This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022
This formerly was a Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. Click here for more information.
This is a Quality image. Click here for more information.

Commons talk:Picture of the Year

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The results are in! View results
·
end
1

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

[edit]

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 :

[edit]

Alt 1 : new layout with disqualification

[edit]
  •  Support I think adding this is extremely important as it allows the community to see in a transparent way what happened to this picture (it fooled everyone with a fake background) and that "crime should not pay". Else it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It did in fact get 282 votes, was #4, and wasn't disqualified during the POTY 2022. Just note the fact that it has since been delisted as an FP because of mislabeling and leave it at that. Nardog (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It got 282 votes and rank number 4 only because it cheated and fooled voters into thinking it was an incredibly lucky photo taken at the perfect time and place, which is not the case as the background is fake. If I had voted in round 2 of POTY 2022 I would surely have voted for it with one of the three votes if I didn't knew the background was completely fake. If I knew the background was fake I would never have voted for it in Round 2, Round 1 and in Featured pictures. POTY rules always allowed to disqualify an image at any time and this is a perfect exemple where this faculty should be used in my opinion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it fooled FPC voters. Let's say the manipulations were disclosed up front and it still passed (we do, after all, promote images with a wide range of photo edits from composites to focus stacks to stitched panoramas to cloned-out background elements, etc.). In that case, we do not have a mechanism to indicate the extent to which images are manipulated, so POTY votes would probably be the same whether or not it was declared at time of nomination. I suppose there's some sort of little icon we could include at the end of the description in gallery pages if there is a retouched template, with hover text along the lines of "this is a retouched image. click here to learn more" with a link to the appropriate file page section where users can read the {{Retouched}} text. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What happened happened. Let's just annotate and qualify the results and not retroactively misrepresent them. Nardog (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose - Prefer alt 3. I don't think we need to get into "disqualification" of historical third place finishers. We should just provide what information we can to users. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with giving information to readers but that's not incompatible with disqualifying the picture and to also mentionning it (will add that option) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support "Disqualified" or "Status revoked" or "Award revoked" -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I prefer Alt 4 because the text contains more information and is therefore more coherent. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support Works for me, but Alt 4 is better. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Prefer alt 3. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The more brief, the better: just a link to the disqualification suffices. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2 : new minimal layout without disqualification word

[edit]

Alt 3 : new layout without disqualification word

[edit]
  •  Weak oppose I think this is "less worse" than alt 2 but the lack of the disqualification word seems to imply that the picture kept its award, which is something I don't agree with as "crime should not pay" and it would mean that anyone is free to fool the community and win awards by cheating without true consequence -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  •  Support No misrepresentation by striking out, enough context for why there's a note at all. Nardog (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose The result should be crossed out, because it's clear the original background would never have gathered so many supports at POTY without copy-pasted church (perhaps not even passed at FPC) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose vote according to the opponents above. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support Works for me, but Alt 4 is better. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Rhododendrites that it's most important to convey what happened accurately. While I have no crystal ball, the delisting discussion gives me the impression that FP reviewers would have paid more attention to the modifications had they declared and likely would have found the technical quality of the image to not meet FP standards. On the other hand, POTY voters aren't exactly known for meticulously reviewing the file page for retouching details or even particularly evaluating the technical merit of the photographs. People vote for what they think looks nice, and many don't even go past the thumbnail view. So it's hard for me to say that, had the modifications been declared (and the file got through FP), this image wouldn't have still received significant support. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - per above. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 15:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - this novel distracts too much and implies intentional wrongdoing by the contestant. This uploader likely never learned about the nomination, the win or the disqualification. The "Disqual-text" needs to be extremely brief (the page(s) it links to can be crazy long if needed) , and be handled in a case-by-case basis given how rare this is. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The file was originaly uploaded to participate in Wiki Science Competition 2019 in Ireland and won an award there (and possibly a money prize as well). The original description was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating and intentional wrongdoing. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 4 : new layout with disqualification and information

[edit]

Alt 5 : no change

[edit]

