Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2017/Committee

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

Graphs: Commons:Picture of the Year/2017/Committee/Analytics

Category changes[edit]

@Ham II: Hi. I saw you asked about Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2016/Help#Misnamed_categories last year. Are you willing to sort it out? (And feel free to add yourself to the committee user list.) I will be populating the candidate list soon, and the voting start date has not been determined yet, so we have time. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a new category, a page like Commons:Picture of the Year/2017/R1/Gallery/categoryname needs to be created, and a new section has to be added to Commons:Picture of the Year/2017/Candidates. I will look into what else is needed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+ MediaWiki:com-poty-cat-categoryname --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(for future reference: also MediaWiki:Translatable-messages) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+ Module:POTY/config & Module:POTY/i18n --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for thinking of me! Building on what I said last year, I think I would like the artwork categories streamlined to one category, Artworks, whch was previously a catgeory in POTY 2010. (Perhaps the title has therefore already been translated?) If this category is too large for some reason, then I would suggest Two-dimensional artworks and Three-dimensional artworks. Ceilings can be subsumed into Interiors and details. What would being in the committee involve beyond making these suggestions? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the committee would mean implementing them :) (oh, and doing probably-more-boring stuffs like checking votes, fixing stuffs if necessary, answering questions, categorizing images (most are great images btw)). I thick we can change the categories as long as we don't end up with some categories being too huge (since they have less chance to get into R2), or have otherwise very uneven distributions (except for "Videos and Animations", we always lack them). I also did an initial auto-sort (without removing some delisted ones) to User:Zhuyifei1999/sandbox/2 if you want to check; some categories are empty, and about a third is unsorted. Feel free to experiment with categorization. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CC @Steinsplitter, Miya, Uğurkent, FDMS4, and Moheen Reeyad: . --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go on then! What's the timescale for this? Ham II (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the timescale of adjusting the categories? ASAP. POTY should start in 1-2 months, since the CentralNotice approval process is... idk. Maybe @Steinsplitter: can clarify?
Btw, I'm not too sure about merging Ceilings into Interiors or Paintings / 2D Artworks. Checking the categories last year whichever category is merged into would end up being gigantic. Maybe re-divide 2D artworks after the merge (enumerating similar categories of en:Graphic_arts)? Or other suggestions? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just sorted the images of artworks and ceilings manually here. I'm inclined to agree with you now about ceilings; there are 42 images of ceilings compared to 36 of 2D artworks, 25 of sculptures. Clearly ceilings require a category to themselves. Ham II (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first we have to get the banner approved via the new procedure at m:CentralNotice/Request. Once dates for R1&R2 are determined we can start with setting up stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, is there anything I can help with. You might want to drop a note on the talk page of Feature Picture Candidates as more photographers watchlist that than watchlist the village pump. The people involved in categorising the FPs might be able to help with categorising your candidates for POTY. I think categories much larger than 100 are difficult as there will be viewer fatigue. But having tiny categories (e.g. 16 Other Animals last year) is also unfair as voters will feel they have to vote for one of them (whereas they may not vote for 10 nature views) and that category would automatically get its top two images automatically in round 2 which is really quite unfair. If tiny categories are unavoidable, then perhaps only the top 1 should be chosen, but I would still be reluctant to have categories smaller than 25, say. Which categories needed the "top two" addition, and did then end up doing well in the second round of voting? If they were neglected in the second round too, then perhaps they genuinely aren't categories that people get much wow from, and then the system is promoting them at the expense perhaps of something else more interesting. Would it make sense even to just arbitrarily split some big categories into "part 1" and "part 2"? Just some ideas. -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 and Part 2 is interesting. Never thought of that, heh. Yes, it's hard to come up with some categories that are individually neither too broad nor too specific, have not too many overlaps, and as a whole covers about everything...
As for those categories that needed the top two addition, last year there were quite a few, from "Artificially illuminated outdoor spaces" to "Paintings"... unexpectedly. Of the top 10 in R2 voting, #4,, #6, & #8 are from the top two in their categories, so I guess yes some can end up quite well in second round.
About asking the FP people, could you help with that? You're much more familiar with those people an I am. I'm not sure about others who may be in the committee. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhuyifei1999: I'd like to suggest the following changes to category names and icons:

