien auch nicht helfen, denn es wurden 2021 – wenn meine Anfrage richtig ist – über 12 Millionen Bilder hochgeladen. Außerdem gibt es bestimmt viele gute Bilder, die nie ausgezeichnet werden, doch ist wahrscheinlich die bedeutende Mehrheit höchstens mittelmäßig. Unübersichtlich viele Bilder, von den die Mehrheit gar nicht gut ist – da hat man noch weniger Lust als jetzt abzustimmen. – Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

POTY 2021 voting underway

See Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021. Voting is from 14 to 28 November. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Delisted FP

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg was delisted as an FP, yet is a candidate for POTY. Storkk (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I had forgotten about that exchange. In that delisting discussion it came up that several of the author's photos may be too heavily manipulated for FP. It is surprising then that some of the participants in that delisting discussion supported Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:En Garde (21310837273).jpg, which of course is the same bird by the same photographer taken two days apart. I don't see any obvious evidence of masking there, to be clear, and I wasn't even completely convinced about anything other than that a mask was imperfectly applied (for whatever reason) in the other case, but it seems like the participants there didn't realize it was by the same person. Courtesy ping to Charlesjsharp and Poco a poco, as names I recognize from commenting on both. Regardless, we should of course remove the non-FP. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any clear masking on the other image Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:En Garde (21310837273).jpg. So - benefit of the doubt? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that procedurally, an image would first need to be de-listed as an FP before it could be disqualified from POTY (unless the POTY committee feel differently), so I think this should only focus on File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg, and any others that I may not have noticed. I also feel that any disqualifications should really happen during round 1 when voters can vote for any number of images, just for fairness of round 2. Storkk (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

an image would first need to be de-listed as an FP before it could be disqualified from POTY Oh of course, yes. And I certainly wouldn't be a good person to do that, since I have photos in the same category (not that any of them are likely finalists, but optics, etc.). Just flagging it in case those who objected to the other image had reason to initiate that process. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed that image from voting. For the other image, I agree with Storkk that any disqualifications should be abundantly obvious or after the delisting process. And yes, it would be much better if they happened in round 1 rather than round 2 (though of course if something egregious comes up, we'll disqualify in round 2 if we have to). Legoktm (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And I ran a query to check for more delisted FPs and didn't find anything else. Legoktm (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ready to go

The CentralNotice banner is set to go and I've already opened up voting, feel free to start voting as part of the beta test period (they will count like normal) and ping me if you hit any errors! Legoktm (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Vote tampering prevention?

i'm curious. what's in place to prevent changing or removal of another user's vote? RZuo (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is an abusefilter rule in place. And we are manually spot checking the vote pages. Legoktm (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem with POTY

Hello, — Preceding unsigned comment added by LéoFatal (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the POTY was marked for 2022. Is that a mistake?

— LéoFatal ^{• Discuter •} 05:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) LéoFatal (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@LéoFatal: We are voting on all the photos that were promoted to featured status in 2022 to determine which is the best. POTY tends to appear "one year behind" in that regard. Legoktm (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

TELL PEOPLE

What's going on here? POTY is not mentioned on the home page and it's not mentioned on the FP page. Please someone, do something about this asap. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Last year you said, "Regulars at Commons don't go the home page" and now you're complaining that it's not there. Like I said last year, there is a sitewide banner running across all Wikimedia wikis, including Commons, advertising the contest. If you're not seeing that, maybe you have CentralNotice banners disabled in your preferences?

There's also going to be a MassMessage sent to all the 2021 voters who haven't voted yet in the next few days. Legoktm (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I did complain about the process last year and you've taken no notice. Do you want me to complain every year? I realise that you are, like all of us, a volunteer, but it would be really helpful if you listened and don't just do your own thing.

The banner shows up here but not on Commons. I've put a mention on FPC, QIC and VIC pages which is what you should have done Legoktm. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why it wouldn't show up on Commons. It's set to appear on all projects. Commons isn't an exception, so I wonder if it's something in your preferences (mine, too -- I don't think I've seen the banner on Commons for some reason, either). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I added yesterday the POTY to the main page, as we always did. I believe that being only once per year and the voting contest for the best pictures in the project and with the most voters it does deserve it. Poco a poco (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Two-ish changes going into 2022

I've made two hopefully minor changes going into the 2022 contest (tentatively starting in April). I am trying to simplify the process of setting up each year's contest, and one of those things is reducing the number of year-specific pages that need to be created every time (and copy over all the translations, etc.).

To that end I have created a year-agnostic page for the rules and the Committee itself (describing it as a "standing committee"). The rules have not really changed in years, so I don't see any issue with having them be more static. Note that I did make one small change to the wording of how images are disqualified to reflect the practice that happened last year.

I think we can just have one Committee page, and if people want to join for just a year and then step down they can still do so. But I hope this helps us keep momentum going during the period we aren't running the contest and doesn't leave us feeling that we're starting from scratch every year. Pinging all the other 2021 committee members since y'all technically only signed up for the 2021 contest and I don't want to commit you to something you're not up for: @Firefly, @Rhododendrites, @AntiCompositeNumber.

Please let me know if there are any concerns with this.

P.S. I'm tracking the ongoing simplification work here. Legoktm (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations for handling the organization of the contest early enough to try to launch it during the first semester of the year! -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 applause to this year's organisers for making it happen early.--RZuo (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, but I would like to support the applause, too. Thank you very much for all your work with POTY! --Aristeas (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Category adjustments

We still need to finish sorting the remaining photos, but based on the current category sizes, we already have two obvious candidates for splitting: Birds and People and human activities. And we might be close enough to split something out of Objects, shells and miscellaneous.

Just eyeballing it, I think we could split a "Sports and athletics" category out of People. I'm not a bird person so maybe there's a better way to split the category (e.g. geography or some bird classification), but we could do stationary birds vs birds in motion?

Legoktm (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A suppose one consideration is how much it matters if divisions create categories that are effectively galleries of one person's or two people's uploads, but I suppose that's sometimes the case already. I was thinking about it because dividing birds by geography is going to wind up with categories populated primarily by one or two people. The cleanest way to divide birds is probably taxonomically, though. Passerines ("perching birds") account for about half of all species, and I suspect they account for roughly half of FPCs.

People: There were a lot sports, and a lot of "historical" photos in the people category. Also conceivably could separate "portraits" (defined as someone posing for a photograph), which might be a pretty good split, too.

Objects: There are a lot of buildings, architectural details, ceilings, and other things that just need to be recategorized in there. Not sure a split is needed?

Plants/fungi: This one is harder. Geography may also make sense, but our plant FPs are typically almost all European anyway. Not enough fungi to split this one. Unclear.

I suppose the first step for anything other than birds and people is to make sure everything is categorized properly, and then start making decisions? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional questions/comments:

maps/diagrams is so small it should just be moved into works on paper
are shells animals or objects?
IMO panoramas are too squishy. there are a lot of photos in other categories that are panoramas, but aren't super wide. how wide is panorama? IMO it's too hard and should just be moved into other categories.
do aerial shots belong with satellite shots? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on maps. I would personally classify shells without an animal in them as an object, but if you can see the animal, then it's an animal?

My only concern with merging panoramas into other categories is if they would dominate those categories. But this is easily (dis)proven by looking at votes from previous years, I'll peek at the numbers.

Thematically I think aerial shots belong with satellite shots. From a photographer perspective, I would imagine getting someone to fly you up or rig a drone seems a lot harder than well, having a satellite that's already in space take a photo. (Not to overlook how much effort it takes to launch a satellite, etc. etc.) Legoktm (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There was such a discussion on FPC three months ago, see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 24#Commons photographers' results in Picture of the Year competition.

I only can repeat myself: "For me, there is an extreme imbalance in the topics in this competition. We have four categories for animals, a whopping nine categories for architecture, even bodies of water have their own category. But there is only one single category for people. So it's not surprising that once again not a single sports photo made it into the second round.And when I look at the nominations at FP, I sometimes have the impression that there are only landscapes, insects and church ceilings." Stepro (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it does come up a couple times a year. What would you propose? Lego did point out that there may be enough sports to justify splitting out. That would be fine with me, too.

I think the fundamental question is whether we (a) create categories on a wide range of topics, hoping that the promise of representation motivates people to nominate photos that would go into those categories, and accepting that many of them might wind up very small while others bloat, or (b) try to create roughly even categories based on whatever photos happen to be nominated in a given year, merging/splitting/creating/removing as necessary. The latter is certainly the way we've been doing it, with categories that correspond to what happens to get promoted at FPC. The reason we have big categories for things like frescos, churches, and castles is because the subjects at FPC come from the people who most actively participate there. A look at this list makes it clear that this is an overwhelmingly European project (where there are a lot of frescos, churches, and castles). It also just depends on the individuals participating in a given year, because people have their niches. If both you and Grenada were active at the same time, we'd have quite a lot of sports FPs, I suspect. If Charles took a year off, our animal categories would shrink considerably.

Personally, I think there are good reasons to take either approach. We've been doing (b) for a number of years now; maybe it's time to give (a) a try? If there's consensus for that, we'd have to figure out what categories make sense, starting from scratch, right? Maybe it makes sense to use the traditional method (b) for the 2022 event, but to come up with the categories for the 2023 POTY now, with time to motivate people to nominate accordingly?

BTW: Here's another wild idea: include the winners of the past year's photo challenges among the POTY candidates. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I will briefly point out that compared to the 2020 and 2021 contests, we are running far ahead of schedule, so if we need to push back a few weeks while we get the categories straightened out, I'm all for that. Legoktm (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I don't think I understood fully on the first read, IIUC, you're suggesting that we need to change next year's categories now, so people can take and nominate photos accordingly. I think that makes sense, the POTY categories should aim to both represent the pictures people are taking, but also incentivize people to take the photos we want to see. Legoktm (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The types of nominations at FPC will certainly not follow the potential categories of POTY, in my opinion. I don't see how these categories would influence future nominations. By setting quotas? It seems unrealistic to tell someone "stop your candidatures of animals, we have enough now this year!", for example.

Concerning the two largest categories (Birds and People), I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestions: Split the first one into Passerines / others, according to taxonomic considerations, and the second one into portraits / others -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The top two images in each category will automatically advance as finalists, regardless of overall vote count. So in theory, if you take photos in a more niche category, you have a better chance of advancing to the second round, and a better chance of winning POTY. As Rhododendrites mentioned earlier, this is already happening to some extent with some categories dominated by one or two photographers. No opinion on whether people would actually change their behavior based on new categories. Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sports ended up being 26 photos, which is on the smaller side but not too small IMO. We now have 102 pictures left in People. My rough counting is there's about 55-60 pictures that would be classified under "Portraits", more or less splitting the category in half. Any concerns? Legoktm (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The smallest categories at the moment are:

16 - Settlements
16 - Artificially illuminated outdoor spaces
17 - Sculptures
18 - Infrastructure
21 - Astronomy, satellite and outer space
21 - Waters
22 - Castles and fortifications
24 - Panoramic views

None of these are more than 1 standard deviation from the mean, but at least the two smallest are easily distributed to other categories (settlements are largely "nature views" + a few small "constructions and buildings" or simply >1 "constructions and buildings", and the illuminated outdoor spaces are various religious buildings and other buildings for the most part).

