Commons talk:Picture of the Year

• Round 2 will end 28 October 2024, 23:59:59.
• About the contest
• Voting pages
• Rules & eligibility
• Help & feedback

Round 2 is open!   Vote now

·

duringR2

1

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

TO DO

Task	Status	Remarks
Choosing the dates	Done	Beta testing (all votes cast will be kept) from 25 September 2024, 19:42 until 30 September, 23:59:59. Round 1 from 1 October 2024, 00:00 until 14 October 2024, 23:59:59. Round 2 from 15 October 2024, 00:00 until 28 October 2024, 23:59:59
Fulfill interface request	Done	1, 2, and 3
Update committee page	Done	Also json
Update rules page	Done
Update help page	Done
Update the header	Done	Might be improved by adding back translations
Inform uploaders	Delisted	(Message)
Request CentralNotice	Done	Round 1
Inform previous voters	Done	Round 1 (Message)
Place banners	Done	Round 1 (banner enabled and will be placed automatically on October 1st)
Start round 1	Done	Round 1 started on September 25th with beta launch
Request CentralNotice	Done	Round 2
Inform previous voters	Done	Round 2 (Message and Targets (R2 voters))
Place banners	Done	Round 2 (banner enabled and will be placed automatically on October 15th)
Start round 2	Done
End contest
Announce winners
Announce result via MMS

• For everyone, please update the TO DO lists accordingly. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Done Interface requests fulfilled by a Inter-face admin -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Done (but might be improved) I just tried bringing back the header top with this new template that is a copy paste from the 2020 version but without the Share + Control Panel buttons. As I'm very unexpercienced with wikicodes etc I was not able to keep the translations that were done in the past. Also, some edits still have to be done with some links and later on depending on the state. If any errors were made or if anyone just wants to improve the header please feel free to edit it. If the header causes any trouble, feel free to delete it back -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Half done As time is ticking I decided to help a bit by making a first draft edit of the rules page. Basically I just changed the +2 images to +5%, edited a few words and the old dates that stated "Februrary 2024" with a new temporary placeholder dates that are in the future. Feel free to enhance the page with any other needed edit or to revert my edits. One thing I'm not sure about and therefore didn't edit : the voting eligibility. According to this message, eligibility was changed this year to make it simpler. So :

- For eligibility rule number 1 I have a doubt. This message says that now it's "Registered before the start of the year". Does "year" mean the current year or the year that is in the POTY name? (Is it 01.01.2023 or 01.01.2024 for POTY 2023? Historically it has been 01.01.2021 for POTY 2020 for example)

- on eligibility rule number two I guess that this should be deleted : " by the end of the year the contest is being held for. For example, for POTY 2023, you must have reached the edit threshold before 1 January 2024 UTC. An automated tool has been set up to check eligibility.".

- For rule number 3 I'm not sure if it should be deleted or if nothing changed.

@Ingenuity as you edited the eligibility code could you please enlighten me on what applies now? Thank you in advance -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Message for last year voters marked for translation, please translate in your native language. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Ingenuity, Rhododendrites and ZI Jony, I created a list of the 2530 users that voted in POTY 2023 R1 in the format for mass message. Alternatively, the mass message for round 2 could also be sent to a list of users that voted in previous POTYs combined with the new voters of POTY 2023 R1. You will find this alternative mass message list here (5010 users). I already prepared a message on this page and it is the exact same one than in 2022 but I had to remove the "but not yet in the second round" part since the message was not sent at 00:00 and some people already voted. Mass message can be requested on this page but maybe also tell them to try to avoid the 2023 R1 mass message double heading issue. But worst case if it happens again, this bot can delete the double heading. Thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Giles Laurent, I already requested. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Bug reports

Please feel free to report anything that might be broken/not working with the scripts. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, when I visit the gallery pages and click on "view file" everything works. But when I click on the image itself, I often get errors. On this page for example I get one of the two following errors when clicking on the picture itself: 404 type error and "bad title" error -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Giles Laurent: that should be fixed now. Ingenuity (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  ...or not. It works some of the time, but for some reason it still fails sometimes. I'll check it out later. Ingenuity (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Tested and it works now. Ingenuity (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Amazing, thank you! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity according to this screenshot there might be some bugs that have maybe not been corrected since :

- Two images are in first place but one has 2 votes and the other has only 1 vote, so the one with one vote should be in second place and not first place

- The last image on second place has 0 vote while the others have one vote so the image in second place with 0 vote should have been in third place

- According to this page and the new 5% rule there should be minimum 56 finalists for this year while there is only 13 images on this screenshot. Is it because the other finalists are displayed on another page ? (If so, there should be a link at the bottom to show the full score of all finalists like previous years. Example : 2022 winners + all results -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For the last point: I checked again the title of the page on your screenshot and it's the 2023/Results/All page and on that page there's normally all finalists (i. e. all pictures that participated in round 2 and their score), so it's supposed to be at least 56 finalists -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

On this testwiki page of round 2 voting I only see 9 finalists to vote for while there's supposed to be 56 minimum finalists during round 2 this year so I guess it's a bug? Screenshot available here (click) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: thanks for pointing out the error with place numbers, I've fixed the script now. As for the number of finalists, that's not a problem - when testing the script I only voted for a few finalists, but that won't be an issue for the actual contest. Ingenuity (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Ingenuity, when I visit the gallery pages from mobile its just loading! Could you clarify or fix it. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you specify what web browser you are using and if javascript is enabled? Using chrome on my phone everything seems to work on the gallery page. Maybe you have this bug because now "importScript("User:Ingenuity/poty-gallery.js")" should be removed from your common.js page? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent, I use chrome on my phone, and I've removed script from my common.js page. However, it’s work well in vector skin, maybe problem is in only for MinervaNeue skin! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the precisions. After testing it, I found out that the problem doesn't come out of the skin but that it comes out of beeing on commons.m.wikimedia.org instead of commons.wikimedia.org. When I'm on the phone on commons.wikimedia.org using chrome (with "view computer version" selected) the gallery loads no matter the skin I use. But when I'm on commons.m.wikimedia.org, no image load, no matter if it's on computer or phone. As a lot of voters are likely to vote from their phone, it would be nice to have it fixed for commons.m.wikimedia.org. If we don't find any way to fix that then it will be needed to say on the FAQ that it's necessary to use the "view computer version" and to not be on the "m" subdomain -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted an edit request to fix this. Ingenuity (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The request has now been implemented, and it seems to be working. Ingenuity (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, not a very serious issue because only a few images are affected but for example in the Other birds category, there is this file that is not loading in the preview because of it's tif format. Maybe there's a way to display the jpg version for tif pictures ? All smaller resolution links under a tif file are jpg : example full resolution in jpg example thumbnail in jpg.