Interiors of religious buildings
Two-dimensional artworks
Sculptures
Ceilings

What do you think? Ham II (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: Am I correct that you mean the first three replace the current "Interiors of religious buildings" "Paintings" "Sculptures and reliefs", and "Ceilings" is a new category under "Architecture"? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhuyifei1999: Yes to the first three, and "Ceilings" would replace "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass". Ham II (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. @Steinsplitter, Miya, Uğurkent, FDMS4, and Moheen Reeyad: Any thoughts? I can implement it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember suggesting that categories be changed last year, but I unfortunately won't have time to look through this until next weekend.    FDMS  4    02:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Imo the proposed new icons are much clearer than the current ones, however, I have some doubts changing the scope of the last three some of those categories is a good idea:
  • Two-dimensional artworks could include some photographical artworks that would normally rather be associated with other categories, not paintings. While "drawing" can be considered similar to "painting", drawings seem like a more appropriate fit for the illustrations category.
I've looked through the 2017 featured pictures here and I couldn't see any photographs that seem to belong in a 2D artworks category. I also couldn't see any drawings. Ham II (talk)
Wrong link? Re mixing paintings with murals please see below.    FDMS  4    20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant here. Ham II (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With associated with other categories I was referring to "particularly artistic" etc. photographs of e.g. buildings that imo should still be in the relevant building category rather than a 2D artworks category.    FDMS  4    05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afaics reliefs are artistically closely related to sculptures, and thus imo don't need to be separated at this stage.
Reliefs are sculptures, so the title "Sculptures and reliefs" is redundant. I'm not proposing to change the scope of this category, only the title. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, sorry.    FDMS  4    20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ceilings, but artworks on as well as next to them frequently seem to be the subject of photographs, and the current category name imo more appropriately reflects that.
"Ceilings" does sometimes overlap with "Two-dimensional artworks", but then again it sometimes overlaps with "Interiors of religious buildings" too. As the 2D artworks category would be surprisingly small – the ceilings one would be bigger – I think that photos of murals on ceilings where the architecture is barely visible, e.g. File:Christ Pantocrator (Church of St. Alexander Nevsky, Belgrade).jpg, should be in the 2D artworks category. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'd effectively be separating murals from murals with visible architecture yet at the same time mixing paintings with murals – while doing so might lead to more harmonised category sizes, voters might be confused by the imo unnatural grouping.    FDMS  4    20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As with "Sculptures and reliefs", murals are paintings. Ham II (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically most or all of them are, but I wouldn't say that they are usually closely associated with (conventional) paintings.    FDMS  4    05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I feel like it would be more convenient for voters as well as much fairer to the candidates if we didn't put candidates into one of those POTY-specific categories in the first place, but instead simply showed voters the eligible entries in the already existing and established Featured pictures by subject category tree (this would require slightly modifying the R1 rules). No longer having POTY-specific categories to sort candidates into would not only imo be more convenient for voters (flexible, more in-depth categorisation) and fairer to candidates (chances of reaching R2 no longer affected by our at times incorrect sorting choices), but also significantly reduce the overall workload of the committee.    FDMS  4    20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new icon for ceilings would be very 'specific' to ceilings. If we were to include frescos & stained glass, that icon wouldn't make so much sense to me imo. Images that would be included in "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass" but not "Ceilings" include File:Stained-glass_windows_ST._Vitus_2.jpg & File:Chartres_stained_window_complete_-_The_life_of_Jesus_-_retouched_final_version_MK_10.jpg. They do belong to 2D artworks, but not paintings...
As for using FP categorization directly, FPs have a multi-level hierarchical structure that can make our categorization very fragmented, imo. I'll see if I can make a page showing all FP categories last year (probably this Thursday or Saturday). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to see categories based on the existing FP categorisation; it seems sensible if it can be made to work. Ham II (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re icon for ceilings (et al.): True, but imo still better than the current one. As for fragmentisation, ideally the voting script would leave it up to voters to decide upon that – for example, it should be possible for voters to opt to be shown all candidates related to vehicles or just those related to rail vehicles and so on (in a FastCCI-ish way).    FDMS  4    20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll get do the icons this Thursday or Saturday depending on whether I have time on Thursday.
About 'searching', I wish rillke comes back :( Anyways, wouldn't it cause a bias against the images not in a commonly-great category? Say the top 10% of images in 'objects...' have an equal likelihood of winning as 90% if images in 'paintings...', wouldn't a search feature cause people to have a much less likely change to even search 'objects...'? I mean, the current implementation allows a voter to enumerate each category and choose whichever is best the categories, and category tops didn't perform too bad in R2, last year. (Well yeah probably the current top-two-in-category makes a bias toward those 'minority', but in R2 every image is equal :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As just discussed via IRC, the planned category system for next year is (could be) to use the existing FP category tree and in addition to letting users browse candidates in the full category tree provide gallery pages similar to the ones existing today but populated automatically based on a (fair and efficient) algorithm that would get all top-level FP by subject subcategories and then move images in multiple such subcategories to the less populated ones, with further category split-ups to be defined as needed.    FDMS  4    07:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4 and Ham II: I was doing the rename of "Sculptures and reliefs" into "Sculptures" and discovered that "Sculptures" was previously used as "Sculptures, Vitral and Inscriptions". How should we continue here? Continue with the rename and delete all the translations? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rename to "Sculptures" and delete the translations. "Sculpture, glass and inscriptions" isn't a very natural grouping in my opinion. "Vitral" isn't a word on merriam-webster.com or oxforddictionaries.com. Ham II (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same opinion here.    FDMS  4    19:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhuyifei1999: This page has gone quiet for a month. What's the latest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018-05-03T06:42:57 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Ham II (UTC)

