Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting

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

Third Annual Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year

(Preparation) · (Translations) · (Discussion) · Organising committee · (Issues / Help)

Introduction & dates · Voting · Round 1: Galleries · Round 2: Finalists · Results · Download

February 12th[edit]

Perhaps I should explain: It's February 12th, we haven't managed to get any movement on the automatic voting.

It was time to do something, and I planned out a way that made sure that, if worse came to worse, I could run this by myself.

I hope everyone will forgive me for the slight increase in difficulty, and/or if they dislike the category winners that were necessary in order to have a reasonable job of hand-tallying scores (if it comes to that).

Next year, we will know to be better organised. This year, it was me doing something major to set it up, or a good chance that we wouldn't manage to run it at all.

Thank you for your understanding,

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting eligibility?[edit]

"Voting is open for all Wikimedians who were registered before 1 January 2009".

This is unclear – does this mean any Wikimedia project account (such as Wikipedia) at least that old or a Wikimedia Commons account at least that old? Peter G Werner (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From middle 2008 (or before) the accounts are created automatically in all projects.Serg!o (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations[edit]

I'm not able to add the instructions page in hindi. I'm not able to see any link which directs to creating a new page in Hindi. What should I do? I have the translations ready. Twin.priyanka (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the +/- button and add Hindi into the list of languages for each page. You may need to make a new header to connect any Hindi pages together. Just copy-paste Template:2008POTY to Template:2008POTY/hi, translate the links in it, then paste

तृतीय वार्षिक विकिमिडिया कॉमन्स वर्ष का सर्वश्रेष्ठ चित्र

(तैयारी) · (अनुवाद) · (चर्चा) · आयोजन समिति · (मुद्दे/सहायता)

परिचय एवं तारीख · मतदान · प्रथम चरण: दीर्घा · द्वितीय चरण: अंतिम प्रतियोगी · परिणाम · डाउनलोड करें

at the top of your translation pages. Actually, if you do that, I'll sort out adding the hindi links to those pages from the other-language ones - I just need to know what to link to.

If you have any problems at all with that, tell me and I'll help you out. Thanks a lot! Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the links in Template:2008POTY/hi still be pointing to the English version to people can actually vote? Peachey88 (Contribs) (Wikipedia: User) (Wikipedia: Talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2[edit]

Before Round 1 get closed, it may be better to make Round 2 detail announced.--miya (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with miya, it's time to choose!--sNappy 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system[edit]

Will it be "votes as many as one likes" like Round 1" or "single vote" just like POTY2007? --miya (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be single vote, as before. I have made that clear on the voting page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --sNappy 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting mechanism[edit]

The round 1 mechanism allows users to vote easily by means of a "support" button next to a thumbnail. For the final, I suggest that voters should have to go to a separate page which displays the image at a larger size. We don't want people to vote on the basis of which looks the most impressive at thumbnail size. Maybe that matters less in round 1, but in the final voters should be looking at the images in more detail. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting eligibility for Round 2[edit]

(Moved from Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008#Voting eligibility for Round 2)

I think we can expand voting eligibility explanation (below). I know my English awful - please fix it. Thank you.--miya (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Voting eligibility for Round 2 ==

Voting is open for all Wikimedians who were registered before 1 January 2009 and with at least 200 edits on any Wikimedia project (by the beginning of the contest: 12 Feburary 2009 ). You must have all those edits on a single account. Even if you have multiple eligible accounts, you can only vote once. The voting register is to be made public to help detect ineligible voting.

To help checking the voting eligibility, please follow the advice below:

First, please check your SUL status and account eligibility:

If you have an eligible account, please vote using this template: Template:2008POTY/Vote.

  • If you were registered at Commons before 2009-01-01 and have more than 200 edits here before 2009-02-12, then sign as follows:
# {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount}}~~~~~
  • If you have an eligible account not at Commons but in some other wiki, please write its name as follows: # {{youraccount|wiki's name where your account has voting eligibility}}~~~~~, for example:
# {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount|fr.wikipedia}}~~~~~
# {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount|de.wikinews}}~~~~~
# {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount|en.wikibooks}}~~~~~
  • If you have an eligible acount different from the one you are using at Commons, make it clear on your userpage and sign as follows: # {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount|wiki's name where your account has voting eligibility|your username in that wiki}}~~~~~, for example:
# {{2008POTY/Vote|youraccount-in-Commons|wiki-name|youraccount-in-that-wiki}}~~~~~

If you have no account which was registered before 2009-01-01 or with 200 edits before 2009-02-12, you can still leave a comment in the comment section but you may not vote.