Alt 6 : black box replacement

[edit]
  •  Comment Use File:Placeholder POTY 2022.svg (a pure black svg with no borders) not the current racing box, it is the best I could do. I'm not even sure I support it, but I am just throwing this option out there. The link to could lead to a brief explanation page about the disqualification for those interested. This option expresses how seriously the community values declared manipulations.--Commander Keane (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Similarly a layout with transparent image was proposed here but it appears a major problem in the display of the file name below (like here, "Auto Racing Black Box.svg"). Also a black image can evoke a night shot (see the picture #3 called "Pillars of Creation (NIRCam Image).jpg" for example), thus not immediately something "out of process" in the mind of everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I think the text "Auto Racing Black Box.svg" that can't be removed is problematic and confusing. Also I prefer when we know what image we are talking about -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Showing a black or transparent box in place of the disqualified image can be confusing. It’s not immediately clear to the community and may raise questions among those who aren’t informed. There should be a clear indication at first glance of what happened. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support - A very good idea (not showing the disqualified image), although the filename of the black box must not show. Maybe just create a black div-panel? Anyway, there needs to be a link to an explanation page that also shows the picture, but all details about the why and how should be given there. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest layout proposals for file page :

[edit]

Alt 0 : no change

[edit]
Picture of the year
Picture of the year
Former Featured picture
Quality image
Quality image

Wikimedia Commons

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.

Alt 1 : green

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

Alt 2 : green with red cross

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

Alt 3 : black and white

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

Alt 4 : black and white with red cross

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

Alt 5 : black (85% opacity)

[edit]
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)[reply]
  •  Oppose Green, grey or black = no difference for me. Not either -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I personally associate black with a kind of mourning ribbon. That's why I like the black laurel wreath as a symbol of the past. On the other hand, a red cross over the laurel wreath is too bold, too artificial. It would suit an everyday graphic, but here I think it disturbs the overall impression. The text next to it, in combination with the black laurel wreath, is clearly understandable for everyone. The 85% opacity setting is ideal, because a flat black in a symbol would be too dominant in relation to the black font. Softened black looks more harmonious. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Radomianin: a black and white ribbon on a black and white picture like this or that finalist would be kind of coherent. Note that there is no way of comparison when you pick up such a page at random. Thus the normal interpretation for the lambda viewer is certainly "nice black and white Laurel wreath" (for a nice black and white picture), more than "past time, nostalgia and lost colors". Black and white smiley ☺ :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I think that the green version with the medal () is well known to POTY voters. So changing it to is already a visual equivalent to removing the medal. But then is normally designed to be used for candidates according to it's name and use in the past (so not for disqualified pictures). The black version looks like to me as a completely burnt version of the green one, which I think is a nice symbolic of the disqualification and I like it. The grey version keeps the symbolic meaning of the black one and could be seens as it's turned into ashes after burning and I also like it. It is true though that to a new user unfamiliar with the POTY finalist medal it could look like a simple black and white version of a half laurel wreath but when looking at the text directly next to it with the disqualified word in bold I think that the meaning is clear and that any eventual misinterpretation would only last half a second --
    Giles Laurent (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that POTY finalists are more likely to appear on the internet search engines, due to the consecutive rise in popularity. So the main visitors will probably not be regulars of the site, but complete strangers. And anyway, the message is supposed to be clear to anyone, not just "just in case". Coca-cola is associated to red color, however, when I see the black and white version displayed on the official site, I'm not starting to think that the company is completely burnt :-) I tend to think that technical or political constraints led to the choice of black and white. Similarly a star ⭐️ is usually yellow, but if you show me a black star ★, it remains associated to the sky, fame and glorious things. Because the shape has its own meaning. Sorry, it reminds me the old focus stacking pictogram which was certainly meaningful to the designer, but probably less so to users. Anyway, it remains a detail, and we will probably not manage to agree here. I am frankly happy to discover that there are quite wacky points of view among extremely rational and influential people like you :-) All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 6 : black (75% opacity)

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

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

[edit]
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.

Alt 8 : black and white with red cross with no disqualification word

[edit]
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.