If remaining category, if people were split into portraits/other and birds split taxonomically, would be plants & fungi. Anyone have an idea of how to split that one? Or not worth it? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"settlements are largely "nature views"" - No. Definetly no. Both are Geography, but not "nature views". Human settlements are the complete contrary of "nature". Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think my "+" was not clear. In the context of determining what to do with smaller categories (if anything at all, of course), it just seems that there are some photos in settlements that could be recategorized as "nature views" (nature, with some buildings that occupy just a small part of the frame) like this, and some photos in settlements that could be recategorized as "constructions and buildings" (because buildings are most prominent) like this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I would personally not consider File:Padum Zanskar View From Karsha Oct22 A7C 03984.jpg to be a "nature view" because nearly half of the photo is non-natural construction/farmland. I agree with your second example, that it would be appropriate under "construction and buildings". Legoktm (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that splitting birds into Passeriformes and others makes sense. I'd suggest moving File:Vogelicoon.png (the current bird icon) to the Passeriformes and using something distinctive like

for the rest. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 on the bird split. I spent a while thinking on how to split Plants & Fungi and couldn't come up with anything good, just "Fungi" alone is too small. I also thought about Flowers vs Other, but again, one ends up being too small. In previous POTYs they split large categories into multiple parts so it would be "Plants & Fungi 1" + "Plants & Fungi 2" (example). We could consider that, or probably get a similar effect by saying that for large categories, the 3rd and maybe 4th place photos will also advance as finalists.

I'm fine with leaving the other small categories as is, I don't think there's an obvious way to consolidate any of them. Legoktm (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I've split out Passeriformes based on the FP galleries, can you review and make sure nothing was missed? Legoktm (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Looks good to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment The committee Legoktm needs to find a better way of discussing these changes. I only just came across Rhododendrites post on FPC discussion dated 4 April. I don't patrol discussion pages and judging by the tiny number of contributors here, neither do many people. I suggest pinging successful 2022 FP nominators, or at least those with more than 5 FPs.

Separating out passerines is a random choice. Images of passerines are less likely to be interesting. Birds in flight is the logical split - it would allow these more challenging images to be compared instead of comparing them to easier-to-photograph perching birds.
POTY is not and should not be distorted to "incentivize people to take the photos we want to see. It should be choosing the best of what we have. There are other initiatives which encourage specific uploads.
Splitting out sports is a good idea if there are enough FPs to justify it.
It would make sense to advance 'the 3rd and maybe 4th place photos' of large categories - might be better than splitting.
The choice of categories would not influence my choice of nominations in any way.

@Tomer T, Aristeas, Famberhorst, Ikan Kekek, Moroder, Adam Cuerden, Milseburg, Llez, Iifar, Poco a poco, Agnes Monkelbaan, and IamMM: Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In response to the main point here, I don't patrol discussion pages: this is not anyone else's fault. Discussions happen on discussion pages. You cannot expect a personal invitation. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is not practicable to watch thousands of discussion pages in the hope of finding something interesting. Irregular contributors will go to the home page - where there should be an announcement and regulars will likely go to the FPC, QIC and VIC pages where there should also be an announcement. That's common sense. You yourself posted on the FPC discussion page because the organizers had failed to alert FP contributors. Apart from anything else, if someone is putting one of my images into a competition, it is a common courtesy to tell me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Irregular contributors will go to the home page - The complaint about was about POTY planning, not the announcement of POTY. Presumably nobody is looking at the main page for discussion pointers. It is not practicable to watch thousands of discussion pages in the hope of finding something interesting - What thousands? If you want to know what's going on behind the scenes at POTY, go to the POTY talk page. If you want to be in discussions about QIC, go to the QIC talk page. if you want to be in discussions about FPC, go to the FPC talk page. I cross-posted to FPC to alert FPC contributors not because the organizers had failed to alert FP contributors. Beyond these, maybe watch the VP in case someone posts there. So for POTY there are two, POTY talk and VP, and if you watch the FPC talk page, then that would've covered it too because of a cross-post. In addition, you can always volunteer to be on the POTY committee for next year. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In the year we started using categories, the numbers advancing were based on category size, and it was intended - though never quite implimented into the templates - to have first and second place finishers for each category.

I'd say this is a good idea to restore. Even if the top ten is dominated by one category, at least all categories will be recognised. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we currently promote the top 30 overall and the top 2 in each category (see the Rules). The suggestion was that for larger categories, instead of splitting them, we just promote the third and possibly fourth place images in that category, if that makes sense. Legoktm (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to second the idea to promote also “the third and possibly fourth place images” for the larger categories. This is a very good idea and would certainly make the contest even fairer. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

2022 changes

Working area for the committee to implement changes; please keep discussion above. Legoktm (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Split Sports out of People Done
Split Birds taxonomically Done
Merge Maps into Works on paper Done

Two voting pages for the same picture

The file was moved from Buffalos at Hürmetçi Wetlands.jpg to Buffalos at Hürmetçi Wetlands, Kayseri, Türkiye.jpg after the voting began. Nardog (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

moved by User:Adem. please refrain from such disruptive edits in future.--RZuo (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried to revert but an error occured and moved to wrong title. Kadı Message 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Krd, Could you revert it? I tried but abusefilter disallowed. Kadı Message 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the chaos I caused :( -- Adem (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Please try to avoid renaming images unless absolutely necessary during POTY. And if it really must be renamed, coordinate with us beforehand. Legoktm (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Other than POTY, I'm not sure the rename was fully compliant with COM:FR anyways. Frostly (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

2022 Round 1 results

Hi, the round 1 results have been published: Commons:Picture of the Year/2022/R1/Results. Congrats to those advancing as finalists (highlighted in blue)! We are using a new vote counting system this year, so please feel free to double check that the results look correct.

Round 2 is scheduled to begin at 2023-05-04 00:00 UTC. I'll work on the necessary updates and creating the voting pages tomorrow. Legoktm (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, this year we had 118,086 votes cast by 2,407 voters. This is a modest increase from last year, which was 109,000 votes cast by 2,332 voters. Legoktm (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 description

Hi, current project page (Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2022) still states “In the first and current round”, also on translation pages. fyi Du Hugin Skulblaka (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Du Hugin Skulblaka: thanks, I had missed that. Fixed now! Legoktm (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Matric Result 2022 at hillcrest

like too see them Zezenkosi (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

2022 results!

Commons:Picture of the Year/2022/Results! And raw results. Congrats to the winners!! Please review the results, we'll send out proper announcements in the next few days. Legoktm (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

many thanks for your hard work in organising the contest. RZuo (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure :)

Announcements have been sent to the commons-l and WikimediaAnnounce mailing lists and posted on Mastodon. I've also left notes on the winner and second-place uploaders' talk pages, and encourage people to also leave congratulations there. Legoktm (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

is the 2nd filename File:Etipoia Banna tribe kids.jpg misspelled? :/ RZuo (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch, renamed (ideally we'd catch those things in the time between posting results and announcements, but better late than never...). Legoktm (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

it's funny that it was not pointed out in the featured image vote. they normally scrutinise every single detail of a file.😂 RZuo (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

POTY 2023

When the categorisation for different types of images to be voted on was created, it was intended that this would result in prizes for all the different subtypes of images - "Best bird photo", etc. I'd suggest that for the next POTY, we actually set up the POTY template to allow that, as it'll add some variety to the winners, and allow us to celebrate a wider range of material. It would also go a long way to justifying the category breakdown. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea; what do you mean by actually set up the POTY template to allow that? And would you use the Round 1 or Round 2 results for determining category winners? Legoktm (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The POTY template would need extra functionality added to be able to state an image was the winner of a category.

As for which round, I'd say there's two options:

1. We use Round 1 voting to determine category winners, allowing us to combine categories for Round 2 if we have something we feel we should have a category winner for, but which is too small a grouping to want to have it for the whole process.

2. We use Round 2 voting, and either have a few small categories or leave out some. Probably the easiest, though given we have at least six months to plan, it feels like we can afford to do better than just doing the easiest. It might also be the fairest, though.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

R1 candidates posted

After more work than I expected, I fixed the poty admin tool to generate the list of R1 candidates (should be every featured picture from 2023). I manually removed two images from the list that had already been deleted, plus other fixes to file metadata.

The files in the "dummy" category need to be sorted, the easiest way to do so is with a user script, add the following to your common.js:

if (/^Commons:Picture_of_the_Year\/\d{4}\/Candidates$/.test(mw.config.get('wgPageName'))) {
	importScript('User:Rillke/gallery-sort.js');
}

The "integrity checks" noted that there are two duplicates, I haven't yet investigated if the script messed up or if they are listed on different galleries.

We should also discuss/propose category splits or combinations, here's statistics on the current size of each category. I did not implement the 2022 category changes for this year - do we want to adopt those for this and all future POTYs? Legoktm (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the two duplicates. Legoktm (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

FP replacements?

What do we want to do about replaced images? I'm not sure what we've done in the past besides this POTY 2021 discussion where there was a new FP that was an exact rotation of an old one.

For example, in this successful nomination, we now have File:Grant Wood - American Gothic.jpeg as a newly featured picture (Jan 2023). A lower resolution version was a POTY 2012 finalist. I think there are one or two more cases this year, I can put together a full list if that's useful/necessary.

Legoktm (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO, It is best to review the entire list once. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a very uncommon scenario. In the case of American Gothic, they are two different photos of the same subject. As such I think we should treat them the same as two FPs of the same building from the same perspective at same time of day (i.e. not worry about it). If something was promoted a second time in error, that's a special case, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board with that. For completeness, here are the other two removal cases this year, both higher quality images of art:

Legoktm (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Freely available artworks

Here's a thought. What is the point of including images of paintings etc. that someone has just uploaded from Google Art, a Museum or NASA etc? Seems completely pointless to me. I wouldn't even allow them at FPC. I believe POTY should be limited to images created by Commons users. Why not poll all FPC contributors (not just those who nominate images)? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but I know this has come up before and it was shot down. Personally, I prefer to only vote for images created by a Commons user. It's not the paintings and historical photos that I think change the shape of the competition, however, but the e.g. NASA photos, which we're comparing to the work of volunteers. But I don't think we're in the majority with that perspective, anyway. Regardless, this would be a major change that would require a lot of work to organize even if there were consensus. I'd like to suggest that you propose this for next year's contest, not the one that's set to start in just over a week. Another thought: Legoktm has suggested an additional contest this year along the lines of photo of the decade (Commons being 20 years old as of September). That's something that we could perhaps limit to Commons user-created images. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons is essentially a photo club. I don't know of any photo club where you can win with a photo downloaded off the Internet. But you are right that any change would have to start at FPC - and not this year. By the way Adam knows that I value his Wikipedia restoration contributions very highly (FP on enwiki), but I don't think they should be eligible for FPC on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I see Commons as a free media repository that aims to contain tons of freely licensed media, whether the person initially uploaded it to Flickr or YouTube first, seems immaterial to me, as long as they're participating in the creation and promotion of free content. I agree that such a dramatic change in scope for POTY would either need changes to FPC or some other, broader discussion.