Been busy with various IRL stuffs. I'll get to it hopefully tomorrow or the worst case next week --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II and Christian Ferrer: Could you check how stuffs are looking/working now? I implemented those unobjected changes. I also added you to the committee users list. Btw: For sorting images between sections in a gallery, User:Rillke/gallery-sort.js might help.
@Steinsplitter: Could you get the CN banners? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhuyifei1999: I sorted a few more images from the miscellaneous section, it seems that is ok to me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhuyifei1999 and FDMS4: I still think that "Paintings" should be re-titled "Two-dimensional artworks" and include stained glass. In its current configuration, "Paintings" includes textiles and works on paper; I would settle for "Paintings, textiles and works on paper", but not "Paintings". Frescoes are currently split between "Paintings" and "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass". As before, I think that frescoes should be in the same category as other paintings, unless the architectural setting is a significant part of the image. Ham II (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree, I think the current classification is fine. Firstly, it's pretty balanced, there is a signifiant number of images in each categories. Secondly many frescos are made within ceilings and differentiate the two has something illogical, as well as stained glass images are relevant to be sorted in the same category as it is part of the interior decoration of the buildings which also contains the two previous things. Paintings and illustrations includes by definition a lot of things and what is not included in this definition tends to be part of three-dimensional object photography. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that differentiating between two kinds of fresco is illogical, that is already happening in the current configuration. Why have "frescos" in the title of a category then have three frescoes outside it? I could accept the scope of "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass" remaining almost identical but with the title changed to "Ceilings and stained glass", and with the ceiling frescoes treated as ceilings (this photo, I think, would then have to go to the "Interiors of religious buildings" category), but I can't agree with some frescoes not being considered frescoes.
My only other main objection is to classifying prints and two-dimensional artworks generally as "Paintings". I think "Paintings and illustrations" would also be unsatisfactory as "illustrations" could imply scientific illustrations, something which I think was noted in a previous year. The title should be either "Paintings, textiles and works on paper" or "Two-dimensional artworks". Ham II (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrations are covered by Maps, diagrams and illustrations category. Given we only have 6 files in this category this year, I agree that something should be done on this. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Why have "frescos" in the title of a category then have three frescoes outside it?" : then that's quite simple the fresco images need to be sorted with the other frescos (into "Frescos, ceilings and stained glass") IMO. 2. Ok to bring the two together (paintings+maps) into something such as "Paintings, illustrations and two-dimensional artworks" or with a better name Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted two frescoes in the right category but don't find the third.
It is true that with a more general category including all 2D works (except frescoes) and the paintings we can move some additional images from the miscellaneous category (banknote, newspaper, ect....) Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the facts maps and diagrams are already a part of illustrations in the Wikimedia Commons category tree, therefore we can move all the images of "Maps and diagrams" within the current "Paintings and illustrations" category, and I suggest to rename this category into "Paintings, illustrations and paper products" in order that we can include newspapers, banknotes, ect... Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third fresco. It seems rather odd to now have these in the "Genre" of "Architecture" rather than of "Artworks".