There is the same issue with these two svg candidates from the Non photographic media category : 1 and 2 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That should be fixed when my edit request is implemented. Ingenuity (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, no candidates are loading in the Uncategorized and other category and according to this old version of the voting pages there should be 12 candidate pictures in there or 3 candidates according to this json data -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good catch, @Giles Laurent; that's fixed now. Ingenuity (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, I voted for many pictures yesterday and I visited the galleries again today and 90% of my votes don't appear anymore (the vote button was green before and is not green anymore). Example : I don't see the vote button in green anymore for this picture although my vote for it is still there. Also, depending on the device I use (phone or computer), I see again the votes casted in some galleries but not all of them. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Giles Laurent: votes are stored locally on your computer, so if you vote on one device it won't show up on another. However, if you click the "vote" button again it will tell you that you have already voted for the image. Ingenuity (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, the "View file" link doesn't work for files that have an apostrophe (') in their file name. For example in the mammals category, you can't click on "View file" for this file -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for finding that. It will be fixed the next time I submit an edit request. Ingenuity (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, I just compared all json with files displayed and there's two categories that look like having missing images. On the Other places json there is 130 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F " "title": ") and on Other places gallery page there is only 129 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F "View file"). Same problem with Other objects json having 71 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F " "title": ") while on Other objects gallery there is only 69 candidates (you can easily count by doing Ctrl+F "View file") -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That appears to be because the missing images were deleted after I ran the script to create the gallery pages. Shouldn't be a problem. Ingenuity (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The file locations for the pics aren't shown, so I can't watch any good pics. Smarkflea (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Ingenuity, I checked the finalist generator script and it seems to me that something hasn't been taken into account (but I might be wrong). The problem with line 547 of the code is that is seems to me that it will only gather 30 files when sorted by top number of votes but it will not check how many votes the image number 30 had and compare it with the following files. Because in 31th position (or even in 32th position too) might be a picture with exactly the same number of votes as the picture on 30th position but only one of them is likely to get selected with the actual writing of the script. I think it would be unfair to have two pictures with for example 200 votes in 30rd position but only one of them selected as finalist when there was in fact a tie for 30rd position. There is in my opinion the same problem with the writing of the code on lines 560 to 575 when selecting the top 5% finalists. If a category should for example have 3 finalists, it might be possible that there is a tie for third position and in that case all pictures in that tie should get to finalist and not only a random one of them automatically selected by file name alphabetical order or date of FP promotion. Since I'm not a javascript expert I might have just misunderstood the script and maybe you already have taken this into account but I just wanted to make sure it's the case because to me it looks like it's not the case -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ingenuity, end of round 1 is approaching, so could you have a look at this? Thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Giles Laurent: I'll fix this today, along with another minor bug that should be handled before the next round. Thanks for catching this. Ingenuity (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, I checked the gallery voting script and it seems that the verification if the voting is still allowed is not based on a date and time but only on a page that is not automatically updated after end of round 1. The lines 401 to 411 (and 490 to 499 [and 272 to 278]) only check this page (which is not automatically updated at 15 october 00:00:00 UTC but only manually, which means some delay can happen before closing votes, period during which new votes may appear and may need to be undone) instead of checking the time from this page as it probably should. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  There might be a minute or two between the votes being counted and the voting for the first round ending, so it's possible that a few votes may not be counted. Unfortunately I can't make (or at least I'm not comfortable making) any changes to the script at this point. Something to consider for next year. Ingenuity (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, this is an emergency, the finalists that appear on the voting page of round 2 are not the good ones! Most of them are true finalists but a few are not supposed to be there if you compare with this page. Here is a list of pictures that are not supposed to be finalists : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And there is very likely true finalists that are missing in the voting list ! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Missing images that are finalists and don't appear on round 2 voting page : 1, 2, 3 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Finally, this file is also not supposed to be a finalist as it has only 223 votes, which is far from the 269 needed votes to be top30 and not enough to be top 5% of it's category (only 3 finalists for 54 candidates in that category -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ingenuity, I voted for the last file mentioned here when it appeared as a finalist. Now it's not listed anymore, but I can't use my 3rd vote on another picture. Holauqetal (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Holauqetal if you connect to Wikimedia Commons in private navigation (or delete all wikimedia cookies) you should be able to use your third vote. Could you try it ?

  If this should not be sufficient, then try manually removing your vote from this page but that normally shouldn't be necessary as deleting cookies should be enough -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think it worked.

  However, when I reload the page it shows no votes now. If I try to vote, then it says "You have already voted for 3 images" (which is true now).

  Thanks! Holauqetal (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it worked, you now have 3 votes! The fact that you don't see the green button for the two other ones is a known issue when changing device/deleting cookies but the votes are counted -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ingenuity, not a big issue but when voting for finalists on round 2, once you have done the 3 votes and try voting for a 4th picture all voting button transform into an unclickable "Vote limit reached" (which is normal). But once you unvote for one of the 3 you had voted for, the "Vote limit reached" buttons don't transform and stay unclickable until the user refreshes the page. I think it should be possible to edit the script so that once you remove one of your 3 votes the other buttons become clickable again without needing to refresh the page -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Starting beta testing early

While it was the plan to start beta testing 24 hours before the contest officially starts, I think it's better to start it early to resolve any problems with the script - 24 hours might not be enough time to find and resolve all possible bugs. I think all the prep work for the contest is now done, and I've spent today fixing a few minor bugs. Once my edit request to the script is implemented, I'll open up the voting. Ingenuity (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think it's better to start beta asap so that eventual other bugs may be discovered and fixed before official date -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Should we invite some others? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by inviting some others? I thought that launching beta would just mean clicking on the POTY admin button start round 1 earlier than official date and that everyone would get access to it -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If nobody knows it's live, we won't get much beta testing apart from those of us watching this page and a handful of people who make their way to COM:POTY randomly. By invite others I mean e.g. I could post a request for early participants/beta testers somewhere on Discord (a much smaller audience than the CN will bring). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure then, I think the more people beta test it, the better it is! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I looked through all the categories, and I have found some files which seem to be in the wrong category, e.g. File:Aerial image of Alicudi (view from the south).jpg is in Natural views, while File:Aerial image of Stromboli (view from the northeast).jpg is in Natural phenomena. These images are very similar. Not a big deal, but... Yann (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Some images do not display, e.g. File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).svg and File:Physical map of Ancient Greece-ru.svg in Non-photographic media. Yann (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The bug of images not displaying will be resolved when my edit request is implemented. As for the categorization, those images were automatically sorted because they are in the natural places and natural phenomena FP categories respectively. I don't have any strong opinions on whether these specific images should be moved, but all committee members can feel free to recategorize images at their discretion. Ingenuity (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open! Feel free to test it out, and let me know if anything doesn't work. Ingenuity (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Question : since the category "Uncategorized and other" is now empty, shouldn't we remove the link to it on this page and all voting pages? I think that it's a bit confusing having a link to an empty category -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that category now. Ingenuity (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Can the "Uncategorized and other" category link also be removed on this template ? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. The "vote for this image" buttons don't seem to do anything for me. Tried on several images in several galleries. It just does nothing. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, if you delete "importScript("User:Ingenuity/poty-gallery.js");" from this page voting should work again for you I think -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed it, cleared cache (a couple times), and still didn't respond. Tried removing the admin script, too, and now it works. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I must have made a mistake with the admin script. I'll try to fix it soon, but for now disabling it when you're not using it should work. Ingenuity (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not quite a bug, but for next year it would be good for files like File:Hamun by Solmaz Daryani 1 (Crop).jpg if we could find a way to credit the original uploader rather than the person who just made a derivative. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A preview of File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (kreativ 2).jpg doesn't show up in the "other objects" gallery. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it's because the file loaded for preview is "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/D%C3%BClmen%2C_Kirchspiel%2C_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck%2C_%22What_if%22_--_2023_--_6686_%28kreativ_2%29.jpg/300px-File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, " instead of "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/D%C3%BClmen%2C_Kirchspiel%2C_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck%2C_%22What_if%22_--_2023_--_6686_%28kreativ_2%29.jpg/300px-File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, "What if" -- 2023 -- 6686 (kreativ 2).jpg". @Ingenuity the error comes without a doubt from the quotation mark " in the image title -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, do you think you might be able to make the thumbnail of this picture load in the Other objects gallery? The reason of it not loading is because of the file name. Right now it's the only picture not loading and it would be nice for all candidates to have a fair start once we reach the official start date since many people will come when banners will be placed October 1st, 00:00. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request submitted. Ingenuity (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So glad it's back! Thanks for your hard work Ingenuity. But I miss the non-categorized view. Can we have the per-month view back or, failing that, one page with all the images? Nardog (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. It was pointed out on Discord there's a spelling error none of us caught: "People and human actvity". Can't imagine that can be changed at this point, but FYI for afterwards. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted and thanks for the information Rhododendrites. It seems someone tried to fix it and it now caused the People and human activity gallery to not load anymore. The problem comes from this edit that should be reverted as soon as possible. Since the script was written with the mispelling, the name of the page can't be changed by anyone without any changes from Ingenuity first or the script doesn't load anymore. I tried clicking on undo but it says that it's somehow already reverted, which is not the case. This is an emergency that should be taken care of quickly so that pictures from that gallery don't miss any votes. Pinging also ZI Jony. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also it should be considered to protect POTY pages during the contest to avoid users breaking the gallery during contest -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. Ingenuity (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for your extremely swift handling of the situation -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of stations, just now I noticed this message. Ingenuity, thanks for your quick action. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Heads up for committee members to also watch Commons talk:Picture of the Year/Help — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:18, 1 October 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)