Finalists[edit]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting says "Each category of images will have a first, second, and third place award in that category, plus a number of honourable mentions sufficient to make sure that 1/10th the number of images in each category get an award." (By the way I think it very nice)I'm curious how many "honourable mentions" will be in which Categories. --miya (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Emblems and Diagrams (30) - honourable mentions will be 0.
  2. Non-photographic art and historic maps (31) - honourable mentions will be 0.
  3. People and human activities (45) - honourable mentions will be 1.
  4. Objects and outer space (40) - honourable mentions will be 1.
  5. Constructions 2|Cities, architecture, constructions, and related (33+35=68) - honourable mentions will be 4.
    1. Cities, architecture, constructions, and related 1 (33)
    2. Cities, architecture, constructions, and related 2 (35)
  6. Nature views (43) - honourable mentions will be 1.
  7. Panoramas (27+30=57) - honourable mentions will be 3.
    1. Panoramas 1 (27)
    2. Panoramas 2 (30)
  8. Plants and fungi (40) - honourable mentions will be 1.
  9. Arthropods (39+40=79) - honourable mentions will be 5.
    1. Arthropods 1 (39)
    2. Arthropods 2 (40)
  10. Birds (28) - honourable mentions will be 0.
  11. Other animals (40) - honourable mentions will be 1.
It should say at the top of each gallery page how many awards. The honourable mentions is that number minus 3 (for first, second third). I did those decisions, if anyone disagrees with any specific instances, feel free to comment here.
Also, note that Constructions, Panoramas, and Arthropods are treated as groups, not, say, Arthropods 1 as one group and Arthropods 2 as another. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and fixed the numbers. Do I understand you correctly? If not, please correct the numbers of the list above.--miya (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So [33 (1st, 2nd and 3rd place of each category) + 14 (honourable mentions overall)] = 46 will be the finalist images, isn't it? Thanks, --sNappy 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've forgot rounding, so I corrected the number of honourable mentions, adding 3. 33+17=50 will be the total number.--miya (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUL problems[edit]

At least two users have stated that the SUL utility is listing their accounts as unmerged, even though they have merged them. I don't know why that is; perhaps something to do with the server replag? That means we should be extra careful when removing votes from ineligible users. Pruneautalk 16:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting#Voting eligibility doesn't necessarily require SUL-completed account.
If SUL merging won't work well, I think those people have to make their accounts inter-lang linked - they should tie their over-200-edits account with their Commons account with interlang links mutually - just like we did before SUL system became available.
Let's list those exceptional users here to pay attention.--miya (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

　* [[User:]] - over-200-edits accunt:(wiki name) - (tool-server link) - (information)

The problem is with the toolserver link. For User:Tpa2067, look at [1]; he has over 200 contributions under that user name on fr.wp, but that account isn't listed by the toolserver. It looks like he signed up after January 1st, so he still isn't eligible, but there is nonetheless a problem with the SUL utility and we need to be aware of it. Pruneautalk 11:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long will the final go on?[edit]

Now you should comunicate how many days the Final will go on. Last year it kept 4 days, what about this year? (I would like to write it in the announcements) Thanks, --sNappy 09:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that that was far too short: anyone away on a week's holiday would have missed it. I would say 10 days at least, possibly 14. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/work on round 1 votes[edit]

Diagrams[edit]

  1. File:8-cell-simple.gif|Votelist 143, 136 133 (All checked on votelist)
  2. File:Simple CV Joint animated.gif|Votelist136, 130, 123 124 (All checked on votelist)
  3. File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg|Votelist128,123 118 (All checked on votelist)

Non-photographic art and historic maps[edit]

  1. File:Anime Girl.svg|Votelist 103 98 (All checked here)
  2. File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg|Votelist 99, 89 90 (All checked on votelist)
  3. File:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg|Votelist 91 86(All checked here)