That said, I also think we should have contests that recognize the work of just Commons users. There is some rough discussion here on what Rhododendrites was mentioning, I'd like to pick this topic up properly once POTY has actually kicked off. Legoktm (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Notifying image uploaders

Last year @Charlesjsharp said: ...Apart from anything else, if someone is putting one of my images into a competition, it is a common courtesy to tell me.. This resonated with me and I think it's a good way to also get uploaders excited about the contest and helping with publicity. If someone could take the lead on drafting a message (just create a wiki page, similar to our other MassMessage) to send to image uploaders, I will take care of the code/tech work to do the message delivery. Also, do we want to also include the FPC nominator in the notification? Legoktm (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Legoktm, I made a try at User:Emha/potymessage23.

If the user read their discussion page they already know about the promotion, so I wouldn't include details about the nomination.

You can use the text, change it or whatever you like.

Best regards, Emha (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Emha: that's a great start, thank you! I've expanded it with a more explicit call to action and moved it to Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Message/For uploaders. If that looks good to you we can mark it for translation shortly. Legoktm (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Legoktm, thanks for making the text better and moving it - IMHO you can send it now to the contributors. Best, Emha (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Kicking off POTY 2023

Hi all, it's time to start working on POTY 2023! I'm going to create the initial set of pages now. Pinging @Firefly, @Rhododendrites and @AntiCompositeNumber to confirm you all want to continue serving on the POTY committee. I think we should try to recruit 1-2 more people to join the committee, especially people involved in the FPC process. @Frank Schulenburg has offered to help put out the word for us, we just need a short description on what committee members do and the time obligations.

There are also a good number of suggestions from last year we should implement, like formally recognizing category winners and notifying uploaders ahead of time so they can check their images. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Lego. I know I've said this before, but I'll throw it out again: those of us who participate at FPC, and thus have photos in contention for POTY might not be the best choice for some vague sort of COI reason. I mean, none of my FPs from this year have a real shot at POTY, but I'd hate for someone to think it was for some competitive reason that I organized a gallery a certain way or advocated for a certain schedule or whatever. That said, I appreciate we've had trouble recruiting a committee in years past, and am happy to serve if there are no objections. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Legoktm: , I'd like offer to serve as a committee member of POTY now onwards. If, you could allowing me to join your team. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: that would be great! Please add yourself to committee page and I will add you to the Toolforge admin tool. Legoktm (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Legoktm, thank you for accepting my request. I've added myself as an committee member. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: certainly no objections here :) I understand your concerns but I think the best way to solve them is to have more FPC contributors participate, so it's easier for individuals to recuse without losing expertise. Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with Rhododendrites being on the committee. I fact having one member (and just one I think) who is in the competition is not a bad idea. If you are to have category winners the number of categories should reflect the number of competing entries. No merit in having a category winner with less than, say, 20 FPs. So smaller categories should be combined. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that having representation from at least one regular contributor to Featured Pictured Candidates is better than either managing this vote with zero participation from there, or with everyone on the POTY team from there. FPC oversees the designation and it is only natural to have its perspective in this team. As always in wiki, brief disclosure is helpful (a few words, maybe a sentence) but I see no significant conflict. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My availability for the next month is likely to be limited, but I should be able to continue to help with the admin work required to run the contest. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Monumento Natural O Frade e A Freira - Luciano Daniel (03) (cropped).jpg is missing

Could anyone help me about this one? ★ 10:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for pointing that out. Looking into it. Legoktm (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's not listed on Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/August 2023. Digging into the history, it seems this edit by @Adam Cuerden broke the page for the bot, so it wiped out a number of pictures that all appear to be missing. I'm going to fix it, check the history of other month pages and then regenerate the list of candidates. Legoktm (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArionStar: fixed! Legoktm (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I suppose I should remember how sensitive the bot can be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Categorization

I noticed that File:Alice-in-Wonderland_by-David-Revoy_2010-07-21.jpg was in Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/R1/Gallery/Paintings,_textiles_and_works_on_paper, but the work is a digital painting. I have now added Category:Digital paintings to it to clarify this. Do "digital paintings" also fall into this category? --Bensin (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a good question -- there are many gray areas and judgment calls with the category setup. In this case, the only other category which could work is "Objects, shells and miscellaneous", I think? So I think a digital painting is fine in "paintings, textiles and works on paper" (IMO). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Voting not open?

On the POTY 2023 page it says: "Round 1 begins on 1 February 2024, 00:00 and ends on 14 February 2024, 23:59:59 [UTC]". Well, I haven't been able to vote and still can't. My account is eligible. --Minilammas (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minilammas: That was a placeholder. In theory the 2023 page shouldn't be linked from anywhere yet. :) @Legoktm: it may be a good idea to replace it with "soon" or something regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So when will it take place, if all goes according to plan? Nardog (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, @Legoktm: is there something we can help? Emha (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being MIA. I'll try to have an update by the weekend. Legoktm (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Legoktm, It's been a month. Any update? Shawnqual (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for it

Any date? ★ 21:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Support your question. Eryakaas (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Z^Z^Z ★ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I received an announcement with a link to this misleading page. I was asked to check my participating images before voting will start. But the page tells me the voting has already been held in February 2024. August Geyler (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it hasn't happened yet. BigDom (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Call for comittee members

Dear Comittee members (@Legoktm, AntiCompositeNumber, and ZI Jony: ), please let us know if you are able to work on the contest. If not, it is time to look for new committee members to keep the contest going. Obviously the community would not be happy to see this project cease to exist. Jklamo (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jklamo: , we are working on it, will start at earliest. (@Legoktm, AntiCompositeNumber, and Rhododendrites: ). Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice to hear that! The community is already looking forward to the launch of the contest in the coming weeks. Jklamo (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe it may be time to look for new committee members who have enough time to utilize for this project. The current members seem to busy with other things in life and so far have not provided any answers to indicate if or when the contest will take place for quite a long while now. It has been one or another form of "we're on to it". @Legoktm last stated there would be an update over two months ago and has been MIA since then. If not new members then someone needs to have some level of oversight over the committee to ensure that the project goes ahead on time. Shawnqual (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: , as I said earlier, we are working on it! I face some error in the tool, maybe because of the recent changes in toolforge or I still didn't get access to all over. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Close to two months now since your call and a month since my reply of urging to find new committee members...and nada! Nothing has transpired. Of the three members you called out, one has finally replied about burning out (rightfully so), another said 'working on it' and provided no update and another never replied! Like @ArionStar says below, this has indeed become a joke! Shawnqual (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Pictures of the Year: "The Commons Picture of the Year (POTY) was a competition that ran from 2006 to 2023." ★ 17:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RIP. It was fun while it lasted. Shawnqual (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

POTY runs on a complicated set of scripts with no real documentation. Legoktm is, as far as I know, the only committee member (and one of the only people) who knows how to use those scripts and, more importantly, how to fix things when the scripts don't work as expected. Lego seems to be busy with real life these last couple months, hence we have no updates. I don't think we should try to run the scripts without Lego around -- we don't want to promote it and start it just to be unable to fix a problem. Last year's was held in April/May, but the previous two years weren't held until the end of the year, so it's not like we're on a rigid schedule. If more time goes by and we don't hear from Lego there's only one other active user that I know of who understands the scripts, and I'll spare that person a bunch of pings for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the news and explanations Rhododendrites! I hope Legoktm is fine and nothing serious happened to him 🍀 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one of the previous committee members can also help you guys understand the scripts in case Lego doesn't come back any time soon? Here are the links : 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

With the exception of Firefly (pinging now despite my "spare that person" comment above), people who ran it in previous years have been explicit about not wanting to do so again. I get the sense that Firefly was glad for Lego to take it over, but if we don't hear from Lego maybe they want to give it another go? The timing isn't as dire as when Firefly stepped up to make it happen a couple years ago yet, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

June, and…

★ 16:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Check replies by Rhododendrites above in the 'Callfor Committee members'. There is no set timeline for POTY. Moreover, there are a very select few who know how to use scripts to run this project. One of whom is missing in action. Shawnqual (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well good news : seems like Lego came back yesterday ;) But if for any reason he's still not available, here is a list of rust programmers, a list of 215 Javascript experts and a list of 152 Javascript professionnals that might be able to understand the scripts if needed -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming a joke… ★ 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just accepted that there'll be no POTY anymore. If it will happen one day — cool, but if not — it is already settled for me. Красный ^{wanna talk?} 05:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is it! I had no idea such an immense and popular competition was run this way. Disappointing. Shawnqual (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry y'all, as I've explained elsewhere I burned out and had to take a break and am now slowly getting back into things. I'm not sure when I'll be ready to do POTY things again, but I'd like to clarify that everything I've worked on related to POTY is open source and public, and if there's something that I alone have access to (I don't think there is) I'm happy to add others. Legoktm (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the much needed news Legoktm. I hope you'll end up recovering all of your burnt energy and motivation in the future 🍀

In order to better enlighten people that would be interested to help I would have a few questions if you would accept to answer them:

1) What are the next needed steps to run POTY this year ?

2) Are the scripts broken and need repair or is it just the usual proceeding that has to be done ?

3) Does the usual proceeding need programming knowledges (if yes, what langages?) or is it doable by anyone but time consuming to run ?

I would be very grateful if you could answer these questions. I'm sure it will allow people to decide if they want to join in to help and allow them to know if they are qualified for the job. Also here is an idea that I had : maybe it would be helpful to have a step by step video guide of how to run POTY (for the usual proceeding of course, not for specific repairs as they are unpredictable). It could be made by simply recording the screen when running it (even if there's no voice or written explanation) and then just uploading it to YouTube, so that future committee members might have a visual guide of what to do to run it. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

also @AntiCompositeNumber and ZI Jony: ). ZI talked about facing "some error in the tool". Shawnqual (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the "error in the tool" mentioned at 07:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) was referring to this issue that has been solved 09:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC). But there might be new errors since then. Also I'd like the point of view of Lego on the situation because he has excellent programming skills. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your service in the past and also taking the time to reply here. I completely understand burning out from wiki and hope you get better. Take your time, and don't feel any pressure. Shawnqual (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, help us! ★ 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

IIRC I proposed the creation of a POTY tool in some past Community Wishlist, because having a set of poorly documented scripts that are so cumbersome to use that we can barely find one volunteer a year to take the burden is not workable. In general, Commons really needs more people who can develop and maintain technical tools... or for the Wikimedia Foundation to take some of those projects over. That proposal got very little support. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone contact Jimmy? ★ 10:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a post should be made on Village Pump (and any other places where help may be found) to inform the community that POTY committee needs a new member with programming skills but I'm not sure what level of skills is needed and for what programming langages. It would also have been nice to be able to tell beforehand what are the next steps needed to run POTY this year (Repair code? Or simply understand how to use the functionning actual code? What to do next : fix dates? Inform uploaders? Etc.) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, please go ahead and post on Village Pump. I believe the main obstacle here is of understanding and Using the scripts required to run POTY. At this rate, our best bet might be to ping various users from the lists of rust programmers and Javascript experts you posted above. Alternatively, another idea could be to move the competition entirely to a simple and easy to use website, instead of relying on these likely outdated scripts. Shawnqual (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: I have posted on Reddit to bring some attention to the matter. Shawnqual (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I can probably help if needed. I'm not super familiar with POTY, but I do have quite a bit of experience with Javascript (and a little bit with Rust). Ingenuity (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving to toolforge: (with OAuth login) might be a good idea if it works better over there, although a rewrite would almost certainly mean additional delay this year (even if it would make the procedure smoother in the future). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they already use toolforge : click here. Also, source code is available here -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: check the comment by Giles above. Shawnqual (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

While it doesn’t look bad (except for the internal server errors caused by phab:T299947), it’s still not what I imagined, the stuff is still fragmented:

Rust scripts running on Toolforge (hopefully all of them are on Toolforge?), making direct SQL queries
Wiki pages created using the Rust scripts and manually, many translatable on Special:Translate
JavaScript voting gadget

It might be the best possible user experience, but it isn’t the best possible developer experience, as several programming languages (Rust, JavaScript, wikitext, SQL) are used and different permissions are needed to change different bits (Toolforge and GitLab access to change the Rust scripts; Commons admin right to edit some of the wiki pages, Commons translation admin right to finalize changes to translatable pages, Commons interface admin right to change the voting gadget).