Feature request: "All images" link

The images are distributed in 21 galleries. It is inconvenient if I want to find images but don't remember the gallery. I believe last year there was an "All images" link. Would be useful to have. Tagooty (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, I think this could be easily implemented, even during R1 of this year (if you have time), since we already have an all data json -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I support the suggestion, I also found it inconvenient to have to go through all categories.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty easy to do. However, since all gallery pages have been protected, an administrator needs to create Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery/All with the content {{POTY gallery/2023}}. After that's done, the page can be linked to from the main categories page. Ingenuity (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber or Steinsplitter, could one of you please do it? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Done; template editors can also do it (title blacklist protection is effectively equivalent to template editor protection, not full protection). However, it took about 5 GB of RAM to load the page (on the second try, because my computer ran out of RAM on the first try before loading would have finished); couldn’t that be optimized? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Are you sure about the 5GB? On my computer chrome says that tab uses 454 Mo of memory while the "Other places" tab is 87 Mo. The only way to make the "All images" gallery weight less would be to replace "300px" on thumbnail adress to something lower like "250px" or "200px" but then the thumbnail would appear smaller (300 px example vs 200 px example). I personally prefer having the pictures at 300px -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Tacsipacsi could you add the following code on this page just above Animals category :

					<tr>
						<th rowspan='5' style='padding: 0 15px;'>All genres</th>
						<td>[[File:Camara.svg|25px]] [[Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery/All|All images]] (1132)</td>
					</tr>

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What about "By month"?

Thanks to the technical actors here at POTY. There are currently many categories (21 in total). In the past, there was also a section called "By month" with the nominations chronologically sorted. January, February, March... until December. I think it helped the voters, because 12 = 2x6 and = 3x4. Archives are also sorted chronologically. Easy to know where we are in the voting process. What do others think? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I missed it so sorely (seeing diverse pictures back to back is the most fun part, which categories takes away) that I just looked at Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2023-A to vote. An "all images" page not only consumes so much bandwidth and memory but also makes it difficult to review them in chunks and resume because of the randomization. Nardog (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Since there was the possibility to view candidates by month of FP promotion in the past I think it could be added back again. On the technical side someone would need to create pages like Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/Gallery/January/data.json by using the data of Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/Gallery/All/data.json -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -- I found it easier to vote for a few images from each month, which represented the diversity of the entire pool fairly well, yet greatly reduced the number from which to choose. In addition, it allowed me to divide my voting into 12 sessions for completion over the ~15 days. Whether or not this feature gets implemented this year, my thanks to the POTY committee for their amazing amount of work in saving the competition for at least another year and, hopefully, many more! Waz8 (talk) 03:35, 9 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)

Missing image

Why is File:Microscopic image of crystals growing from melted sulfur (cropped).jpg not included? Nardog (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's in Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/Gallery/Other_objects — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I couldn't find it partly because the original image has been renamed since it was promoted. But also it's been delisted and replaced by the cropped version. Shouldn't we be voting for the version that's still a featured picture? Nardog (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the newly written script didn't take into account delisted and replaced images and only displayed the old version. Or maybe the script can do it but this happened because the file was renamed in between? (I don't know).

@Ingenuity, this seems like a bug that should be fixed for next year -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:25, 20 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)

Problems 2024

Just something i notice:

1. some descriptions are too long and shown breaking off with ...
   either there should be a way to show the full description or a short alternative should be shown instead.
2. i am fatigued when i reach "Other places". also reviewing this category of 129 files feels quite exhausting.

RoyZuo (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

+ For next year, please note that the automatic message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery on all user talk pages includes twice the same sentence in the title "Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!" That should be easy to fix -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Many descriptions contain useless information like "This is a photo of listed building number" (and nothing else), " " (nothing), "This is a digitized image of the original painting ..."
  • Switch descriptions according to user language [?] (default to en)
• Hovering on images should display some information: either the description or filename. Filename should be displayed somewhere.
• Add an option to view images in a "Media Viewer" style (show them in fullscreen + moving to other by arrow keys)
• It's a good idea to open links in a newtab, but the middle button/scroll wheel should behave in the same way (actually it doesn't make anything)
• It's not clear that clicking on the green vote button again removes the vote.

— Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not wild about uploader and nominator being made visible during the voting. Did we really do that before? Mostly because we should vote for the image and not care who made it, that will make some people biased towards some photos. But also because the info gets screwed up. Like for example with the entry for File:Parque Nacional Marinho de Fernando de Noronha - João Paulo Marques DAndretta 1-edited.jpg. It says: "Uploaded by W.carter and nominated by ArionStar", which completely leaves out the photographer, João D'Andretta. --Cart (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Tomachi (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Voting history no longer available

I'm writing concerning the fact that is no longer possible (or easy, to be accurate) to see the on-going voting in each of the images. This is an important change relative to all previous issues, one with which I do not agree. As an organizer of the first POTY, I still remember that the issue was raised and that a concensus was reached to comply to the overall transparency policy of Commons. Maybe I missed a discussion on this important matter? If possible, I would like to see the button "Info" back below the thumbnails of the images, in the galleries. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It still is possible to see the on-going voting for each image. Here is a full list of all links that I generated using the data from this page :

For info : unused voting pages (because the files where deleted before POTY start)
VitorJubini MercadoDaVilaRubim Vitoria ES (39182859020) (square crop).jpg VitorJubini TerceiraPonte Vitoria ES (27121005458).jpg VitorJubini PaneleirasdeGoiabeiras Vitoria ES (40735316325).jpg Trier Medaille Marktkreuz white background.jpg

I also created a script that counts the number of votes for each image and makes an overall ranking + a ranking for each category so that I can see if the script generating the finalists works as intended. Right now I have some concerns that the code might not work as supposed to in certain circumstances -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much for this information and lists, Giles!. But how many users will take profit of them to vote? Almost none, and certainly not the common voter. Which means that the important Commons criterium of transparency in the polls/votes does no longer apply to POTY. Let me insist: why not restore the old "Info" button below the thumbnails? Maybe we could still start a discussion on this.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

    According to the Help page that displays this since 2019, the results before a round ends are not published because they don't want the results to influence voters and cause a more significant impact of an early lead. So I'm not sure it's the committee wish to have many people voting depending on other picture's position.

    I can publish results of round 1 (with all 1132 files results sorted) and round 2 for transparency if you want but I will only do it once round 2 ends to avoid it influencing voters -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

    Shouldn't the results of round 1 be released before round 2 starts, so everybody can see how each picture did or did not make into round 2? That's how it went for the past years as far as I recall. Nardog (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

    Could you please provide a link for R1 results published in the past? I can't find any R1 results that are more recent then 2019 (2020 was just "rawresults" and then nothing for 2021 and 2022).

    I can publish R1 sorted results directly after R1 end but only if the POTY committee approves such publication. If they don't preapprove it I will only publish it after end of round 2 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

    Commons:Picture of the Year/2022/R1/Results and Commons:Picture of the Year/2020/Committee/Transparency/R1 raw were published between the rounds. The 2021 results are here, which Legoktm shared with me before R2 ended (I don't know if he had published it elsewhere, but the timestamp shows it too was uploaded between the rounds). Nardog (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