People and human activities[edit]

  1. File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg|Votelist 225
  2. File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg|Votelist 132 130, checked here
  3. File:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleagesa.jpg|Votelist 131 127, checked here
  4. File:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg|Votelist 128 124, checked here　

Objects[edit]

  1. File:Reflection in a soap bubble edit.jpg|Votelist 187 173(All checked on Votelist)
  2. File:IrvingJohnstonAground.jpg|Votelist 131 127(All checked on Votelist)
  3. File:Stunt Pyrotechnics Luc Viatour.jpg|Votelist 124 117(All checked on Votelist)
  4. File:Messier51 sRGB.jpg|Votelist 118 106 (All checked on votelist)

Constructions[edit]

  1. File:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg|Vote page 180 170 (All checked in votepage)
  2. File:Chateau de Chenonceau 2008E.jpg|Vote page 177 168 (All checked in votepage)
  3. File:FirePhotography.jpg|Vote page 167, 160 161(All checked in votepage)
  4. File:Le grand foyer-2.jpg|Vote page 166 155(All checked in votepage)
  5. File:Copenhagen Metro escalators.jpg|Vote page 162 152
  6. File:Image-Disney Concert Hall by Carol Highsmith edit.jpg|Vote page 151, 140 138
  7. File:Gordon Dam.jpg|Vote page 133(All checked on votelist)

Nature views[edit]

all top 4 can be safely nominated. --Jklamo (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Pahoeoe fountain edit2.jpg|Votelist 198 184(All checked on Votelist)
  2. File:Mount-Yamnuska2-Szmurlo.jpg|Votelist 182 174(All checked on Votelist)
  3. File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg|Votelist 179 167(All checked on Votelist)
  4. File:Underwater mcmurdo sound.jpg|Votelist 156 140-141 (All checked on votelist)

Panoramas[edit]

  1. File:Blasting frankfurt.jpg|Vote page 189 181(All checked on Votelist)
  2. File:Paris Night.jpg|Vote page 173 169 (All checked on Votelist)
  3. File:Grand Canyon Horse Shoe Bend MC.jpg|Vote page 169 153(All checked on Votelist)
  4. File:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg|Vote page 163 155(All checked on Votelist)
  5. File:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg|Vote page 157 153(All checked on Votelist)
  6. File:UlvikfjordMountainsPanorama.jpg|Vote page 140 131 (All checked on votelist)

Plants and fungi[edit]


  1. File:Osteospermum Flower Power Spider Purple 2134px.jpg|Votelist 115, 111 108(All checked on Votelist)
  2. File:Narzisse.jpg|Votelist 113, 111, 107　106(All checked on Votelist)
  3. File:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg|Votelist 115, 108 100(All checked on Votelist)
(4) File:Dew on grass Luc Viatour.jpg|Votelist 91, 85, 82 81(All checked on votelist)
(4) File:Alberi AlpediSiusi.JPG|Votelist 89, 85 81 (All checked on votelist)

4th and 5th[edit]

Unfortunately I think the 4th and 5th will have to be checked carefully if there is any doubt about which is entitled to 4th place. Also the top two will need careful checking to see which is entitled to 1st place and the "best in section" award. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a quick check on half of the votes of a single nominee and found four (4) ineligible voters!! It even meant a shift in place. That more or less means that every single vote will have to be checked and double checked. I'm sorry but I won't be able to assist much as I will be out (and out of reach of internet) for several weeks soon. Lycaon (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request a cross-checking

As the result of double checking these files are equal counts. Please make a cross-checking.--miya (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you - or anyone - check their votes, please? I asked Adam Cuerden's opinion, he replied "I'd give five. It's fairer than arbitrarily excluding one or both." in my talk page.--miya (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Give five"

As no one has opposed to "give five", let's do so - that makes all the finalists are confirmed.--miya (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthropods[edit]

Total: 79 (8 awards in this class)