It’s also not the best possible committee member experience, since (as far as I understand) those Rust scripts still need to be started manually, they don’t automatically run on pre-set dates.

What I imagined is getting rid of at least the JavaScript voting gadget, sending users to vote on Toolforge: this would eliminate one programming language (JavaScript), one access level (Commons interface admin) and one manual step (checking for ineligible votes – ineligible voters could simply be denied from casting the vote). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Tacsipacsi. I'm not sure I understand your remark about the internal server errors. Does the actual code work or does it need some fixes to make it work ? If the code already still works, rewriting the code to make it more user and developper friendly would be a nice thing to have but considering the time left I think the priority should be on simply running POTY this year. After POTY finishes this year might be the best time to rewrite the code. Now that you've seen the code and the interface, do you think you might be able to help the committee run POTY this year Tacsipacsi ? Same question to Ingenuity. If yes, I invite the committee to give you access to the toolforge scripts. Also, everyone else that has the skills to understand the code and run it is welcome to help -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The code is currently broken, for example https://poty-stuff.toolforge.org/stats/2023 errors out. However, it’s not that broken (or at least I’m not aware of such breakage) that a complete rewrite would be necessary to fix it; just a few database queries need to be tweaked. I can try to send a merge request with the fixes as I’m familiar with the database changes that broke it.

Unfortunately, I have zero experience with Rust, and the project lacks a README, so I fear I can’t be of much help for the Toolforge part other than this merge request. I’m comfortable sending a merge request (which fortunately doesn’t require any extra rights), but I wouldn’t be comfortable actually merging and deploying the code. On the other hand, I’m happy to help with the Special:Translate stuff (I have both experience and rights), and I can also try to help with the JavaScript part (I have experience but no rights), although I’m not aware of anything that currently needs to be done in JavaScript. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve opened the merge request at toolforge-repos/poty-stuff!2, let’s see how it goes. (The automated tests succeeded, so I haven’t done anything incredibly wrong.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in support of any ideas which can make the process of running this competition more developer friendly. Not sure how the process of rewriting the code to remove elements could be started. I am in agreement with Giles that the priority should be run to the comp this year and then start on the next steps of simplyfying the code and looking for new committee members. Shawnqual (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

POTY used to work fine without any scripts. Just go back to using Wikitext like this. Nosferattus (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be an option if the competition wasn't getting voters in multiples of 100s and if there weren't a plethora of images in multiple categories! Shawnqual (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that POTY was ran in python programming langage before the source code was rewriten in rust and javascript programming langages. I think more people master python than rust. So if we can't make the rust code work, switching back to python might be a solution. But if the rust code was working for years and that the only problem was the database queries, maybe Tacsipacsi repaired it and the code might work again. But someone needs to approve his merge request and test if it works again -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shawnqual: The Community Wishlist Survey gets thousands of voters, but all the voting is done purely by WikiText (at least the last time I saw it). Nosferattus (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's enhanced by gadget JavaScript just like PotY. Nardog (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

People in the past changed it from wikitext to other languages for a reason. It also sounds like a drastically regressive idea. Pretty sure we can get some volunteers soon. Shawnqual (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

August

★ 00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

So I posted on Village Pump Technical and there was no help and the conversation since uas been archived. Another relevant discussion on Jimbo Wales' user talk page has also been archived.

The only open discussion now is on Village Pump (WMF) here: [4]. @JPxG: did offer help but things aren't looking promising overall. :-/ Shawnqual (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Begging for Jimbo's help again. ★ 00:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much he can do. It was clear from the conversation which happened that there are other priorities and all we can do is make suggestions and hope that they will be implemented. Meh!

There is no central authority here which can aid in case the competition isn't on track, it's always been run with the help of other users. I am over it. Shawnqual (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fed up with so much neglect too. For now and as a form of silent protest, I'm overwriting my FPs with this message. ★ 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I can still help with this. There are a few main problems facing us:

The gadget which runs the user interface of POTY is a 2700-line behemoth written 12 years ago that is almost completely undocumented.
The Rust app which is used as the back-end is broken and likewise undocumented. I have a little bit of experience with Rust, but probably not enough to diagnose and fix the problem in the time I have available.
Even if I do manage to fix it, we'll have the same problem next year.

The only real long-term solution for this is to rewrite everything in a way that it can be easily taken over in the future, even by someone with limited technical knowledge. Ideally, this would be something done by WMF developers, but I doubt that'll happen. I can do this, but I'd like the support of the community before making such a big change; what say ye? Ingenuity (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, and increased usability for the future is an unlooked-for boon, tbh. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Many thanks for your volunteering to help Ingenuity. Since we have no answer/news from Lego and that Rust is a very complicated langage that only a few people master and that the whole POTY script is undocumented I think that rewriting everything is probably the best thing to do. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I Support too, any help is welcome! Thanks! ★ 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Have added comments in the section below. This contest is ongoing and important, so please stop the gloom-and-doom language, although Commons should probably say that it skipped POTY-2023 and is starting up again with the 2024 contest. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to skip POTY 2023. It can still be held in 2025 if needed. The goal is simply to elect the picture of the year 2023, no matter if we do it in 2024 or 2025. But of course it's better to do it as soon as possible. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Given it's not happening with the current scripts, I don't see an issue trying a new system. In the worst scenario, it's not like the old code base will disappear. The main issue of course is the workload, but if you would like to do it then Support and good luck. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ingenuity: you can be our hero! Go on! ★ 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to have icons on the top right of files that became POTY finalists and winners

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! There already are icons on the top right of each file considered Featured picture , Picture of the day , Valued image , Quality Image , Wiki Loves Earth winner and Wiki Loves Monuments winner .

Could we also add an icon on the top right of each file that was assessed Picture of the Year winner or finalist ?

There is two ways to do it.

One would be to copy paste the following code on each individual file page :

For 1st place files:

{{Top icon|imagename=POTY barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=001}}

For 2nd place files:

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 2nd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=002}}

For 3rd place files:

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 3rd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=003}}

For finalist files:

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY ribbon.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=004}}

I have tested it and it works perfectly.

Another way is to edit the template {{Assessments}} and to edit the top code of the page to something that looks like this. For the template code I’m not 100% sure because I can’t test it. I'm also not sure if {{{POTYyear}}} is the right way to display the year it won.

I hope this can get implemented and I wish you all a nice day.

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was the right page to post this suggestion and I just found out that it should maybe have been posted on this page instead so I just posted it there now. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea, Giles Laurent, but I'd actually post it to COM:VP instead. Neither this page nor the template talk page have many pagewatchers. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! Just posted it there -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the only place people are active on this matter is here so I propose that those who agree or disagree with this proposal comment down bellow to know if there is a consensus to add a top right icon for POTY winners and finalists files. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Thanks for the proposal -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Support Agreed, this is a nice idea. --BigDom (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Support The top right icons are made to know in a glimpse all the assessments of the file so I think this should be implemented. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support Good. Please add it to {{Assessments}}. --XRay 💬 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support Take my money --Wilfredor (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Support ● Great idea! Shawnqual (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Support I would like to add onto your proposal to include the POTD as well, since the template for said award does so. I have made the same comment on the wrong template, but I do have the code, which I've tested. --Zzzs (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Done You're right, just added POTD as well to the list on the first paragraph of the proposal indicating all examples of actual top icons -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → implemented. /-- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This proposal was implemented with this edit

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second call for comittee members

Dear Comittee members (@Legoktm, AntiCompositeNumber, and ZI Jony: ), if you are unable to work on the contest, please resign from the comitee so that we can find new members to keep the contest going. Finding new members when a current one drops out (which can happen, we're all just volunteers) is an absolutely essential part of the committee's responsibility. I still think that the community would not be happy to see this project cease to exist.

Note, for example, that the Wikimania Hackathon starts tomorrow, where some technical difficulties could be solved, but this would have to be properly communicated. Jklamo (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For many years, there has been one committee member that runs all the scripts, and the others are mainly there for some sort of oversight, making categorization, making decisions, helping with announcements/logistics, etc. (everything other than running the scripts). There's no shortage of people who can do this latter job, and I don't think any of us currently on the committee would have any problem removing our names if someone else wants to. It's not the case, however, that there are lots of people willing to jump in and run the scripts if only there were an empty committee or something. What you're looking for are not "committee members" but someone with the technical competency to run the scripts. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As Shawnqual said, RIP POTY. ★ 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bull, the contest isn't going anywhere. It has been around too long to drop it. I'm new to all of this, having never participated or put much attention on it, so a couple questions. Why does anyone have to "run scripts"? I don't know what that means. Are there present photographs waiting to be judged for winners? Let's just do that, pick the top ten or something and let editors vote (by running a banner and publicity?). I'm asking all of this not knowing any of the rules etc., just saying that the contest must go on regardless of what's been said, and things like the above comment are nonsense (but thanks for pushing the question). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I just read the section above talking about this thing and, being computer illiterate, don't know anything about what a "script" is and the rest. But one thing seems clear, why the h-double hockey sticks (writing or saying that phrase for the first time in my life) doesn't the WMF tech department put the thing together? What are people contributing money to unless it is to the maintenance of the projects, and this contest is a storied and historical part of both Commons and Wikipedia. Things like this are what funders think is being done with their money. Just common(s) sense. Get some WMF tech people and whoever else needs to get involved. Eiether that or start paying some of the better techies who volunteer on the projects to get this thing running. I guess pinging Jimbo Wales could help, and maybe other editors can ping the WMF board members. WMF has to have this contest's back, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on how long it took to assemble a team to tackle the graphs/charts extension I doubt WMF engineers could be freed for this in this year, it would require new staff that would also need to be trained which would also not give a short term solution. It just shows the risks of relying on one technical contributor. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes to POTY

Hey everyone! Because of the rewrite I am doing to the code running POTY, there are some changes I've made that I'd like to inform people about.