It would also be odd for this to share a category with paintings. Perhaps the two images of paper maps could be added to a "Paintings, textiles and works on paper" category and the user-made diagrams and map could be added to "Objects, shells and miscellaneous"? Ham II (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why those three previously stayed with the paintings, but it seemed to bother you that all the frescos were not together. And that will bother me that the frescos are not with the ceilings. I agree the diagrams detonate too much when they are next to the paintings. That said do as you want dear colleagues, I will not do, personally, certainly nothing more for the formatting of those categories because I am and will be a bit busy. Do for the best, regards. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Christian, thanks for your work to date and for trying to accommodate my objections. In addition to my suggestions in the paragraph immediately above the last one by Christian, I think the three photos of dolmens should be moved from "Sculptures" to "Constructions and buildings" and these two photos moved from "Sculptures" to "Objects, shells and miscellaneous". Ham II (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I moved them --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Hello. I didn't do much about POTY because of the intensity in my life this year. I'm not be in the committee this year. They work well for it. Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important: The title "Paintings" can't stay as it is while it includes works which aren't paintings; where can I request translations of the title "Paintings, textiles and works on paper"? Ham II (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should better go with renaming the category (as in create MediaWiki:Com-poty-cat-paintings, textiles and works on paper and related pages) rather than updating the interface messages of the category name. I don't object this naming, but I don't know what are the conclusions of the discussion above. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the option of renaming the category while maintaining the existing scope above, but I don't think it's been addressed by anyone else. Ham II (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed with FDMS a bit on IRC, and this is done. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, Zhuyifei1999; it's very much appreciated. I hope that in future years this sort of discussion will be be less necessary, if an algorithm can be devised to do most of the categorisation work. Ham II (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CN banners and start / end date[edit]

@FDMS4, Ham II, and Christian Ferrer: Steiny said that he is really busy with IRL stuffs right now and dn't have time to work on the CentralNotice banner. Can we determine the start and end dates for both rounds? CN banner approval takes like a month and we might need some time between the rounds to get the vote results.--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R1 start checklist[edit]

Anything missing here? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close[edit]

I'll probably not be awake at '24 June 2018, 23:59:59'. Can someone re-enable the entry in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (uncomment (remove the #) # Commons:Picture of the Year\/2017\/R\d\/v\/.*) at the time? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also change Template:POTY2017/state to "afterR1" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks to steiny this is done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

360° panoramas[edit]

Example we have a button "vote", a button "info" and a button "next set image" when the image is part of a set, I suggest that for this kind of candidate a button "View in 360°" or "360° viewer"be added. If this can be implemented now so much better otherwise for the next years editions this will be an interesting feature IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! But I have no idea how to make the gadget aware of 360°s. @Perhelion: ideas? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R1 results[edit]

I did a run of my script and posted the output to User:Zhuyifei1999/poty/potyvotesR1.py/2017 (copied the gallery to Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2017/Candidates/R2). @Steinsplitter, FDMS4, Ham II, Christian Ferrer, and Moheen Reeyad: Could the committee check if the stuffs (like the counting, eligibility, and other logic) are sane? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't checked every file by hand but looks OK for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Looks good to me. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I checked randomly some results manually, that matches. OK for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: https://github.com/Pathoschild/Wikimedia-contrib/issues/105 one inconsistency in the 'eligibility' on my script vs the tool, which steiny scanned over --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the use by this user of scripts two times can explain the difference of two edits [1] and [2]. But I'm not a specialist and this is maybe just a far-fetched hypothesis. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, that counting is on frwiki, not here. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I did one candidate replacement because a finalist was unfortunately deleted. Our all-category #30 is a tie between two images, so only category tops were a concern. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee Meeting[edit]

Can we have a meeting on IRC? There are some questions to discuss (which are non-public). I propose 29 June 2018 15:00 on our IRC channel. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry at 15:00 (UTC) I am working and I have not internet access, my availability is every day (all UTC) 04:30-05:15 / 11:00-11:50 / 17:30-20:00. Saturday 30 June I will not be available before 17:00. Sunday ok if I'm aware in advance. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R2 results[edit]

I had to completely rewrite the script but here it is (at the bottom): User:Zhuyifei1999/poty/potyvotesR2.py/2017. Can the committee check if everything looks fine? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will run my vote eligibility checker (may take up to ten hours). Then we can announce it (maybe in a few days, we still have to setup a few pages and i have to communicate it to WMF for the blogpost) :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, I checked a few, manually,. It is fine for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Currently working on the setup of the announcement page. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WMF blog post and results will be announced on Monday, after 13:00 UTC. Hope it is OK :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2017/Committee&oldid=312489785"