  1. File:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg - Vote page 173 171(All checked on Votelist)
  2. File:Cicada molting animated-2.gif - Vote page 146, 143 142(All checked on Votelist)
  3. File:LeopardMothBlueSpots edit2.jpg - Vote page 139 134(All checked on Votelist)
  4. File:Caliphrodae head.jpg - Vote page 123
  5. File:PlatycryptusUndatusFemale.jpg - Vote page 91
  6. File:Lubber.jpg - Vote page 87
  7. File:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Female 2838px.jpg - Vote page 76(All checked on votelist)
  8. File:Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg - Vote page 71 (All checked on votelist)

Birds[edit]

  1. File:Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg|Vote page 126 119-120 all checked by User:Mattia Luigi Nappi HERE.
  2. File:Diving emperor penguin.jpg|Vote page 126 116 all checked by User:Mattia Luigi Nappi HERE.
  3. File:Cyanistes caeruleus 3 Luc Viatour.jpg|Vote page 109 96-98 all checked by User:Mattia Luigi Nappi HERE.

Other animals[edit]

  1. File:Biandintz eta zaldiak - modified2.jpg|Vote page 262 This file counts more than 160 votes checked, see here.
  2. File:Synchiropus splendidus 2 Luc Viatour.jpg|Vote page 160, 150-151, checked here
  3. File:Total internal reflection of Chelonia mydas .jpg|Vote page 151, 143-144, checked here
  4. File:Red-eyed Tree Frog - Litoria chloris edit1.jpg|Vote page 139, 132-133, checked here

Voters list[edit]

I started voters list on my subpage for easier statstic and checking. --Jklamo (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking votes manually is hard and long job, it will take months complete. Is not there any automatic (or at least semi-automatic solution)? If not, i propose to check "border" votes (those near final border, on both sides) only, we will not have complete statistic, but it is possible to complete it in forseeable time. --Jklamo (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now here is a list of eligible/ineligible users that belong to the POTY project (not a user page), so everyone can edit it signing his edits (I created it on Miya's suggestion and I copied Jklamo's list). Do you agree? --sNappy 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. --Jklamo (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking summary[edit]

I created the summary page Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking (not all Priority 2 files are listed). Number of files in Priority 1 table may decrease, as in some categories may be gap enough big, to file have more votes checked against file with unchecked and thus checking not needed. Feel free to improve and update page. Voting register has grown and it is making checking much easier. --Jklamo (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do we need to complete votes' checking of all Low priority images before Final's beginning? Furthermore, what need to be done before the beginning? Bye, thanks. --sNappy 20:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we add another honorable mention in "plants and Fungi" (see #4th and 5th)? Then Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Finalists will be fixed finally.--miya (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm really rather ill, and am probably not going to be much help for a bit. We need some translation work: Somethinlike

"This image won [the [first/second/third] place award]/an honourable mention] in the category [Gallery name]." - for all the major languages. If someone can get a fill-in-the-blanks version of that for the necessary languages, I'll try and figure out how to work it into the Assessments template later.

We also need to determine who goes on to the next round. I'd suggest we mainpage each gallery's winners as we go through, or, I dunno, something. Why are you listen to someone so feverish he can't think straight?

Anyway, the translation problem isn't vital to starting the finals, though it must be done at some point. Determining the category winners/honourable mentions is, because they move on to the finals. I suppose that if it's easier, we don't actually need to go any further than the last final mention in the tabulation. I don't know what to do if there's a tie for the last honourable mention place. Probably throw both into the finals.

Anyway, that's all the informatin you need to know. If you need a sitemessage or anything, poke me, and I'll probably be able to set up the voting pages again, but riht now I'm in no state o do mysb of anythging. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fr: "Cette image a obtenu [le [premier/deuxième/troisième] prix]/une mention honorable] dans la catégorie [Gallery name]." --Eusebius (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it: "Questa immagine ha ottenuto [il [primo/secondo/terzo] premio/una menzione d'onore] nella categoria [Gallery name]". --sNappy 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ru: "Это изображение [заняло [первое/второе/третье] место] / [получило поощрительную премию] в категории [Gallery name]". Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sv: "Den här bilden [kom på [första/andra/tredje] plats] / [vann ett hedersvärt omnämnande] i kategorin [Gallery name]" //moralist (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
es: "Esta imagen ha obtenido [el [primer/segundo/tercer] lugar]/una mención honorífica] en la categoría [Gallery name]." --Taichi (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nl: Deze afbeelding won [de [eerste/tweede/derde] plaats]/[een eervolle vermelding] in de categorie [Gallery name]. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how many languages are we trying to cover? i could probably design a page layout that communicates the basic concept using numerals only; as long as the poty2008 logo was present, we could have at least a minimum-level report that communicates the basic concept, in any language that uses arabic-standard numerals. not a perfect solution, but until/unless we get translations for each lang, it would give us something (to fall back on) Lx 121 (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/No? it's not hard, & i don't mind doing it, but i have a lot of other projects ongoing, & really dont want to waste the time on something that's not going to be used... Lx 121 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2[edit]