I've created a prototype for a new interface, which I'd appreciate any feedback on. To do so, add importScript("User:Ingenuity/POTY-interface.js") to Special:MyPage/common.js, and then navigate to this page. It's very basic at the moment, but more features will be added later.
The categories have been changed somewhat due to technical reasons. The new ones can be seen at User:Ingenuity/sandbox.
Right now the eligibility requirements for voting are complicated. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to simplify this to:

Registered before the start of the year, and
75 edits on any single project.

To use the new code, I will need to delete the pages already created for this year's contest (specifically, Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/R1/Gallery and its subpages). Again, unless there are objections, I'll tag these pages as G6.

Courtesy pings to people who have commented above: @AirshipJungleman29, Giles Laurent, ArionStar, Randy Kryn, and Chipmunkdavis: Ingenuity (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Should also ping everyone currently on the committee: @Legoktm, Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber, and ZI Jony: Ingenuity (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, thanks for your work on this. It’s looks good to me! However, I'd suggest to develop full version and test on beta before implement. I expect Rhododendrites will give some advice soon. Let's clear something, why can't you use the same gallery pages? Where can our vote be seen/how will it be counted? Will it connect to the POTY Admin tools to automate actions? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: The current gallery pages rely on Module:POTY, which needs the candidates page, which requires the old scripts to be run. I'm rewriting these scripts, and changing how the candidates are sorted (using JSON format; for example, User:Ingenuity/Arthropods.json.) This has the added benefit of eliminating the need for Module:POTY at all, reducing the number of moving parts and making it simpler for future organizers while keeping the same functionality. The votes will be counted in a similar way to previous years, with a voting page for each image. These pages will have the form Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/R1/votes/<filename>. I'm not sure if it'll be connected to Toolforge right now, but the goal is to make it simple to run, even for people with limited technical knowledge. Ingenuity (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, thanks for your response and work. Please continue and keep us posted, I believe we are on a better way to get something. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your work on this! I'm at wikimania at the moment but happy to take a look when I return on Monday. I will say categorization is a recurring tricky issue. The archives of this page may be useful. In general, some year to year flexibility would be useful because what gets nominated is so dependent on who happens to be active at FPC that year. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Categorization is definitely tricky - it'd probably be best to have around the same number of pictures in each category, but that could be difficult. Maybe changing the way finalists are selected could work? Right now it's top 30 overall, plus top 2 in each category; we could change this to top 30 overall, plus top 5-10% in each category. That would reduce the impact of having different category sizes. Ingenuity (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I just tried the new prototype interface and it looks very good to me! Congratulations on doing this so quickly!

I think the most important thing is to be able to keep the contest running and as long that we have a basic interface that allows to do so, the rest is just extra bonus. But maybe one thing that should be added : images should maybe be displayed in a random order every time that you reload the page (or other possibility : to have a random display order for every different user but the order then stays the same for each user). The reason behind this is because for big galleries, people will tend to maybe just check the first or last images and not the middle ones. The random order would give more fairness for all candidates in my opinion.
I'm okay with the new eligibility requirements as there's not significant difference.
For categories I think categories with like 4 images are too small and should be combined, but if there's no other way that's still better than not having POTY
I'm fine with top 30 overall + a certain percentage for categories instead of +2 of every category. But maybe 10% is a bit too much for categories with 100 images as it would make a lot more finalists than previous years. Maybe 4 or 5% is better ?

Anyway thanks again for your amazing work that is really appreciated! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll definitely randomize the galleries - I was actually just about to implement that! I think 5% of each category, rounding up, is good, since it'll keep the number of finalists around the same as last year (~50). I'll probably merge the categories with under ten candidates if possible. Ingenuity (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes 5% seems good. Thank you for your feedback! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a good progress! Thanks to all! ★ 13:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it again, 5% will probably make it harder for small categories to be represented in the finalists. That would be a significant change from the previous years and such a change should probably not be decided by a few comments of the only few people that read about it but by a proper vote. I will start a new topic about it so that people can vote for if they want to keep the top 30 + top 2 of each category rule or switch to percentages. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

New scripts nearing completion!

Hey all! I've been doing a lot of programming over the last few days and am ready to share the first draft of the scripts. Unfortunately, due to annoying technical restrictions, it's not practical to have people test the scripts on testwiki themselves; I've attached some images below to show what the new interface looks like at this point.

Categories page
Results page
Gallery page
Admin interface

The actual interface for voters is very similar to previous years, with some UI changes. The biggest change is that creating pages for POTY, categorizing candidates, tallying votes, selecting finalists, and posting results has been completely automated, so running the contest is basically as simple as pressing four buttons (through a user script, so no Toolforge needed!)

There's still some polishing up that needs to be done, but I'd say around 80% of the work has been done. I'd appreciate any feedback, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Pinging the people in the discussion above: @ArionStar, Giles Laurent, Rhododendrites, and ZI Jony: Ingenuity (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Will there also be a page containing the number of votes and who voted? ★ 01:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean voting pages for each file? If so, yes; for example, see this page. Ingenuity (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! ★ 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, you are amazing, thank you so much!

A few questions/suggestions :

So in the end you were able to merge some categories? Is it automated or does it need to be done manually every year ?
Maybe on result page add the following icons depending on the image ranking :
Can we see a screenshot of round 1 page ?
Can you also make a function that notifies uploaders/nominators on their talk page of the chosen POTY dates ? Here is what the draft of the actual message looks like.
Is it necessary to have admin rights to run the contest ? I think abuse filters might be involved for creating many pages, notifying many people, etc.

Thank you again and I'm excited for the contest to start ! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I merged a few of the smaller categories, to try to keep the sizes above 10 in each. Categorization is fully automated, but if organizers wish to change the categories in the future then that would need to be done manually.
That's definitely possible. The vote count uses Template:POTY/VoteConstructor, which could be modified to display those icons.
The interface of the round 1 voting pages is the exact same as the finalist voting page.
Maybe? At the least, I could automate the creation of a MassMessage list using the script.
No, admin rights aren't necessary to run the contest.

Ingenuity (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you for your answers!

A few more questions :

How do you navigate through different categories in round 1 ? Are they on different pages or all on the same page ?
Could you also add on the vote count page the display of the image at the top and maybe a timestamp for each vote ? If not possible there's no problem !
Could you also add at the top of each page a new template that looks like this one (but without the unnecessary links that will not be needed anymore) and also this one for the navigation

Giles Laurent (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See the "categories page" screenshot above. It'll look very similar to the current categories page.
Technically yes, but I'm not sure if it's needed. The voting page isn't meant to be edited manually.
Yes, I'll be designing a new header.

Ingenuity (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, for admin we required first round end option also. Vote pages will be created automated or we have to create manually? @Giles Laurent, I believe, admin rights to run the contest. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 01:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Clicking the "start second round" button automatically ends the first round as well. Vote pages are created automatically. Ingenuity (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! We can set the round 1 contest date for September or something like that… ★ 14:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That should work. I'll be busy starting in around a week, so I'll need someone else to handle the actual running of the contest, along with watchlist notices, maybe MassMessages, etc. Ingenuity (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber and ZI Jony : can at least one of you confirm if you will be able to handle with running the contest in September/October 2024 with the new scripts? No programming skills are needed -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Each time I've been on the committee, I express reservations given I have photos in the competition. Each time, folks assure me that it's good to have someone involved with FPC on the committee for input (and that I can be useful with things like categorizing, etc.). However, IMO it would cross a line for me to be the one to formally be running the competition. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My available time is limited, but I should be able to provide the same level of administrator support that I have in previous years. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@ AntiCompositeNumber, since Rhododendrites expressed reservation about running formally the contest himself, would you agree to be the one clicking on these 4 buttons ? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity is there a point at which you'd be available again? Regardless of who pushes the buttons, I'm wary of kicking off the competition using new tools while you're not available to jump in for fixes. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I will definitely be available for bug fixes, but probably not bigger stuff like adding features. Over the next few days I'll iron out as many bugs as I can. I've already tested it fully, but there's always the possibility something goes wrong when there are 100k votes to process vs. the 20 I tested with. Ingenuity (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber, ZI Jony and Ingenuity, can we already set dates ? For example Round 1 of POTY 2023 from 15 September 2024, 00 until 30 September 2024, 23:59:59 and Round 2 of POTY 2023 from 1 October 2024, 00 until 15 October 2024, 23:59:59? Or is it a bit too soon you would prefer start round 1 at beginning of october for example? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest round 1 of POTY 2023 from 1 October 2024, 00 until 15 October 2024, 23:59:59. Before we start, we should have an online meeting to get a better understanding of the new tools. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, please let me know when your tools are completely ready to launch to fix an online meeting. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New POTY rules for finalists

It's pretty clear that everyone is at least okay with top 30 with a 5% minimum in each category. This has now been implemented in the contest scripts. Ingenuity (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per discussion above, POTY script was rewritten so that POTY can happen this year (thank you again Ingenuity for your awesome work). The previous years the rule had always been that finalists are top 30 overall + top 2 of each category. There was a proposal above to change it to top 30 overall + top 5% of each category. Such a change will probably make it harder for small categories and easier for big categories to be a finalist. I think a proper vote should be held to know what people prefer as the rule.

Please vote below for the rule you prefer. Total score will be counted as follows : total supports minus total opposes equals score. Voting on this matter will end at 23:59 on 30 August 2024 (UTC) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 30 overall + top 2 of each category (if that number is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number) (status quo)

Support I'm undecided at the moment so I'm fine with both but I might change my mind. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose See below. And two is too much, for small categories -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support IMO acceptable. --XRay 💬 06:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There are two approaches to categories and finalists. One approach is to reorganize the categories to make them as similar in size as possible. The other is to have fixed categories where some are large and some are small. It sounds like there's more support for the latter, in which case I'm only supporting percentage-based finalist promotion. BTW this isn't quite how the status quo works (see discussion section below). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. RZuo (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Support --August (talk)
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support --Smial (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 30 overall + top 5% of each category (if that percentage is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number) (new rule)

Support I'm undecided at the moment so I'm fine with both but I might change my mind. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support It seems more representative and fair to me. --Wilfredor (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Per below -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support There are two approaches to categories and finalists. One approach is to reorganize the categories to make them as similar in size as possible. The other is to have fixed categories where some are large and some are small. It sounds like there's more support for the latter, in which case I'm only supporting percentage-based finalist promotion. IMO we should not round up with the percentage-based finalists, either. No strong opinion about 5% vs. 3%. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now that if that number is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number has been added, I'll say I have a weak preference for 5% over 3%. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support per Rhododendrites. – Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support according to my vote below. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --August (talk)
Support Ok, aber better 3% Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --Smial (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support --Zzzs (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of an alternative solution (please develop the alternative solution)

Neutral I think the two above alternatives are fine but my mind might change. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 30 overall + top 3% of each category (if that percentage is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number) (new rule)