    Okay then if it was like this every year I'll post R1 results on October 15th -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I know, this is the only case in Commons (or Wikimedia at large) where the process is not completly transparent. That is, where the on-going results are not shown to everybody. Remember, Wikimedia is not a democracy, and decisions are taken by concensus. That is why it is perfectly legitimate, according to Wikimedia policy, to influence the participants. Frankly, I believe that the POTY committe went far beyond its competence on this. That is why a discussion should be started and administrators involved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  POTY 2023 was on brink of extinction because the only committee member who had technical knowledge of the previous script disappeared for months without giving any news. Some users even contacted Jimmy Wales himself twice on his talk page (in a rather clumsy way) to try to save POTY (link 1, link 2). This was somewhat helpful because that's how Ingenuity came to help us. The only way that was found to save POTY 2023 was to completely rewrite all POTY scripts. Ingenuity managed to do all this in a very impressive short time and POTY 2023 was able to happen this year. Given this context, I'm personally just gladful POTY happened this year even if everything is not as perfect as it might have been before. I've never participated on any POTY before so I don't know how things were before, but if in the past there was a third button bellow each file to see the amount of votes then I think Ingenuity could very easily reimplement that on the code as it's really simple to do -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  What isn't transparent? The voting in particular? It's absolutely transparent. It's exactly the same as previous years, except you have to take one additional step because the page isn't linked from the voting tool itself. Maybe we can fix that for next time, but as Giles says, Ingenuity did an incredible job of picking up the ancient, undocumented scripts used for years and redoing them in short time.
  Giles already said he'd post the R1 results, so I'm not sure what else you want that's worth calling the committee incompetent. If you want a running tally of votes, there was explicit consensus against that a couple years ago.
  What are the decisions you're talking about regarding democracy/consensus? POTY is quite literally a vote, and there are many processes without transparency (arbcom elections, wmf elections, anything else using securepoll, otrs tickets, Wiki Loves Monuments judging, wikiconference organizing, etc.). If you mean the POTY tool development, no, that's not usually subject to consensus. Developers build things, often with input from the community, and the community decides if it wants to use them. Each design decision is not done by committee. But in this case, there was even notice posted here and at FPC (and I think at VP a while back) about the new tools, script development, and beta testing. ...Which is sort of remarkable considering how quickly everything came together. But that's how consensus-building processes work. If you ignore them or don't see them until it's too late, that's not anyone else's fault. All that said, if you have strong opinions you should join the committee for next year's event. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Giles. Instant feedback of any vote is a very convincing method a person can verify the integrity of any voting system and that their personal voted counted or was ignored. Good choice. Tomachi (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just a quick note to acknowledge the work of the committeee. By no means I wanted to diminish your remarkable job, contest the way the committe was formed or call you incompetent! All I said (and meant) is that the decision of not showing the vote list was beyond the competence (with the meaning of power) of the committe, because it goes against the general policy of Wikimedia: for example, in FPC, QIC or in the election of administrators. As far as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) this is the first year the button "Info" is absent. Yes Giles, I and many other users would like to see it back! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I just copypasted the gallery code to this this page and edited lines 464 to 482 of the old code into the new lines 464 to 503. If you edit your Special:MyPage/common.js page and add the following line : importScript("User:Giles Laurent/sandbox/POTY-gallery.js") you will get the following result when visiting voting pages : (click here to view screenshot). I tested it and the script works and still allow to add/remove votes. To make it official and visible by everyone, the gallery code page would need to get lines 464 to 503 edited like this :

Code

if (window.location.href.endsWith("Finalists")) { gallery.innerHTML += ` <div class="poty-gallery-image" data-image="${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title)}"> <img src="${imageUrl.replaceAll("\"", "%22")}" onclick="window.open('${imageProperties["File:" + candidate.title].url.replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')"> <div class="poty-gallery-info"> <span>${mw.html.escape(desc)}</span> <span>${creditLink}</span> </div> <div style="flex-grow: 1;"></div> <div class="poty-gallery-buttons"> <button class="poty-gallery-view" onclick="window.open('https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title).replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')">${translationHtml("view-file")}</button> <button class="poty-gallery-view" onclick="window.open('https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/R2/votes/${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title).replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')">View votes</button> </div> <div class="poty-gallery-buttons"> <button style="width:100%;" class="${voted ? "poty-gallery-vote-voted" : "poty-gallery-vote"}" data-image="${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title)}" data-text="${voted ? translationHtml("voted") : translationHtml("vote-for-this-image")}">${translationHtml("loading")}</button> </div> </div> `; } else { gallery.innerHTML += ` <div class="poty-gallery-image" data-image="${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title)}"> <img src="${imageUrl.replaceAll("\"", "%22")}" onclick="window.open('${imageProperties["File:" + candidate.title].url.replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')"> <div class="poty-gallery-info"> <span>${mw.html.escape(desc)}</span> <span>${creditLink}</span> </div> <div style="flex-grow: 1;"></div> <div class="poty-gallery-buttons"> <button class="poty-gallery-view" onclick="window.open('https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title).replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')">${translationHtml("view-file")}</button> <button class="poty-gallery-view" onclick="window.open('https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/R1/votes/${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title).replaceAll("'", "\\'")}')">View votes</button> </div> <div class="poty-gallery-buttons"> <button style="width:100%;" class="${voted ? "poty-gallery-vote-voted" : "poty-gallery-vote"}" data-image="${encodeURIComponent(candidate.title)}" data-text="${voted ? translationHtml("voted") : translationHtml("vote-for-this-image")}">${translationHtml("loading")}</button> </div> </div> `; }

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And to make the code even better View votes might be replaced by ${translationHtml("view-file-votes") and the translation added to this page like this :

"view-file-votes": {
		"fr": "Voir les votes",
		"en": "View votes"
	}

Giles Laurent (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

But it's up to the committee/Ingenuity to decide wether they want to add the "View votes" button on the official gallery code page -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merci beaucoup pour votre gentillesse, Gilles. You are obviouslt talented with the code! Now let us wait and see how the committee decides ... democratically. :)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Content model for galleries .json pages

Maybe is needs to request changing content model for POTY galleries .json pages? Currently these is ordinary wiki-pages, but should be converted to "JSON" type (as Commons:Picture of the Year/i18n.json). --Kaganer (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Unresolved licensing issue

Following up from Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#POTY_contender_possible_license_issue:

File:Kométa C-2020 F3 (NEOWISE).jpg, a POTY contender, was found to be published on the photographer's personal website before being uploaded to Commons. It is the user's only upload and only edit. It passed FPC with some concern for licensing that went unresolved.

Absent conclusive feedback at VPC, the next logical step is to start a DR. As someone with photos in the competition, I do not feel comfortable nominating another candidate for deletion myself. Dropping it here for other committee members (or others) to consider. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the problem with this picture having been uploaded on the author's website before being uploaded to Commons? An author can upload an image on another website giving a different license to that website and then upload it to Commons giving another license. Or are there concerns that the uploader is not the real author of the photo? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

On the author's website the image used is this one which is only 2048x1513 pixels. The picture uploaded to Commons seems to be the original of 6000x4432 pixels. I've not found any website other than Commons using the full resolution of the picture. This seems like a hint that the uploader seems like the real author of the photo. The username Palonitor is also a bit similar to the author's name Pavol Kostolný). Finally both the author and uploader speak slovak. Based on these 3 elements I think we can give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the uploader is the real author -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the problem with this picture having been uploaded on the author's website before being uploaded to Commons? - Typically we err on the side of caution to protect media reusers. Handling releases where someone has already published a photo without a free license is one of the primary purposes of COM:VRT. In this case, attempts to communicate with the uploader to submit documentation have not been successful. If this wins POTY, it will receive some press coverage and appear in many places around Wikimedia projects, leading to a lot of reuse. It's more, not less, important to make sure the license is verified here. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

attempts to communicate with the uploader to submit documentation have not been successful

Where and when did you try to communicate with him, @Rhododendrites? Not on his talk pages, as I can see. Emha (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Multiple pings (including by me), but nobody left a talk page message. I just did so. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that the full-res version has never appeared elsewhere goes a long way, and the uploader is likely enough to be the photographer that the burden of proof is shifted - instead of asking the uploader to submit proof and defaulting to delete if there is no reply, we should ask the owner of the website whether they uploaded it to Commons and defaulting to keep if there is no reply. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Size of images previews

I don't see some way to change size of pictures thumbnails in the galleries. It was in previous POTYs, and missing in the current. It's very uncomfortable, that no way to increase images size. Лапоть (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree totally! Grullab (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

POTY gadget does not work for me

Firefox (130.0.1 (64-Bit)) fails silently, at least Console throws nothing.

Brave (Version 1.70.123 Chromium: 129.0.6668.89 (Offizieller Build) unknown (64-Bit)) Console throws:

execute @ startup.js:1314
ext.gadget.POTYEnhancements.core-script-0.js:3700 POTY> init undefined

-- [[kgh]] (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Kghbln could you be more specific on your problem? Are you able to vote for example on that page? If not, what do you see?

POTY script was completely rewritten and I think poty gadget is not used anymore -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

With POTY gadget I meant the Picture Of The Year enhancements gadget. Anyhow, disabling it does not help either. When I click "Vote now" nothing happens on both browsers. At least for Brave I get the Console notification I previously mentioned. To cut it short: I am cut off from voting. --[[kgh]] (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, when going directly to the gallery page via the link you provided I can vote. In other words the "Vote now" button is broken for me. Instead I need to go to the gallery pages directly. Perhaps I also misinterpreted "Vote now" as a button which should so something. I do not known. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out a way to actually vote on pictures. Thanks a bunch. --[[kgh]] (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Vote now" button is only designed to access the list of galleries. You then have to go on a gallery page by clicking on one of the links on the list of galleries and once on the gallery you can vote by clicking "Vote for this image" bellow each image.