Now all the finalists are confirmed, I hope - or wish - to open Round 2 from 2009-04-17 00:00 UTC (Friday) to 2009-04-26 23:59(Suday) for 10 days. How about this schedule? --miya (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (eventually longer but not shorter...), --sNappy 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see 14 days rather than 10, especially as we are now unavaoidably in April and voters won't be expecting this particularly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting eligibility[edit]

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting. Translations have to be updated.--miya (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting template[edit]

In order to check votes easily, I made a voting template - Template:2008POTY/Vote. If you sign {{2008POTY/Vote|your username}}~~~~~, it looks like thus: 

Miya (contribs - SUL) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it will work well.--miya (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I listed some problems in the template's talk. Look at them! --sNappy 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the template after your suggestion. Thank you for testing it! --miya (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votelist page[edit]

I made a sample here - Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Finalists/File:Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg. If we can manage to use Autotranslation system, it will be better - does anyone know how to use it?

Well, if it is OK, please help making votelists for every finalist. Thank you.--miya (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prepared them, too.--miya (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When to start?[edit]

The next thing is when to start? and how to announce? --miya (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of images in round 2[edit]

It's not clear to me how the images to be voted on will be presented in round 2 (sorry if I have missed something). The round 2 voting rules say "Simply go through the galleries, and click the "Votelist" button below any images you wish to vote for", which suggests voters will (like round 1) have to go through the galleries one by one. But in round 2 the galleries are not really of relevence any longer. Could the images be shown in thumbnail view all on one big page, with a vote button under each? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK I have now found Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Finalists, which is what I was expecting. I have edited the rules to link to that page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MichaelMaggs!
Can we start from today? - from 2009-04-19 till 2009-04-28, for 10 days. --miya (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I found someone has already voted!--miya (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

čeština | Deutsch | English | français | हिन्दी | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Bahasa Melayu | русский | +/−

OK, let's go! Is it OK if we close at the end of the month, though (30th)? I also suggest a specific time, ie 23:59 UTC, since voters will be in varying time zones. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope 28th so that we might (if we are lucky) announce the winner before the day when the licensing vote will close.
OK, make it "23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday)".
Anyway let's begin! Please announce in the channels you know.--miya (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do that now. The only thing I have noticed is that not all the translations have been done, eg for Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/banner2. Do you have contacts who could complete the translations quickly? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notices announcing the finals[edit]

The following channels have been spammed. Please add to the list as more are done:

Done[edit]

✓ Done Hope I have done it right. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests outstanding[edit]

Checking the round 2 results[edit]

Working page with current vote counts[edit]

Here is a temporary result >> Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking/R2.--miya (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I suggest we use that as the working page, as the votes are checked. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About tool server output[edit]

I found a problem about the tool server output yesterday. The tool is arranged to check "the number of edits currently" instead of "the number of edits before 2009-02-12". What will become of the votes of the people who has less than 200 edits before 2009-02-12 but more than 200 when they checked?--miya (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned this on Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2008#Flaw_in_suffrage_requirements quite a while ago and also talked to Pathoschild, who is running the AccountEligibility script. If there is consensus, that only the edits before 2009-02-12 should be counted, we can request that this be implemented into the script. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is Wikimedians registered before 1 January 2009 and with at least 200 edits on any Wikimedia project by 12 Feburary 2009. Is it possible to get the AccountEligibility tool updated with that information? I think it should be OK to check through SUL accounts for a given name only.
Some voters may be eligible on the basis of some other non-SUL account, but all such voters should have mentioned that account specifically, as required by the instructions. If they didn't, I don't think it's up to us to ascertain whether a non-SUL account that happens to have the same name as the voter on Commons is actually controlled by the same person. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the script accordingly. —Pathoschild 20:03:23, 02 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check for duplicate votes complete[edit]