Support There are approximately 1000 candidates a year. If we want 30 + 30, the right pourcentage is 3%. In case the candidates are both among the 30 and the 3%, then it's fine. The goal is just to get at least 3% diversity -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Nearly Support IMO the best solution, but we should add "at least 2 of each category if possible". 3% are 3 pictures of 100. That's 1 candidate per 33 1/3 pictures. A percentage value may be good for large numbers of files, but not for small numbers of files. --XRay 💬 06:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Only 1 should be enough, in my opinion. Considering that the most striking images are qualified from the first round. We don't need to rescue the "silver medal" of each category (see for example this category with only 6 candidates in 2021). If the score is 1) low at first round AND 2) not the best of its category, why should it become a POTY? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support There are two approaches to categories and finalists. One approach is to reorganize the categories to make them as similar in size as possible. The other is to have fixed categories where some are large and some are small. It sounds like there's more support for the latter, in which case I'm only supporting percentage-based finalist promotion. IMO we should not round up with the percentage-based finalists, either. No strong opinion about 5% vs. 3%. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now that if that number is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number has been added, I'll say I have a weak preference for 5% over 3%. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think 3% is too small and would not make much difference since if already included in top30 overall that would not add pictures from that category -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support per Rhododendrites. – Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support as per Rhododendrites, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --August (talk)
Support Better than 5% Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --Smial (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 50 (or 60) overall (new rule)

Strong support To avoid this kind of POTY finalist, or that kind in the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The categories are not evenly represented. With this solution, some categories would simply be underrepresented. --XRay 💬 06:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Info All categories will be equally represented at the first round. Then at round 2, it is the best of the best that will be chosen. Just the "picture of the year", not "the best of a specific category" (example "Interiors and details", "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass", or else) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We should also bear in mind that not only the pictures are not evenly distributed, but also the people who vote. This leads to an imbalance. I know it's difficult to handle. Someone who is enthusiastic about bird pictures might not vote for architecture pictures, even if a picture from the architecture section is clearly better. I think that all categories should also be represented in the second round, at least with 2 pictures. (The “2” can be discussed, it can actually be any other number greater than 0). --XRay 💬 08:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Vice versa, each candidate artificially qualified to satisfy a small group with specific tastes takes the place of another nomination that may delight a greater number of people democratically.
Nothing proves that these categories fit any voter's taste in their arbitrary or apparent diversity. They are just categories based on the FP nominations, chosen by many regulars. Each year, there are pictures of ceilings nominated FP, but it does not mean that there are groups of fans of ceilings on Wikipedia and other projects. On the contrary, there might be more diversity between a church and a temple, that will be both classified in the same gallery "architecture", or between a desert and a forest, both in "landscape", than between a ceiling of church / facade of church sorted in two different categories. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Usually it is between 56 and 59 finalists every year so top 60 would be better than top 50 to not make number of POTY finalists more restrictive than previous years~~, especially as number of FPs each year keeps increasing~~ -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not increasing. 1102 candidates in 2022, 1050 in 2021, 1104 in 2020, 1257 in 2019, 962 in 2018, 1259 in 2017...

50 is a round number -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right but 60 is also a round number and I don't think number of finalists should be more restrictive -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But... sixty is not the half of one hundred :-)

Fifty finalists is a lot to review. However, the issue is less the exact quantity than the fact to favor the most striking images, independently of which style they are. If many people love a painting or an animal, they will tell it with a "yes" at round 1. And if 500 people say "yes" to an amazing picture of wildlife, for example, why promoting an ordinary bridge that only gathers 100 supports instead, just because "we have a category bridge"? Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I like prime numbers. ;-) --XRay 💬 14:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was 59 to review in round 2 in the past and often numbers similar to it and people managed to review it eventhough it is a lot ;)

I understand the argument of deleting the influence of categories and am not against it but I would only support it if it would be top 60 overall and not top 50 overall -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

60 if you prefer. Feel free to change -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe other people will agree 50 is better. You can create a new rule with 60 overall and I will leave a small support on it. But if you prefer you can also just edit this one as you created it -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Do as you like. I have updated the number so as to comply both with your request and your suggestion to satisfy the highest number of participants -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose 50 (

Weak support 60) per above -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I think there's value in ensuring some degree of diversity. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support If top 60. --August (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Too drastic Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 30 overall + top 5% of each category (if that percentage is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number) + at least top 1 of each category (new rule)

Support Maybe this is the best compromise between small categories and big categories -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Really not keen on favoring category heads. There are categories at the beginning, that's enough. No reason to boost a poor diagram or a poor photo of infrastructure just because many infrastructures have been nominated FP. If a landscape has more wow and three times more supports than the diagram, then the voters should have the opportunity to vote for this landscape in priority -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I think the 5% covers it sufficiently. "At least one" effectively only applies to categories with fewer than 10. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
True -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --August (talk)
Oppose Gets complicated Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --Smial (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 30 overall + top 5% of each category (if that percentage is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number) + at least top 2 of each category (new rule)

Support Maybe this is the best compromise between small categories and big categories -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Really not keen on favoring category heads. There are categories at the beginning, that's enough. No reason to boost a poor diagram or a poor photo of infrastructure just because many infrastructures have been nominated FP. If a landscape has more wow and three times more supports than the diagram, then the voters should have the opportunity to vote for this landscape in priority -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 14:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I think the 5% covers it sufficiently. "At least one" effectively only applies to categories with fewer than 10. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Gets complicated Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 1 of each category (new rule)

Support The most balanced proposal of all. ★ 16:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This would result in only 22 finalists which is almost 3 times less than what we had all previous years so I can not support this sorry -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fewer finalists would help to make analyses more accurate. Round 2 would be just for the top of the top. ★ 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not because every year, there are more than 1 (and even 2, 3...) extraordinary picture(s) from some special galleries. Example in 2016, where the three first places were all photos of animals -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Too small a group of finalists IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile, sorry -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --August (talk)
Oppose Not well balanced Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose --Smial (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Votes in favor of top 3 of each category (new rule)

Support ★ 15:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I think that would overrepresent small categories and underrepresent big categories, sorry -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. RZuo (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not well balanced Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Calculating percentage

The current approach is this: top 30 images from round one (from any category) plus the top two images from each category if they were not among the top 30. It's not top thirty plus two from each section.

I don't think the relationship between the e.g. top 30 and the top 5% has been clearly articulated in the proposals above, but it sounds like people are talking about removing that "if"? Which of the following makes the most sense:

For a category with 51 images, where 3 of them are among the top 30 overall, how is 5% calculated:
(a) 5% of 51 is 2.55, which rounds to 3. Therefore, finalists from the category are the 3 in the top 30 and no additional finalists (most similar to current system)
(b) 5% of 51 is 2.55, which rounds to 3. Therefore, finalists from the category are the 3 in the top 30 and 3 additional images (percentage based on total size of the category)
(c) 5% of 48 is 2.40, which rounds to 2. Therefore, finalists from the category are the 3 in the top 30 and 2 additional images (percentage based on the remaining category after the top 30 is selected)

— Rhododendrites ^talk | 11:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I understood that option a applied in the past and that it was the reason behind different numbers of finalists every year. I didn't mean to change that. I should have added something like "if that number/percentage is not already present in top 30 overall and only to reach that number" -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Just edited for more clarity -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ --August (talk)
- @Augustgeyler and Smial: What are you opposing? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  - Sorry I did so by mistake. --August (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Stepwise function

i have a different idea.

first, i took a look at stats of 2022 poty categories Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2022/R1/Gallery (16 17 18 22 23 24 26 29 29 31 31 32 32 34 40 40 50 54 63 66 69 76 84 97 99):

average = 44

median = 32

20% percentile = 24

so i'd make a stepwise, logarithmic scale. let x be the number of candidates in a category. finalists should be: top 30 + top n of each category, where n = 1 if x <= 25, n = 2 if 25 < x <= 50, n = 3 if n > 50. (which i think is also equivalent to roundup(x*4%) ).--RZuo (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

the same analysis for 2023 is

average = 49.4

median = 47

20% percentile = 30

so maybe we can do n=1 if x∈[1,30], n=2 if x∈[31,60], n=3 if x∈[61,999] (equivalent to roundup(x*3.33%) ). RZuo (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

or, we just get the set A of all numbers of candidates in categories.

set B = set A - min(A) - max(A).

for all categories below 25% percentile of set B, n=1; above 75% percentile, n=3; in the middle, n=2. RZuo (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Repechage stats

is there any analysis of results of R2 candidates by virtue of being category top 2 instead of overall top 30? their eventual placement?--RZuo (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translators needed!

Hey everyone! Because the new scripts don't use the same phrases as the old ones, some new translations are needed. These can be found at Commons:Picture of the Year/i18n.json (click edit to format). I've already filled out the English and French versions as examples (the French may need editing, since I used Google Translate). I've already added sections for English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian - feel free to add additional languages. Ingenuity (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the content model be changed to "Translatable message bundle" for that page? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Should probably just be changed to JSON, actually. Ingenuity (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, could you please change content model of Commons:Picture of the Year/i18n.json to JSON format? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Message Bundles is probably a better idea, but I haven't used it and don't know the details. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Scripts are complete

I am pleased to report that the new scripts are complete! The contest can start at any time (once some interface-edit requests are implemented; hopefully that won't be too long!). I've written a step-by-step guide for organizers (@Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber, and ZI Jony: ); I've already done steps 2, 5, and 6 for setting up the contest, but someone else will need to do the rest. Please let me know if you have any questions, or experience any issues with the scripts. Ingenuity (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for your awesome work Ingenuity. I have a few questions/observations :

Will everyone need to edit their own common.js page to be able to vote or will everyone be able to vote without doing it once these 3 edits are made : 1, 2 and 3 ? Because for the moment I only see voting pages when I'm connected to my account
When I go on this page and then visit a gallery, the only one that loads is the Arthropods one and none of all the others load. Screenshots : Arthropods page and Passeriformes page (it says it's loading but the images never load)
On the Arthropods page it seems that I can vote eventhough the contest has not yet started (when I click on "Vote for this image", it says "Voted!" in green)
Based on the Arthropods page, the display of the image seems in the order they where featured. Could we implement the random display order discussed above ?

Thank you in advance for your responses -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: it looks like you're still using the test version of the script - try changing "User:Ingenuity/POTY-interface.js" to "User:Ingenuity/poty-gallery.js" in your common.js. Once the interface-edit requests are completed, the script will run automatically without each person needing to install it. Ingenuity (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Just tried as you suggested and everything now works (other galleries, random display order, voting not open, etc.) thank you! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: , could you please look into the request at MediaWiki talk:POTY-gallery.js, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-EnhancedPOTY.js, and MediaWiki talk:Common.js. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity can we add back the top of the old header into the new header template ? It added some charisma to the page in my opinion

I'm not very good at css but I tried making a new one that looks like the old one but without the previous unnecessary links. Here is the result.

Demo:

The contest has not yet begun.