An admin should add "Visit one of the following galleries to start voting :" on top of this page to make it more clear. (The page is protected and normal users can't edit it).

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well this explains it. I am pretty sure that in the previous years such a button was triggering the voting and lead to the first gallery automatically. I this is where my confusion comes from. Yeah, a notice that one needs to access the gallery pages for voting will be beneficial. Thanks again for getting me on track. Much appreciated! --[[kgh]] (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

R1 results posted; finalist voting open

Round 1 of the contest has now closed, and the results have been posted to Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/Results/R1. Voting for the finalists is now available at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2023/Gallery/Finalists. This year, we had a total of 119,310 votes from 2,530 voters in the first round, a slight increase from 118,086 and 2,407 last year. This is great to see, and means that the new scripts did not have a negative effect on voting. Ingenuity (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some round 1 raw results seem to be wrong if you compare them with this page. See also this comment. This should be figured out and fixed as soon as possible -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: checking it out now. It looks like it might just be a misunderstanding of the 5% rule between our code, but I'll double check. Ingenuity (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a misunderstanding. For example : this file has only 171 votes, which is less than the 269 required votes to be top 30, and is only the 10th image in it's category which is far from the top 5% of that category. Therefore it should not be a finalist. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you. Also the accepted rule by consensus was "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)}", here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

List of files that are not supposed to be finalist for round 2 but that actually appear on the round 2 voting page (should be removed from this json page) : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

.

List of files that are finalist for round 2 but that are actually missing on the round 2 voting page (should be added asap to this json page as they are unfairly missing votes right now) : round 2 voting page : 1, 2 and 3

.

Click here for a full list of finalists (only 59 should be finalist and right now there's 62 in the list but 6 should be removed and 3 added) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: figured out what the problem is. A bug with the script meant that, when finding the finalists, it used the images' original categories instead of their current one. A number of images have been recategorized since the contest started, which means the category sizes have changed. It's not a super big deal, and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to fix at this point (plus re-running the admin script could cause even more bugs for people who have already voted). Ingenuity (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it seems indeed the change of category during contest was not taken into account by the poty script. In any case this json file should be edited manually by removing pictures that are not finalists and by adding pictures that are supposed to be finalists. A list of files missing and that shouldn't be there can be found here and then doing a CTRL+F the images that shouldn't be there can easily be removed and the data of the 3 missing pictures can be found with CTRL+F on this page and then copy pasted -- Giles Laurent (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added the three missing pictures. However, since people have already voted for the images mistakenly added, I don't want to potentially cause bugs by removing them. Ingenuity (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ingenuity for adding the missing finalists!

Are you sure that removing the mistakenly added finalists from the json finalist file would cause a bug? Once it's done it will not be possible to vote for these pictures anymore and a deletion request might be done for the pages. Also, according to the script page for sorting results of finalists in round 2 and more precisely according to lines 790 to 813 finalists are counted with the "countFinalistVotes()" function. This function can be found at lines 749 to 760 and refers to the data of this json page. Therefore simply removing the mistakenly added finalists shouldn't create any problem I think -- Giles Laurent (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity, in my opinion the mistakenly added finalists should not be kept because :

- rightful finalists will miss some of the votes they would have had since it's only 3 votes per user ;

- most of the recategorization was done before beta testing and people voted in round 1 according to the categorization. For example this category was completely deleted (click here for the old version) and for example this file is mistakenly appearing in the round 2 voting page only because the file had that page as first category eventhough that category got deleted before round 1 and beta ;

- if pictures were recategorized it's because they belong to their new category and not to their old one and should be judged according to their exact category else it's unfair for pictures that are actually true top 5% finalists

- simply deleting the mistakenly added files from the json shouldn't create any bug in my opinion (see this comment)

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've checked the code again to make sure removing them wouldn't cause any bugs, and it looks like it shouldn't. I've removed them now. People who voted for the images removed may need to clear their cookies before being able to re-vote. Ingenuity (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So absolutely no votes were disqualified? That would be remarkable compared to previous years. Nardog (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I see two possible explanations Nardog :

- 2023 eligibility rules are not the same as previous years eligibility rules. Previously you would need to have 75 edits before January 1st and now you can reach the 75 edits after January 1st and vote as long that the account was created before January 1st of this year. This change originates from here. The script can easily check the current number of actual global contributions on time of voting but it is more complicated to check all global user accounts and edit dates to see how many edits exactly there was at January 1st. So the script would previously not prevent a vote from a user with 75+ edits on time of voting but less than 75 edits on January 1st. Such users would only get their vote removed later. Now this is not an issue anymore since eligibility allows to reach 75 edits during the year. Also, last years it was easy to vote manually which is not the case for this year and this forces people to vote through the script, which makes the script successfully prevents from voting people with an account not old enough and with less than 75 global current edits ;

- or second possibility is that the script didn't work properly. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Leave a few days between r1 and r2 next year might be better. RoyZuo (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that would allow to have time to check if the script worked well or if some things need manual fixing. The problem is that this requires a change of the poty admin script (and was therefore not possible for this year in the short time given as script was completely rewritten) because right now as soon that you close round 1 it automatically starts round 2 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In the past there's been 24 hours, which is usually enough. With the new scripts this year it would have been prudent to have a longer gap. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Round 1 results sorted

I created a page where all round 1 results are sorted and can be visually seen.

All links are here :

Genre	Category
All genres	All images (1132)
Animals	Arthropods (47) | Passeriformes (44) | Other birds (77) | Mammals (45) | Other animals (64)
Architecture	Constructions and buildings (41) | Religious architecture (108) | Castles and fortifications (27) | Settlements (21) | Other places (129)
Astronomy	Astronomy and outer space (9)
Nature	Natural views (128) | Natural phenomena (30)
Objects	Vehicles and transport (42) | Sculptures (22) | Other objects (69)
Historical	Historical (47)
People and human activity	People and human activity (54) | Food and drink (19)
Plants and fungi	Plants and fungi (69)
Miscellaneous	Non-photographic media (42)

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I just added at the bottom of all of these pages a "Statistics" section with the number of voters for any category and the number of voters for that category as well as the percentage -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:42, 15 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)

Fate of delisted featured pictures

Dear active POTY committee members (Ingenuity, Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber and ZI Jony),

I am bringing to your attention the following issue regarding a former POTY finalist that achieved rank number 4 in POTY 2022. It was discovered that the aforementioned image fraudulently obtained FP status by using an undisclosed completely fake background and was therefore recently delisted from the Featured picture status. There's also no doubt that the false background certainly played a big part in enabling this image to qualify for POTY round 2 and to achieve 4th place in that round.

Someone suggested to directly remove the picture from POTY but I think that when a featured picture is delisted and was formerly a finalist in POTY two possible interpretations of what should be done are possible:

• One first solution would be to consider that if it loses it's FP status, it loses it's right to be qualified to participate in POTY and therefore should "automatically" be removed from all pages related to POTY.
• One second solution would be to consider that eventhough it lost it FP status, it was at the time eligible to participate in POTY and that losing it's eligibility afterwards doesn't disqualify it automatically from POTY.

In this second case the only way to remove a delisted image from POTY would be with a POTY committee approval. POTY rules state that "The committee reserves the right to disqualify or replace candidates in exceptional circumstances, but will not use this ability without careful discussion." so this is within the committee competence. I personnaly think that the second solution is the best one as it allows a case-by-case analysis and to keep an image (in justified circumstances) as a POTY competitor eventhough it was delisted. For example if an image was delisted only because it's technical quality (for example resolution) is not considered as good anymore as it was at the time, I really don't think that the image should be removed from POTY, on the contrary it should stay imo. Example : if this delisted image would have been a POTY finalist, I don't think that it's POTY finalist status should be removed.

But of course regarding the present delisted image, since it was promoted to Featured picture based on a completely fake background and that all votes it gathered in POTY were also based on the fake background I think that there would be no objection to delisting the present image. So if the image has been promoted to FP status on the basis of a fraud (for example undeclared fake background), I think it should easily be disqualified and removed from all POTY pages.