I have checked all the votes for the final and there are now no duplicates. Astonishingly, voters heeded the warnings and those that did vote several times later returned and struck their excess votes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP votes[edit]

Posting by Martin H. copied here from Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008/Committee. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I started to help you with checking, but I noticed a problem: The votes dont have a signature, so I can not assure, that the vote was added by the voter. E.g. there are IP votes also on the votelists of the favorites, how to handle this? We should check the votelists of the top places. --Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or can we have a speedy botcheck "Voter never edited the votelist" on the talkpages to check and remove them? --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real problem. Checking by bot sounds the best way forward. Were you volunteering to do that? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or I suppose that the checker could look at the voting page history to make sure there are no IP votes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more fundamental question: can an IP vote be valid, eg this IP vote? It appears to have been a vote by a user who has lots of edits on enwiki and was eligible, but who was not logged in at the time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw others removing IP votes already during the voting process, therefore I checked the version history for the pages i checked so far and removed IP votes. However the sum of invalid and IP votes turned the vote, regretably its to late now, to point the users on their mistake. --Martin H. (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a serious issue if it changes the ranking of the top three. So far as I can see, we forgot to make it clear in advance that voters must be logged in when they vote. So, if an eligible voter is excluded for that reason they may have grounds to be annoyed. Can I suggest that for the top few images only, that might be in with the chance of an award, we exclude IP votes by default but count them as valid if the user replies to a question on their userpage confirming that they did vote and that they just forgot to log in? That should be enough to validate their identity. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this idea because of your arguments. It can change the result: the second place after checking can gain 3 votes, which leads to a draw if the first placed not gain his 1 removed vote. I named the 4 removed IP votes, i checked the version history of 3rd place (but did not proof eligibility so far, thats a bit too tedious work to do it the whole day), the 4th place is not touched by me so far. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea! & it helps to clear up a potentially messy situation, but it should be applies to ALL IP votes, just to be fair. it's not just the top finalists that matters here, but the work of every artist that made iot this far. if i had a poty:2008 finalist image to my credit, i would want the vote count to be accurate (up or down)! additionally, we need to consider the time issue; clearly the top finalists are the priority concern & should be completed asap, but we would need to allow a reasonable amount of time for IP vote users to reply... & what do we do if a legit user replies after an extended period? if this doesn't change the rankings (or not much) it won't be a serious issue. however, if the standing of the top 2, or the 3rd-4th say, were to be changed, as a result, it could be a bit awkward having to announce a change somewhere down the line. Also; i'm open to improvements & friendly criticism here: POTY_2008:_UNOFFICIAL_RESULTS_VOTE_TRACKER i now understand what a miserable grind it must be, doing the processing; but after 24 hours we really needed to get something up, & the vote check page is not easy enough to follow for the casual reader (nor is it intended for that purpose). once this is over, i think we really need to review the process & think about improvements/streamlining/automation(?). for one thing, the complicated arrangement of pages & links could probably be redacted somewhat. Final Point: is anyone handling PR/Media coverage? there are people out there who would be interested in reporting on WMC POTY, if a) we make the effort to inform them, & draw their attention b) we can get our act together & process voting results, and announce them, in a clear & timely manner (please don't take that last point personally, it is not directed at anyone in that spirit; i get it that this job is a pain, but if we want to look professional here, we need to do something to improve timing & results news) Lx 121 (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vote by user Icez was removed from this image. The user could not log in. According to sul the user has no account on Commons. We should have added to eligibility rules that only users, who have accounts on Commons are eligible to vote. On the other hand the votes by BoH and Benjamin.L were not removed from this image. Both users do have account on Commons, but voted as IP. Adding or removing votes from these two nominations probably will not change the outcome, but if we'd like it to be fair, we should follow the same rules I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now checked the complete Version history. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sure that both users BoH and Benjamin.L did vote for the image, but just forgot to log in. I would leave their votes on. (I left messages on both users talk pages few minutes ago). I contacted user Icez on their Wikipedia talk page, but there was no response. The last contributions of the user was made in 2007. I still believe their vote is probably OK, but I do not mind it was taken off my image. In other words I believe that the image this image that is on the third place now should remain on the third place and votes by BoH and Benjamin.L should be put back in. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is very gracious of you! but i think that if your work earned the vote, & that vote is legitimate, it should be counted; if that changes the results-ordering (even if it means a later revision announcement), then so be it. you do good work, this contest is not quite perfected yet, & i wish we had a higher-level of interest & more people that cared enough to become involved & vote, but you deserve the recognition. every artist-contributor who made it this far does :) Lx 121 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lx 121. It is not gracious of me at all. Of course I wish my image got the third place, but it is not the case, not for 2008 anyway :). The user BoH just confirmed their vore at the image nomination page, and by doing this removed all the doubts, who got the third place. I reinstated the user vote at the nomination page. I'm very sure that Benjamin.L vote is also legitimate. He did not respond the message I left on his talk page, but I believe it is because he is not so active on Commons. As I said earlier the vote by user Icez that was removed from my image is probably also legitimate one, but even, if it is added back, it will not change a thing for my image. That's why it is OK with me, if it is not added back. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking for the rest (after 4th or 5th)[edit]