About the contest

Voting pages

Rules & eligibility

Help & feedback

Voting unavailable

Picture of the Year 2023 || Introduction – Discussion – Committee || R1 Categories || R2 Finalists || Results

Here is the code (but it would need a bit of improvement) :

Code:

<div style="width: auto; display: block !important; height: 69px; box-shadow: 0 11px 15px -7px rgba(0, 0, 0, .32); background: #dda525; background: transparent linear-gradient(#f2c144, #dda525) no-repeat 0 4px;">
<div style="background: rgb(23,23,23); background: linear-gradient(0deg, rgba(23,23,23,1) 0%, rgba(46,46,46,1) 100%); height: 60px; ">
<div style="display: block; height: 37px; border-radius: 2px 2px 0 0; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15px; color: #fff; text-shadow: 0 1px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, .75); font-weight: 400; opacity: .9;">
<div style="color: white; direction: ltr; height: 37px; padding: 15px 30px 0; margin: 2px 2px 0;">
{|
|-
| <div style="padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 10px;">The contest has not yet begun.</div> || <div style="padding-left: 50px; padding-right: 10px;">About the contest</div> || <div style="padding-left: 50px; padding-right: 10px;">Voting pages</div> || <div style="padding-left: 50px; padding-right: 10px;">Rules & eligibility</div> || <div style="padding-left: 50px; padding-right: 10px;">Help & feedback</div>
|-
|}
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="-moz-box-shadow: 0 1px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); -webkit-box-shadow: 0 1px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); box-shadow: 0 1px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);">
<div style="height: 140px; padding-left: 50px;">[[File:POTY barnstar.svg|154px|frameless|link=]]</div>
<div style="display: block; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(bottom,#ffcc35, #ffdf82, #ffef99);background-image:o-linear-gradient(bottom,#ffcc35, #ffdf82, #ffef99);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(bottom,#ffcc35, #ffdf82, #ffef99);background-image:linear-gradient(to top,#ffcc35, #ffdf82, #ffef99);; -moz-box-shadow: 0 -4px 15px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.20); -webkit-box-shadow: 0 -4px 15px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.20); box-shadow: 0 -4px 15px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.20);">
<div style="padding-left: 45px;">{{Clickable button|{{pgt|Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Help}}|2='''Voting unavailable'''|class=ui-state-disabled}}</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="background: #ffffee; border-bottom: #E7AD00 solid 3px; margin-bottom: 2px; padding: 0.5em 1.6em;"">
<b>[[Commons:Picture of the Year|Picture of the Year]] {{{1}}}</b>
<span style="color: orange; user-select: none;">||</span>
[[Commons:Picture of the Year/{{{1}}}|Introduction]] &ndash; [[Commons talk:Picture of the Year|Discussion]] &ndash; [[Commons:Picture of the Year/Committee|Committee]]
<span style="color: orange; user-select: none;">||</span>
{{abbr|R1|Round 1}} [[Commons:Picture of the Year/{{{1}}}/Gallery|Categories]]
<span style="color: orange; user-select: none;">||</span>
{{abbr|R2|Round 2}} [[Commons:Picture of the Year/{{{1}}}/Gallery/Finalists|Finalists]]
<span style="color: orange; user-select: none;">||</span>
[[Commons:Picture of the Year/{{{1}}}/Results/All|Results]]
</div>

I wasn't able to add back the a:hover on the black bar to make it change color when you put your mouse over it because I don't know how to add external css on wiki. Also I didn't find how to add the links to the white text in the black bar without wiki transforming them into blue color -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: any objection to being listed on the committee? I think that it would probably make sense for you to replace Legoktm this year (with many thanks and appreciation to Lego for leading us through the previous two contests!). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Good idea to include @Ingenuity as a committee member. However, I'd suggest to keep Lego as well, it would be better to have two (when Lego comes back) technical support members in the team. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent feel free to add stuff to the header. Ingenuity (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, any objection if we listed you on the committee? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: that's fine. Ingenuity (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, please add yourself at committee page. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice having Ingenuity listed in the committee. If that becomes the case, it would be probably be the best that Ingenuity becomes the one pressing these buttons as he would be able to immediately notice if something goes wrong and then fix it. But that would require beeing available at the given dates to click the buttons. Could that be the case? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, since you're now officially a committee member and that your username was added to the committee.json file, would you agree to be the one pressing these buttons or do you prefer that ZI Jony does it? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer Ingenuity to press these remaining buttons as Ingenuity has better understanding of it’s errors. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony and @Giles Laurent: yes, I can be the one using the script. Ingenuity (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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) 22:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest launching the contest one day before the official start date (whenever that date may be) for testing/bugfixing purposes. Does that seem reasonable? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier, my suggestion is round 1 of POTY 2023 from 1 October 2024, 00 until 15 October 2024, 23:59:59. Amd round 2 of POTY 2023 from 16 October 2024, 00 until 31 October 2024, 23:59:59 Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes lauching already one day before official date (in this case 30 September, 00:00:00 UTC if ZI Jony suggested dates are chosen) for bug fixes seems a good idea Rhododendrites. Also, votes made during that day should be kept and not erased in my opinion.

ZI Jony these dates seem perfect to me. Would you agree to be the one pressing the remaining 3 buttons on the dates to choose? (I think button 1 was already pressed) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Giles Laurent, launching a day early for bug fixes sounds like a solid plan. Keeping votes cast during that period is essential to ensure fairness. I'm happy to press the remaining buttons to finalize the dates. Let's get this launch underway! Ingenuity, could you please confirm that you have initialized the year 2023 or not? I believe that there are some restriction given by abuse filter to initialized contest by non-committee member. However, I would also like to hear from Rhododendrites and AntiCompositeNumber. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: I have already initialized it, so there's no need to do that again. Ingenuity (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, I read on your step-by-step guide that clicking some buttons (especially the third one) then needs 1 hour for the script to do everything it needs to do. I guess the script is exectued in javascript by the computer and web browser of the person that clicked. I'm wondering : what would happen if the internet connexion of the person that clicks the button crashes while the script is running ? Would the person need to press the button again or would that create a mess ? Also, are there progress bars once the button is clicked ? Finally, how does one "open the console" to check for errors? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If the internet connection crashes for a significant period of time, they will likely need undo any edits they made and press the button again. There aren't progress bars, but the script does say what it is doing. You can open the console by right-clicking the page and pressing "inspect". Ingenuity (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories revisited

The categories have changed. For the most part, I think it's simpler/better, but there are some discussions we need to have to define a couple of them. Specifically, "other places" and "historical".

The current images marked "historical" mostly make sense to me -- older photos. There's one exception, taken last year, of an explosion-damaged building. We also have many old photos of people in the humans category. For the sake of coming to a definition, I'll propose a definition of "pre-2000".

As for "other places" it seems like most of them could easily be moved into settlements, nature views, or constructions. The leftovers are [non-religious] building interiors, and I think there are enough to have a category dedicated to them. I propose changing "other places" to "building interiors".

Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the POTY categories should be the same as the FP categories. ★ 04:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get more feedback on this. @ZI Jony, AntiCompositeNumber, and Giles Laurent: (and pinging a couple people who I know are involved with FPC categorization, @W.carter and Aristeas: ).
The categories (see here: Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery, but the counts are off at the moment) do start with the FP categories, but some combination is necessary (there are too many FP cats for the number of POTY candidates). As a result either of this combination or of consistency issues in the categorization process at FPC, we wind up with some counterintuitive/confusing results. For example, historical portraits listed both under historical and under people. Or a strangely cluttered "other places", with lots of content that overlaps other categories. My two proposals are (a) define historical as pre-2000, and (b) rename "other places" as [non-religious] "building interiors". — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with proposal (a). For proposal (b) I don't know at the moment. Are you sure you would be able to recategorize all images that are not non-religious building interiors? Also, would that apply to POTY 2023 or only to 2024+? Because, if I understand well, the current script uses the current categories appearing on your gallery link and button 1 has already been pressed, which created many json pages with images already sorted according to actual gallery categories. That would maybe also imply some code editing for Ingenuity. So if it's too complicated to implement it for 2023 I would prefer it being implemented for 2024 to not risk more delay to the contest -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you would be able to recategorize all images that are not non-religious building interiors? I don't see why not. That would maybe also imply some code editing for Ingenuity. Ingenuity says renaming the categories is simple - just move Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery/<name> and its subpages to Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery/<new name>, and then update the categories page. we can't create more categories though. as long as no one presses the "initialize contest" button again, the recategorization and renamed categories will remain (hope you don't mind my copy/pasting this from discord). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, I agree with both of your proposals mentioned above. Pre-2000 marking as historical sounds good. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories have been modified. Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People now includes sections up 2000. Yann (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I'm going to start recategorizing tomorrow. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI the historical categorization is done. Renaming the category produced an unexpected error. Pinged Ingenuity on Discord about it already. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

In going through the newly named "building interiors" and recategorizing the others, there are a lot of judgment calls and overlap. With apologies for the distraction, I think I'm just going to roll back the ones I recategorized so far and move back to "other places" for this year, with the hope that we can come up with a better method for next year. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Done - In summary: the "historical portraits" item above has been implemented, and "other places" is unchanged. I think this is simplest, and the categories should be good to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Tasks

Initialize a new year (by new scripts)
Fetch and save R1 candidates (automatically by new scripts, when initialized new year)
Category balance/size statistics (automatically by new scripts, when initialized new year)
Integrity checks and pics by ratio (automatically by new scripts, when initialized new year)
Create vote pages (automatically by new scripts, when round 1 start)
Tally Round 1 results (automatically by new scripts, when round 2 start)
Tally Round 2 results (automatically by new scripts, when round 2/contest end)
Voting statistics (clarification needed)
Send notifications to uploaders (clarification needed)
MassMessage lists (clarification needed)

@Ingenuity: , could you please clarify that above list of I understand correctly. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: that is correct. For the final three items in the list, those are not done by the scripts and would need to be done manually. Ingenuity (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, thanks for the clarification. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Start date

A suggestion: September 15h, avoiding the end the of the year… Thoughs? ★ 17:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts:

I would have liked 15th of September as well but it's up to the committee to decide the dates as they are the ones that need to be available on the given dates. At least the committee member that will need to press these buttons + Ingenuity (for fixing problems) will need to be available while POTY is running.
September 15th was already suggested 10 days ago but it was then suggested starting October 1st and then October 1st as official date but with voting already available from September 30th to test if everything works.
ZI Jony was okay with the last mentionned proposal but we don't know yet if Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber and Ingenuity are okay with these dates.
There's still tasks that need to be done so September 15th might be a bit too soon maybe? :

- choosing the dates

- doing the category edit

- an administrator on commons needs to fulfill these 3 edit requests as soon as possible 1, 2 and 3 (POTY can't start without it)

- updating commitee page

- updating rules page

- updating help page

- updating the header (eventually)

- sending mass message to inform uploaders on their talk page of the new POTY dates (1 or 2 weeks before contest start probably)

- sending mass message to previous voters on their talk page to inform them that POTY round 1 voting is now open (on official day of opening votes for round 1)

- putting a banner on top of each page to tell everyone that POTY votes for round 1 are open (on official day of opening votes for round 1)

- sending mass message to previous voters on their talk page to inform them that POTY round 2 voting is now open (on official day of opening votes for round 2)

- putting a banner on top of each page to tell everyone that POTY votes for round 2 are open (on official day of opening votes for round 1)

- announcing winners

- sending mass message to previous voters on their talk page to send link to results page

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't care 9/15 vs. 10/1. @ZI Jony and AntiCompositeNumber: what do you say? If none of us particularly care, let's err on the side of starting sooner. Over at CentralNotice, there are several other campaigns which overlap these dates, so I don't know that one would be better than the other from that perspective. I can create the CentralNotice request whenever we settle on a date. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also don't care about the dates! However, We have to close the issues at hands! @AntiCompositeNumber: , could you please look into the request at MediaWiki talk:POTY-gallery.js, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-EnhancedPOTY.js, and MediaWiki talk:Common.js, also add Ingenuity on the MediaWiki:POTY/committee.json. @Ingenuity: , please add your details at committee page. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Time is ticking and there's still a few things to do from the to do list before start of round 1. Rhododendrites and ZI Jony are both open to start the contest September 15th or October 1st (with beta starting 24 hours before). @ Ingenuity and AntiCompositeNumber, as remaining two active committee members that have not spoken on this matter, do you agree with the above dates or would you prefer other dates? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, I believe it is time to create a CentralNotice request. @Ingenuity, are available to start on September 15? Or will start on October 1? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, since you are the one that will be pressing the buttons and repairing the code if needed, you're the only one that absolutely needs to be present on the chosen dates. If September 15th and October 1st don't work for you, please feel free to suggest other dates, even if it has to be later. Rhododentrites needs to know the dates to be able to do a CentralNotice request and such a request should probably be made enough in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sep 15 and Oct 1 should be fine for me. If we're starting in a week, though, we need to make sure that everything else in the todo is done by then. I still need to fix at least one bug before then (not working on mobile). Ingenuity (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If we talk of exact dates, do these ones work for you Ingenuity ? (If not please precise the ones you would prefer)

.