I would therefore formally like to ask the following questions to the currently active POTY committee members :

• How should delisted featured pictures be treated in the case that they were POTY finalists?
• What should be the fate of this image, should it be completely removed from all POTY 2022 related pages?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Best regards, -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to removing a picture from a poll that already ran, as it would be misrepresentative of the poll. Just add a note saying it's been delisted. Nardog (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true that the poll would be misrepresentative and the note would have the advantage of keeping the history visible to everyone. If this is what ends up being done, a link to the delist discussion should also be added.

But then I wonder if on the file page itself if the should be removed or replaced by something else like because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree to remove the POTY award (more than a replacement) on the file page + link to FPC delist discussion on the POTY result. Otherwise it's quite a weird award associated to an embarrassing picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I’m not a POTY committee member, but if I am allowed to leave a comment here, I would second Nardog’s point of view. IMHO it would make the history of POTYs inconsistent and hard to understand if images were disqualified retrogradely. So better add just a note. – Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The original message was adressed to the POTY committee because I wanted to have their opinion on the matter but everyone is of course also welcome to give it's thought! The more enlighted we are with different opinions, the smarter the upcoming decision might be -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Tricky thing. We also delist photos for simply not keeping up with expectations for quality -- remove those, too? After giving this some thought, here's where I land: if a photo is delisted before or during a POTY contest, it should be removed from competition. Once the competition is over, we should only make changes under extreme circumstances, and only if it appears in the top 3 for the year (the three that receive "places" and descriptions). So, for example, if a photo were deleted as a copyvio, I'd add a note to the description explanaining as much. This might be a good candidate for modifying the description. Just clarify it's a manipulated photo. If FPC didn't catch it the first time and it was an FP during POTY, then as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't retroactively remove it from competition. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is why I think a case-by-case analysis should be made and that pictures delisted for quality reasons after POTY should not worry about any other consequence with POTY. I also agree with removing from the competition a FP candidate delisted before or during the competition, even in the case of technical quality, because if it happens it technically isn't eligible anymore to participate.

We have a file deleted for copyvio in 52th position of POTY 2022 and also in 13th position in POTY 2019 and I think that the way that these images actually appear on the gallery clearly shows that they were disqualified because we don't see them anymore and when clicking on them we see that they were deleted. And in order to keep a representative poll and history the votes are still visible which is a good solution. In case the copyvio deleted image is in the top 3 there might be a different solution though (like filling the empty spot with the picture from the previously 4th position and explaining it somewhere).

So if I understand well, for the aurora church picture, you are in favor of keep it appearing on the POTY 2022 result page but to add a note below the "#4 282" saying that it was delisted because it participated as an undeclared manipulated photo? Or are you saying that nothing should be done because it is in 4th position and not in 3rd position? (The file description was already edited to say it's a photomontage after being delisted [but not during the POTY competition]).

Also, should the file page be edited to remove the or replace it by something else like ? Because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of... What about #Missing image? Nardog (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the concern about maintaining the integrity of the competition, I oppose the removal of an image from a completed POTY competition, as this would misrepresent the results. The competition has already concluded, and voters cast their votes based on the information available at the time. Retrospectively removing the image would alter the historical record of the contest. Instead, I suggest adding a note to the POTY pages to clarify that the image has since been delisted. This approach ensures transparency without distorting the results.

In addition, linking to the delisting discussion would provide further context to anyone reviewing the results. This would also maintain the integrity of the process by making the community aware of the subsequent developments, while respecting the votes cast in good faith during the contest.

I understand that this situation is complex, but I believe this solution preserves the history of the competition while still acknowledging the issues surrounding the image. Removing the image completely, in my view, would be a disproportionate response and could set a problematic precedent for future contests. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this solution (adding a note on Results page saying that the image got disqualified with a link to the delisting discussion) in case of a completed POTY contested.

But what do you think of the file page itself ZI Jony? Should the be removed (or replaced by something else like ) ? Because I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO, we should replace the award with a note, something like, "This photo was a finalist of POTY 2022, and it was 4th ranked photo of POTY 2022." However, I strongly against to remove completely! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

First, the position / rank is currently not displayed on none of the POTY finalists (except 1, 2, 3), thus I don't see the reason of mentioning this one in particular. Secondly, there's no advantage to keep any link to the competition after a picture has been disqualified, in my opinion. On this point I agree with Giles Laurent ("strange to keep it"). Thus the best solution is for me to remove the award completely. The remaining FPC link is already far enough. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Basile, the position is not displayed on any POTY finalist file and I see no reason to display it.

After removal of the award the following template could be added for full transparency :

{{Template:POTYdisqualified|2022|Church of light.jpg|2024-10-19}}}}

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

--Giles Laurent (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This template is nice, but the icon () evokes me an unwarranted flourish. Something like an exclamation mark (❕️) would be more appropriate to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

After reading your comment here I edited the template with an image that is more explicit about the disqualification

For people that didn't see the old version, here is what it looked like (new version is above) :

Old version
This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We could also hide the picture, while adding some text. See proposal here: Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2022/Results/All#Layout (proposal) -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think if we do this we should clarify that it is a photo that has been delisted for undeclared manipulations. A photo that is delisted just because it has been replaced by a better photo or no longer meets FP quality standards should be allowed to retain its status as a POTY finalist, but a photo that has been promoted under false pretenses should be stripped of its finalist designation. Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the delist link in itself is sufficient because we can read exactly what is going on with that image (and an image delisted after POTY for quality reasons would never get that delisted link appearing on results, only pictures that fooled voters).

But if it's needed I'm not against adding "because of undeclared photo manipulations" after "delisted on 2024-10-19" -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Have there ever been different cases like this? I have the impression that FPs are rarely delisted, and POTY finalists much less often (because they are generally among the best FPs, theoretically the least likely to be criticized, of all). If by chance a #1 FP were replaced by a superior #2 version, there would be no real harm in leaving the POTY award displayed on the page. So while waiting for other special cases to come to light, and spark ideas for modifications, I am of the opinion to use this template adapted to current situations. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree (and I don't think there was a previous case of POTY finalist delisted).

Also I think the criterion is simple :

• If the picture is delisted because it fooled voters at the time (for example with undeclared photo manipulations), it should be disqualified and lose it's POTY finalist award.
• In all other delist cases, the award should be kept as it was fairly obtained.

(In the case of copyvios the award is already automatically removed since the file page is directly deleted) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

First, IMO what is displayed on file pages is probably outside the purview of the POTY committee. We can decide what to do with an image with regards to the contest, but how that's reflected on file pages is something that I think could be determined with broader input. That said, I think (along the lines of what I wrote above) that a note on the results page is sufficient in the POTY space. As for what the file page should say, no strong opinion from me. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have leapt from a discussion about how to handle these scenarios into stylistic/layout discussions that make several assumptions. Here's my view: whether an image is "disqualified" is a decision for the POTY committee. How to handle the display of subsequently delisted photos is likewise up to the POTY committee. That committee would be wise to take community input into consideration in making that decision. How the committee's decision (and any other information about the delisted photo) should be displayed on the file page is entirely outside the committee's hands and is probably best discussed at a village pump, where you can solicit broader input. Granted, the committee doesn't have any formal authority at this point, so my opinion on the matter has no special weight. What I would like to hear is, insofar as we're going to have a POTY committee, consent to have that committee make decisions about the POTY contest. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that disqualifying a picture from POTY is within the POTY committee competences as mentionned in the rules (and I first thought that with this comment you agreed with disqualification). The layout proposals are only proposals/discussions but the formal decision wether to disqualify the picture or not belongs to the POTY committee. I will personally abide by the POTY committee decision on this mater wether I agree with it or not. At this point we still haven't heard Ingenuity's and AntiCompositeNumber's opinions. Once all active POTY committee members will have given their personal opinion, they will need to all agree on a single concordant POTY committee official position. Other users are of course free to say their opinion and voting in the proposals below (or adding new ones) is a way to do so. Opinions from everyone are also always free to change with time after reading everyone's else opinion. I suggest to give a few days to people to say their opinion before formulating the official POTY committee decision wether to disqualify the church picture. There is no need to rush and usually the more we take time to think on a matter, the wiser the decision is -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, ZI Jony, and AntiCompositeNumber: See my post above. We need a consensus on disqualification to move these proposals forward. What say you? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• I just want to say “Thank you!” to all participants in this detailed and engaged discussion. First I was hesitant to change the results of POTY retrogradely (hence my initial comment above); but now that you have proposed clear and transparent ways to show that I fully agree that it makes sense to modify the POTY results in this way. Thank you all, – Aristeas (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to join Aristeas in expressing my gratitude to my colleagues for their efforts in reaching a consensus. Special thanks to Giles Laurent for his tireless dedication. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Question How do other photo competitions in the world deal with this issue?--Commander Keane (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I know, in most serious photo competitions in the world, cheating or misleading the jury/voters results in disqualification and removal of award. Examples :