For your information regarding alts 1 to 8

[edit]

The template appearing on alt 0 would still appear but would be edited like this (and one of the alt 1 to 8 would appear above it in a separate box) :

Former Featured picture
Quality image
Quality image

Wikimedia Commons

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.

Discussion (file page template)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Feel free to add new alts without the "disqualified" word (but I personally think it should be disqualified because it intentionally fooled voters and shouldn't be awarded for it) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Giles. Please also, cast your vote(s) above to make things clear. It seems logical that the most popular option should be validated by consensus. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chosing layout/proposing alternative

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Perhaps this is just a suggestions to go into more detail in the second example above. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Rhododendrites, I agreed with your suggestion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

@Giles Laurent: do you agree we can now close this section? I think everybody had enough time to cast their votes above. With equal weight given to supports and oppositions, the favorite options seem to be #4 for the POTY page and #4 for the file page. If you agree, could you please update the new template {{POTYdisqualified}} with the relevant icon, so that we can use it on the file pages? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've written here, I believe that disqualifying an image from POTY is exclusively something in the competence of the POTY committee as POTY rules says it. I also believe that removing the award from the file page is of POTY committee competence as well. The proposals are also only proposals/discussions to see what everyone thinks is the best option. But disqualifying the picture stays a POTY committee decision. Wikimedia is not a democracy for everything. For example a jury can elect a 1st place winner picture in a contest they created eventhough most other users may have not selected the same one.
For the moment only 3 out of 4 active POTY committee members have given their personal thought on the matter. But the sum of all individual thoughts of POTY committee members is not necessary the same as the formal decision that the committee in corpore will take as to wether the picture is disqualified or not. As Rhododendrites wrote here, the POTY committee would be wise to take community input into consideration in making that decision (but the POTY committee doesn't necessarily need to have the same opinion).
So for the moment there's two things we are waiting for :
1) Ingenuity's opinion ;
2) The POTY committee in corpore's decision wether to disqualify the church picture.
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity, we are waiting for your personal opinion on the question of what should be done with the church picture. One easy way to give it is by adding votes on the above different proposals (or creating a new proposal).
But you are also free (if you prefer) to renounce to give an opinion on the matter and to delegate the decision to be taken by the POTY committee to the other members of the committee. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: the icons currently used in {{Assessments}} for the POTY finalists were designed by you here and the decision was taken democratically by 11 voters, including a few POTY committee members. The choice to use them or not may be a group decision, but the visuals themselves probably don't need to be voted on by this jury exclusively. The more participants there are, the clearer the consensus. Sure there is no rush, but on the one hand, every day that passes prolongs the undeserved celebration of a finalist photo. I don't know if there are any discussions currently taking place off-wiki about this, but if the template is updated then it will be usable by accredited people. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted the topicons discussion I wasn't sure where to post it. Only an admin could have implemented the request and the Edit request template page said that edit requests made to admins needed a clear consensus so that's why I opened votes there.
As for the change of POTY rules (top 5% of each category instead of top 2 of each category), the actual rules say that it's of POTY committee competence to determine them. Ingenuity had proposed top 5-10% originally and I suggested to use 5% instead. No one else had responded to that change of rules and Ingenuity wasn't even a POTY committee member at the time. So I thought that it would be very wrong that such an important change gets implemented without a proper community discussion involving at least some POTY committee members. I also felt that if there wouldn't have been a discussion, some people would likely have complained that rules were changed without any consensus or POTY committee approval. That's why a formal discussion on changing the rules was opened and I think it's a good thing that people that didn't agree at the time with the 5% had a chance to propose another solution.
As for the disqualification it's again of POTY committee competence like for the rules. Sadly this time they seem to have another vision than the community consensus but it's their competence anyway so I think we have to accept it even if we don't agree with it. Anyway we're still waiting for Ingenuity's position as well as the POTY committee's in corpore's position on the disqualification matter -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a strong consensus against using the term "disqualified" Given that three members have agreed on Alternative 3 for the results page, we should respect that choice.