I feel sorry that 4 tildes(~~~~) instead of 5(~~~~~) in the voting template would not have caused this problem. Yet I'd like to suggest that it is not necessary to make ranking to the rest of the finalists (after 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and so on). The aim of POTY is to find which is the best of the bests after all.

How about just announcing the count of the votes instead of announcing both of the rank and the votes? If we announce which image got how many votes, there is no need to rank other than 1st, 2nd and 3d: the viewers will know which image got more support.

While POTY2007/results anounced " #ranking number – vote count; explanation; Taken by (authorname)", can't we just anounce "# vote count (and vote count of IPusers, if any); explanation; author"? For instance, File:Blasting frankfurt.jpg may be such:

# 5 votes (and 1 IPuser vote [1]);

Blasting of a chimney at the former Henninger brewery in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Sachsenhausen;
Taken by Heptagon.

[1] - It might have been eligible if the owner were logged in.

We can still place the images in vote count order, If an eligible account user were to claim such IPuser vote for his, we just correct the vote count and change the order. All the finalists are wonderful, and I'd rather make a comment space for the viewers to post a praise after the contest, too!--miya (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well if we want to make 2 or possibly 3 separate pages, say: 1. a display page of the top-ranked winners. 2. a page of all the finalists with comment space, etc. 3. a page giving the detailed results & all relevant links, that would be cool.  :) BUT we do need to have a page up, that gives all the results, with full details, & all the relevant links, preferably in an easy to use firmat. this is WMC, it's a wiki, open & subject to peer review. we need to make sure that the entire poty2008 process is available & easy to follow, for (the few, probably) user who care enough to want to track such things. openess is key to credibility here! follow-up question. where is the right place to look for post-game analysis (for want of a better word). i.e.: a forensic breakdown & analysis of how things went this time, & review & discussion of how to improve poty next time (presumably 2009)? Lx 121 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Count Progress?[edit]

What's happening with the vote count processing? i was out all day; didn't really expect anyone else would bother to update the tracking page, but i did trhink that there would be new updates to add by now... are the (new) vote-check reports on the individual pages accurate & final? Lx 121 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More about IP votes[edit]

I contacted User:Icez, whose vote was removed from this nomination, and the user confirmed their vote for the image on their English Wikipedia talk page. As I mentioned earlier the user has no account on Commons and that's why voted as IP. Now, when the vote is confirmed, I believe it should be added back in. Of course I believe that the vote by user Benjamin.L, for this nomination should be added back in too. The user has not responded so far at the message I left on his Commons talk page, but it only means that the user might be not so active on Commons. If both these votes are added back, the result would stay the same, but I believe we should be fair for the users and make their votes count. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result for Round 2[edit]

Hi, as I wrote in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008, I listed the finalists in Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Results/Round 2/List according to the vote count on 2009-05-09. Please check and fix it all over. If there are mistakes or changes, you can correct them in this single page. Thank you.--miya (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2008/Voting&oldid=155236112"