  - Wildlife photographer of the year stripped of his award : the photo was supposed to be a wild wolf when in reality it was a tame wolf ;

  - Another photo disqualified after discovering it was cheating : the ant-eater supposed to be real was also not a real animal but just a stuffed ant-eater corpse ;

  - Other disqualification case : but this time it was an AI contest and someone posted a real image making the jury think it was an AI one and got disqualified after truth was found

  I don't see why it shouldn't be the case as well with POTY as this is a serious competition -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting examples. I was more looking for winners galleries with more than one entry, like our situation. Commander Keane (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  The wildlife photographer of the year has more than one entry as it has multiple categories and runner-ups. For the wolf example it was too late to edit the printed books of the photograph as they were already printed and sold but they added a notice under the image displayed in the museum (winners always end up displayed in the Natural History Museum of London) and the candidate was of course officially disqualified + award taken from him + banned for life of entering the contest again (source : article) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fate of delisted featured pictures layout proposals

There seems to be a consensus above (at least for the moment) that the church picture should keep appearing in the POTY 2022 gallery but with a note added. There also seems to be a consensus that the award should be removed. This section is solely designed to discuss how the layout of the note and award removal should be. If you disagree with the note and/or award removal, please discuss it in the above section. These are the most recent layouts that were originally proposed on this page but discussion is now moved to this talk page as more people visit it.

Latest layout proposal for POTY 2022 results page :

Alt 1 : new layout with disqualification

• 
  Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg #1  335
• 
  Ethiopia Banna tribe kids.jpg #2  299
• 
  Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg #3  292
• 
  Church of light.jpg #4  282
   Disqualified after being
  delisted on 2024-10-19
• 
  Siebenpunkt-Marienkäfer (Coccinella septempunctata) auf Blüte im FFH-Gebiet "Viernheimer Waldheide und angrenzende Flächen".jpg #5  275

•  Support I think adding this is extremely important as it allows the community to see in a transparent way what happened to this picture (it fooled everyone with a fake background) and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose It did in fact get 282 votes, was #4, and wasn't disqualified during the POTY 2022. Just note the fact that it has since been delisted as an FP because of mislabeling and leave it at that. Nardog (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  It got 282 votes and rank number 4 only because it cheated and fooled voters into thinking it was an incredibly lucky photo taken at the perfect time and place, which is not the case as the background is fake. If I had voted in round 2 of POTY 2022 I would surely have voted for it with one of the three votes if I didn't knew the background was completely fake. If I knew the background was fake I would never have voted for it in Round 2, Round 1 and in Featured pictures. POTY rules always allowed to disqualify an image at any time and this is a perfect exemple where this faculty should be used in my opinion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it fooled FPC voters. Let's say the manipulations were disclosed up front and it still passed (we do, after all, promote images with a wide range of photo edits from composites to focus stacks to stitched panoramas to cloned-out background elements, etc.). In that case, we do not have a mechanism to indicate the extent to which images are manipulated, so POTY votes would probably be the same whether or not it was declared at time of nomination. I suppose there's some sort of little icon we could include at the end of the description in gallery pages if there is a retouched template, with hover text along the lines of "this is a retouched image. click here to learn more" with a link to the appropriate file page section where users can read the {{Retouched}} text. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  It fooled FPC voters and POTY voters because the POTY voters had no information appearing to them on the file page that reality was completely different than what is presented in the picture. But I agree that, in addition to the retouched template (for files that didn't fool FP voters), more information could be provided to POTY voters as well. An easy way to do so would be to simply add for example "Photomontage - [rest of description]" in front of the description that POTY script automatically gathers -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  What happened happened. Let's just annotate and qualify the results and not retroactively misrepresent them. Nardog (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose - Prefer alt 3. I don't think we need to get into "disqualification" of historical third place finishers. We should just provide what information we can to users. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with giving information to readers but that's not incompatible with disqualifying the picture and to also mentionning it (will add that option) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support "Disqualified" or "Status revoked" or "Award revoked" -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Neutral I prefer Alt 4 because the text contains more information and is therefore more coherent. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support Works for me, but Alt 4 is better. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 2 : new minimal layout without disqualification word

• 
  Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg #1  335
• 
  Ethiopia Banna tribe kids.jpg #2  299
• 
  Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg #3  292
• 
  Church of light.jpg #4  282
   Info : delisted on 2024-10-19
• 
  Siebenpunkt-Marienkäfer (Coccinella septempunctata) auf Blüte im FFH-Gebiet "Viernheimer Waldheide und angrenzende Flächen".jpg #5  275

•  Oppose I think that not saying that it was disqualified would be the equivalent to keep the award to a file that fooled all voters and that would never had 282 votes and rank 4 if it wasn't for the fake background -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Neutral - Ok, but IMO not enough information/context. "Delisted" is jargon, and it doesn't explain why it was delisted. Prefer alt 3. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Giles Laurent and in favor of the proposal in Alt 4. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see now that this would be misleading. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 3 : new layout without disqualification word

• 
  Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg #1  335
• 
  Ethiopia Banna tribe kids.jpg #2  299
• 
  Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg #3  292
• 
  Church of light.jpg #4  282
   Info : After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked.
  See this link for more information.
• 
  Siebenpunkt-Marienkäfer (Coccinella septempunctata) auf Blüte im FFH-Gebiet "Viernheimer Waldheide und angrenzende Flächen".jpg #5  275

•  Weak oppose I think this is "less worse" than alt 2 but the lack of the disqualification word seems to imply that the picture kept its award, which is something I don't agree with as "crime should not pay" and it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I'm more interested in getting information to readers/reusers than making "disqualifications" of historical third place finishers. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with giving information to readers but that's not incompatible with disqualifying the picture and to also mentionning it -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support No misrepresentation by striking out, enough context for why there's a note at all. Nardog (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose The result should be crossed out, because it's clear the original background would never have gathered so many supports at POTY without copy-pasted church (perhaps not even passed at FPC) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose vote according to the opponents above. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support Works for me, but Alt 4 is better. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Rhododendrites that it's most important to convey what happened accurately. While I have no crystal ball, the delisting discussion gives me the impression that FP reviewers would have paid more attention to the modifications had they declared and likely would have found the technical quality of the image to not meet FP standards. On the other hand, POTY voters aren't exactly known for meticulously reviewing the file page for retouching details or even particularly evaluating the technical merit of the photographs. People vote for what they think looks nice, and many don't even go past the thumbnail view. So it's hard for me to say that, had the modifications been declared (and the file got through FP), this image wouldn't have still received significant support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 4 : new layout with disqualification and information

• 
  Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg #1  335
• 
  Ethiopia Banna tribe kids.jpg #2  299
• 
  Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg #3  292
• 
  Church of light.jpg #4  282
   Info : After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. As a consequence, this image was disqualified.
  See this link for more information.
• 
  Siebenpunkt-Marienkäfer (Coccinella septempunctata) auf Blüte im FFH-Gebiet "Viernheimer Waldheide und angrenzende Flächen".jpg #5  275

•  Support per above -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support "Disqualified" or "The status of this image was revoked" or "As a consequence, the award was revoked" -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Personally, I prefer this version also. The symbolic power of the crossed out score is understandable to everyone and complements the text. The text could perhaps be shortened a bit. Suggestion: "After the POTY competition, undisclosed manipulations were discovered, leading to the revocation of its Featured Picture status and disqualification. More information at this link." -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support A bit lenghty, but certainly the most comprehensible solution. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support It's a little long but whatever. I think this is the best option so far. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the crossed out numbers, that is clear to everyone. The text is problematic because a photo competition is purely visual and a blob of English text doesn't seem fair nor effective for non-English readers. Also I don't know how important explaining our internal processes is on a gallery. Wikis traditionally just leave a link for those interested to follow. The susinct explanation can be placed at the link. Thus I lean to Alt1.--Commander Keane (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support Only as a second preference. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 5 : no change