Beta testing (all votes cast will be kept)

from 14 September 2024, 00:00

until 14 September, 23:59:59

.

Round 1 of POTY 2023

from 15 September 2024, 00:00

until 30 September 2024, 23:59:59

.

Round 2 of POTY 2023

from 1 October 2024, 00:00

until 14 October 2024, 23:59:59

.

I think everything is actually on hold because for most things on the todo list it requires to know the exact dates (inform uploaders, because it includes exact dates, request centralnotice for the same reason, inform previous voters (with dates), place banner (with dates)). -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If others want to start on 9/15, I'll go along with it, but I think at this point we're cutting it awfully close and my preferred start date is 10/1. That gives time for mass messages and not just submitting a centralnotice (that's the easy part) but getting someone to implement it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes time passed too much and it's better to have things done properly instead of rushing things and not having everything ready. Also it would be nice to inform uploads enough in advance so that they can have time to review their file description as suggested in this message -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, would the following precise dates work for you?

(If not please precise the ones you would prefer)

.

Beta testing (all votes cast will be kept)

from 30 September 2024, 00:00

until 30 September, 23:59:59

.

Round 1 of POTY 2023

from 1 October 2024, 00:00

until 14 October 2024, 23:59:59

.

Round 2 of POTY 2023

from 15 October 2024, 00:00

until 28 October 2024, 23:59:59

.

An answer is needed as soon as possible so that Rhododendrites can make the CentralNotice request + inform uploaders -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: It would be good to have at least another day (maybe two) between round 1 and round 2 just in case there are any bugs to work out. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) of the step-by-step guide, the new script doesn't allow to stop votes for a brief period of time between round 1 and round 2. As soon that you stop round 1, round 2 automatically starts, except if Ingenuity changes the script -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: that's fine. I may not be available exactly at 23:59 every day, so it might be off by a couple hours. Ingenuity (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's okay no problem, I was not expecting the hours to be exact as the script may take up to 1 hour to run after pressing the buttons. Rhododendrites, as we now have the exact dates, could you please make the CentralNotice request and inform uploaders? Thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

CentralNotices requested. There are two partial conflicts for round 1 on the calendar, but I think they won't be a problem.
As for informing uploaders, that was never formally decided and it's not actually something we've ever done as far as I know (I have no such message in my talk page history, at least). It's clear at FP and POTY that if you have an FP, it will be entered into POTY. We also use the absolute widest advertising possible on-wiki in a CentralNotice. There's something to be said for the few people whose work was nominated by others and might not realize FP-->POTY, but the idea for mass notifications started with a single complaint from a long-term FPC regular who knows that FP-->POTY but wanted a personal invitation. Personally, I don't think it's a great use of time, but it also doesn't hurt if someone feels strongly about it. Point is, it's never been a formal step in the process. There was a useful message Lego sent out along the lines of "hey, you voted in round 1 but haven't voted in round 2 yet" which would be good to do again, but that's something different. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the CentralNotice requests! According to the calendar there's other requests actually overlaping each other in September so I think too that it will not be a problem.

For the message for uploaders, I know it's the first year this is beeing done but I thought it was approved by Lego after reading this message and especially after Lego moved the message on this page. Also, ZI Jony informed 91 uploaders on May 25th 2024 before reverting these edits which comforted my thought that it was approved.

Personally, I think this message is a nice thing to have. Some uploaders might not have planned to go on commons on October and will therefore miss the banners. Also, if they didn't vote in POTY 2022, they will not recieve this message on their talk page. As I never voted in POTY, I will personally not get that message for example. Recieving the message on the talk page sends an e-mail to the user (by default setting) so he will have less chances to miss it. Moreover, the message for uploaders invites them to review their pictures and verify the descriptions are correct and have been entered in the correct categories. This brings even more added value in my opinion because then the file page of some pictures might be improved. Finally, from my understanding, sending the message for uploaders only requires 1 push of a button by clicking "Send notifications to uploaders" on this page so I don't think it represents much work. Last time it was pressed, 91 uploaders recieved the message and the message distribution was only stopped (not all uploaders recieved it) because of an abuse filter. But the abuse filter issue is now solved.

But of course it's up to the committee to decide and if the committee finally decides to not do it then no problem -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your well notes. Since we Initialized 2023 by new script and we didn't consider POTY admin system, unfortunately that's why "Send notifications to uploaders" did not work on POTY admin! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a lot of work to use massmessage, no. I won't get in anyone's way who wants to do this, but I also don't want to be the one spamming people when I think the overwhelming majority of them will already know it's happening. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe It's better to avoid send notifications to uploaders. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FP main categories (level 1/level 2) = POTY categories

Support ★ 17:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what this means, but it's too late (from a technical perspective) to add more categories. The small changes above are already in progress. For anyone who has strong feelings on the subject, I nominate you for POTY committee next year. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: for example: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People (level 1: Historical, level 2: People) ★ 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I guess. Again, we can't reproduce the FP categories. There are too many for the number of pictures we have such that combinations would be necessary (which is what we're already working with). We also can't add new categories at this stage for technical reasons; we can only rename categories and recategorize images. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to go?

With 10 days left until the start date, I think we've done everything that needs to be done (with the possible exception of notifying previous voters, but that's not entirely necessary). The CentralNotice has been requested but not approved yet, so hopefully that happens in time. I think all bugs with the script should be resolved, but please let me know ASAP if any more are found. Ingenuity (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I pinged a couple CN admins yesterday. It sounds like it'll be resolved this weekend. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for making POTY happen this year. I think we're good to go. There's just one final bug I've found that I don't know how to resolve : on this page there is a link for the POTY 2023 edition but when I click on any other langage, there is no link to 2023 anymore. Does someone know how to solve this? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent, the latest version of that page has not yet been marked for translation! I have already requested to do that. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it is now solved for this page but there is a bug on all langages (except english) on this page now : Example on french version, Example on german version : button not appearing and red error message. When I click on translate to try to solve the problem it doesn't work -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Found the origin of the problem for the button, it's because the code was

{{Commons:Picture of the Year/{{SUBPAGENAME}}/button}}

and since any other langage than english ends with /fr or /de instead of /2023 it doesn't work on the other langages. I've now changed the code to

{{Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/button}}

but the page needs to be marked again for translation. Also there's a paragraph that's not marked for translation. As for the other problem, I've not found the solution -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I just updated the page and requested to mark for translation. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 09:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

One question to Rhododendrites : does the mass message for previous voters need to be requested days in advance or can it be done directly on October 1st? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've used massmessage on Commons before. AFAIK you just need (a) a list of users to send it to (a page with just such a list) and (b) the message itself, then convince an admin to send it out. But are you talking about the round 2 note that Lego sent out last year (you voted in round 1 but not round 2 -- here's a heads up) or a message to people who participated in a previous POTY? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent, message for round 1 is here, and list of target users is here. Required Admin rights to send massmessage here on Wikimedia Commons. @AntiCompositeNumber: , could you please send out the massmessage for round 1 on September 30? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If it officially opens 10/1, we should probably send it out 10/1. That first day is really for testing, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's sounds good to me. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber, as it is now October 1st, could you please send this message to these targets? Thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent I don't touch MassMessage, sorry. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for your answer! I now made a request here -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about this message to be sent on October 1st (but also oabout the other message to be send with round 2). I was just wondering if, like CentralNotice, it was necessary to write a request on a page a few days in advance but I now got the answer (any admin can just do it on the given day) thank you. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, CentralNotice is a much more bureaucratic process with just a few people who manage it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites : no news from CN admins? First round banner will need to be in place in 8 days. I saw that many other requests started after yours were approved before yours and that yours is still without any response after 14 days -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Round 1 centralnotice just now enabled. Good to go! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

just asking, is it confirmed to start tomorrow? i will include a note in Commons:Commons Gazette. RZuo (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: Yes. In fact, it's already open [early for beta testing]. The CentralNotice will go up tomorrow. Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI I have archived the various resolved discussions sorting out POTY planning, so as not to confuse anyone coming to this page when we officially start tomorrow. Anyone looking for them can find them here: Commons talk:Picture of the Year/Archive 1. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation

It doesn't look like Commons:Picture of the Year/Translations has been updated, and the link has been removed from the POTY header for this year. How should the gallery pages be translated? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to add back translations to POTY 2023 header and to any other pages that might need it, I have no idea how to do it. Here is the POTY 2022 header version for comparison (very complicated) or the POTY 2020 header version for comparison (less complicated) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Translation markup was added into Template:POTY2023/header. Feel free to translation.
PS: Translation suggestions is helpful for 100% items (e.g. in Russian). --Kaganer (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Kaganer. Could you do the same with this page? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Done --Kaganer (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

How to vote

Hello, i have no idea how to vote. Please help --STARTER'^user_{contribs anyone?} 12:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Vote now" button doesn't do anything - I found that confusing as well. You have to go through the different categories (Mammals etc) instead and vote there. Did you try that? Lupe (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you don't meet the eligibility requirements. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Miscategorized image

I contend that the wild goat should be categorized under Mammals rather than Other places since the animal is the focal point of the photo. Kstern (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kstern, recategorized. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not Eligible Button

It is unclear what the 'Not Eligible' button does, or mite do. I assume, it is a vote to say you feel the image should not be eligible or disqualified? I am in-between rounds 1 and 2 so perhaps this is related, round 2 appears to be opening in 8 hours I estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomachi (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tomachi: You see that because you are ineligible to vote. :) You must've made 75 edits on Wikimedia projects before the start of this year to be eligible, and it looks like you have 63. Make 12 more before January 1 to be eligible for next year's contest. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)