•  Oppose If no change is done, the POTY 2022 results page would stay as it is right now, which means the picture would still be keeping it's award. I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I suggested adding this option, but for procedural reasons. I think we owe it to our users to communicate what happened. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose vote according to the opponents above. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see now that this would be very misleading. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose A POTY finalist being delisted is significant and should be noted in the POTY results, not just on the file page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 6 : black box replacement

• 
  Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg #1  335
• 
  Ethiopia Banna tribe kids.jpg #2  299
• 
  Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg #3  292
• 
  Auto Racing Black Box.svg Disqualified
• 
  Siebenpunkt-Marienkäfer (Coccinella septempunctata) auf Blüte im FFH-Gebiet "Viernheimer Waldheide und angrenzende Flächen".jpg #5  275

•  Comment Use File:Placeholder POTY 2022.svg (a pure black svg with no borders) not the current racing box, it is the best I could do. I'm not even sure I support it, but I am just throwing this option out there. The link to could lead to a brief explanation page about the disqualification for those interested. This option expresses how seriously the community values declared manipulations.--Commander Keane (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Similarly a layout with transparent image was proposed here but it appears a major problem in the display of the file name below (like here, "Auto Racing Black Box.svg"). Also a black image can evoke a night shot (see the picture #3 called "Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg" for example), thus not immediately something "out of process" in the mind of everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, the technical limitation of the filename displaying is unfortunate. The transparent image is also highly preferable for this alt. Commander Keane (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest layout proposals for file page :

Alt 0 : no change

Picture of the year Quality image This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022. This formerly was a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and was considered one of the finest images. See its nomination [[Commons:|here]]. This is a quality image and is considered to meet the quality image guidelines. If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it. If you have an image of better quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

•  Strong oppose If no change is done the file would be keeping it's award. I personally think it's strange to keep an award to a picture that fooled everyone and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a valid candidate / finalist -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose vote according to the opponents above. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Misleading. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 1 : green

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Oppose Like Basile said, the delicate leaf, almost half a laurel wreath, doesn't seem to match a disqualification -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Text is fine but incoherent image -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of my support for Alt 5. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Misleading. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 2 : green with red cross

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Support Per above and alts 2 to 6 are fine with me -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of my support for Alt 5. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support in accordance with my reply comment in the Alt 5 section. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 3 : black and white

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Support Per above and alts 2 to 6 are fine with me -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Green or black = no difference for me. Not either -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of my support for Alt 5. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Neutral OK, but could be misunderstood. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 4 : black and white with red cross

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Support Per above and alts 2 to 6 are fine with me -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Neutral in favor of my support for Alt 5. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support in accordance with my reply comment in the Alt 5 section. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 5 : black (85% opacity)

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Support Per above and alts 2 to 6 are fine with me -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Green, grey or black = no difference for me. Not either -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I personally associate black with a kind of mourning ribbon. That's why I like the black laurel wreath as a symbol of the past. On the other hand, a red cross over the laurel wreath is too bold, too artificial. It would suit an everyday graphic, but here I think it disturbs the overall impression. The text next to it, in combination with the black laurel wreath, is clearly understandable for everyone. The 85% opacity setting is ideal, because a flat black in a symbol would be too dominant in relation to the black font. Softened black looks more harmonious. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment @Radomianin: a black and white ribbon on a black and white picture like this or that finalist would be kind of coherent. Note that there is no way of comparison when you pick up such a page at random. Thus the normal interpretation for the lambda viewer is certainly "nice black and white Laurel wreath" (for a nice black and white picture), more than "past time, nostalgia and lost colors". Black and white smiley ☺ :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your point, Basile. That's a good argument, and I hadn't quite thought of that kind of lay interpretation. I have changed my vote for the crossed out laurel wreath to a weak support. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also pinging @Giles Laurent: this is a fairly universal basic rule in the design of pictograms or logos, in graphic design: the icon must be immediately decipherable indifferently in black and white as in color -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I think that the green version with the medal () is well known to POTY voters. So changing it to is already a visual equivalent to removing the medal. But then is normally designed to be used for candidates according to it's name and use in the past (so not for disqualified pictures). The black version looks like to me as a completely burnt version of the green one, which I think is a nice symbolic of the disqualification and I like it. The grey version keeps the symbolic meaning of the black one and could be seens as it's turned into ashes after burning and I also like it. It is true though that to a new user unfamiliar with the POTY finalist medal it could look like a simple black and white version of a half laurel wreath but when looking at the text directly next to it with the disqualified word in bold I think that the meaning is clear and that any eventual misinterpretation would only last half a second --

  Giles Laurent (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note that POTY finalists are more likely to appear on the internet search engines, due to the consecutive rise in popularity. So the main visitors will probably not be regulars of the site, but complete strangers. And anyway, the message is supposed to be clear to anyone, not just "just in case". Coca-cola is associated to red color, however, when I see the black and white version displayed on the official site, I'm not starting to think that the company is completely burnt :-) I tend to think that technical or political constraints led to the choice of black and white. Similarly a star ⭐️ is usually yellow, but if you show me a black star ★, it remains associated to the sky, fame and glorious things. Because the shape has its own meaning. Sorry, it reminds me the old focus stacking pictogram which was certainly meaningful to the designer, but probably less so to users. Anyway, it remains a detail, and we will probably not manage to agree here. I am frankly happy to discover that there are quite wacky points of view among extremely rational and influential people like you :-) All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Neutral OK, but could be misunderstood. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alt 6 : black (75% opacity)

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19.

•  Support Per above and alts 2 to 6 are fine with me -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Green, grey or black = no difference for me. Not either -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose in favor of my support for Alt 5. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support Works, but the red cross makes things explicit. – Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For your information regarding alts 1 to 6

The template appearing on alt 0 would still appear but would be edited like this (and one of the alt 1 to 6 would appear above it in a separate box) :

Quality image This formerly was a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and was considered one of the finest images. See its nomination [[Commons:|here]]. This is a quality image and is considered to meet the quality image guidelines. If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it. If you have an image of better quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Alt 7 : black (75% opacity) with no disqualification word

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022. However, after the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information.

•  Oppose per above. Also I think that the lack of disqualification word is unclear in such situation -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Without the term "disqualification", the seriousness of the template is diminished. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (file page template)

I oppose all of the current options, including the option for "no action". This is currently set up like the language is already decided, and we've moved onto stylistic decisions, but I oppose the use of "disqualified". We should present information about what happened to potential users, but I don't think we need to make formal retroactive declarations of "disqualified" for historical contests. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add new alts without the "disqualified" word (but I personally think it should be disqualified because it intentionally fooled voters and shouldn't be awarded for it) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't personally care about how it's styled or what icon is displayed. Just arguing that whether it's disqualified is a separate decision. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, yes I understood that. But since you're opposed to alt 0 (no change) you could propose another alternative without the disqualification word. I've just added one for you with alt 7 that uses the formulation you proposed. Feel free to add other alternatives if you want to change the formulation -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Chosing layout/proposing alternative

Please use {{s}} or {{o}} for the layouts you prefer. Feel free to propose other layouts. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There should probably be an option for "no change". I don't anticipate that finding consensus, but it should be an option. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"no change" option added for vote. Pinging also Basile Morin and Radomianin that participated in the previous discussion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Giles. One more suggestion for an alternative on the POTY page (this would be my preference). I'd like an option which provides more specific information. "Delisted" is jargon and someone who doesn't know the context probably wouldn't know what to take away from these messages. I also think we don't necessarily need to get into retroactive disqualification to communicate what we need to communicate. So, for example: "Note: After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations and its status as a Featured Picture was susbsequently revoked. See this link for more information. [link to the delist discussion]". Since this is a rare occurrence, I don't see why we shouldn't be precise about what happened when it does come up. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just a suggestions to go into more detail in the second example above. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

New alt added (alt 3)

(Note for people that might want to add new alternatives (alt) : don't hesitate to add them yourself while keeping the same format for voting) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)