For the file page, the proposed note is clear and transparent. I suggest we use this wording suggested by Rhododendrites:
"Note: After the POTY competition, this image was found to include undisclosed photo edits/manipulations, and its status as a Featured Picture was subsequently revoked. See [this link](link to the delist discussion) for more information."
This message is straightforward and informative, providing viewers with the necessary context without additional complexity.
As Giles Laurent rightly pointed out, the committee’s suggestions should be honored, as they are responsible for these decisions. Thank you all for your cooperation in maintaining clarity and fairness in this process. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 votes is not really a "strong" consensus. But there might be a stronger consensus of incomprehension among people here for the committee's refusal to disqualify a doctored photo that clearly did not deserve to reach the competition. As evidenced by at least the 6 votes (twice three) in support of option 4 (including that of committee member AntiCompositeNumber). The other photo competitions disqualify their fake pictures, but not Wikimedia Commons? How odd -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the jury has its own rules, but I personally believe that a democratic consensus should not be ruled out here either (re. option 4). I agree with Basile Morin's statement. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Basile. POTY rules state that the POTY committee can disqualify a candidate. In this case we have a picture where uploader clearly intentionally fooled everyone by writing in the file description that it was a single photo when in reality it was a fake background. If this isn't a case for disqualification then I don't understand in what case disqualification would be used. I also think that not disqualifying the picture is extremely unfair for all other file candidates that were honest and didn't try to cheat. Also as Basile said and as seen in these examples, other photo competitions disqualify cheaters so I really don't understand why not do it here. Finally, that "in between" state by not using the disqualification word looks very unclear, confusing and cloudy to me whereas officially disqualifying would make things very clear -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony, so if I understand well you are in favor of alt 7 or alt 8 for the file page presentation? In that case don't hesitate to support both of them so we also have a clearer view of POTY committee preference for the file page (or if you have another idea in mind don't hesitate to add an alt 9) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to restate/reframe: I would support using terms like "disqualified" or "invalid" only where an image's entry into the contest is illegitimate at the time of the contest (or perhaps in extraordinary cases where legality comes into play). If an FP was legitimately an FP at the time of the contest, I think there are a number of ways we can communicate important information to users but don't support calling it "disqualified" or "invalid". Here's how I'd tell the difference: over at FPC, when a promotion is considered invalid, the FP designation is simply removed. We see this happen when, for example, someone votes twice or a sockpuppet sways the result. We don't require a delisting discussion; we just retally the votes and change the status accordingly. If sockpuppetry, etc. is discovered after the image appears in POTY, I'd support being clear that it was not a legitimate candidate (with an explanation). However, if something was not so clearly in violation of FPC rules that the designation can simply be removed (i.e. if we instead need a discussion to debate whether it did, in fact, merit promotion), then its appearance in POTY was legitimate at the time of the contest and I don't think it makes sense to call it disqualified. That's my take with my POTY committee member hat on (a hat, especially following all this, that I'm eager to give to someone else). If you want to leave it up to the committee, that's probably roughly where things will land, but POTY rules are not policy and if there's consensus it shouldn't be up to the committee, I guess that's that. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a picture is found after the contest to be illegal because of it's content or because it's a copyvio or because there lacks the consent of the person photographed for example then the picture is simply deleted from Wikimedia Commons and automatically disqualified without the need for the POTY committee to use it's disqualification competence. We already have example with for example picture #52 of POTY 2022 and picture #13 of POTY 2019.
In my opinion the church was illegitimate to enter the contest at the time of the contest because it's qualification was based on the fact that it was falsly presented as being a single shot with a real background. Therefore all votes made to promote it to FP were made by beeing completely fooled about what they were voting for and in my opinion we can call a picture that fooled everyone an illegitimate picture because the supports were not legitimately obtained. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that FPC rules state that : Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
Therefore there is absolutely no doubt in my opinion that the church picture was illegitimate to reach FP status because it was clearly violating FPC rules -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm completely on the same wavelength as Giles. I admit that I don't even understand why this disqualification is not automatic, because the entire discussion has already taken place on the delisting page, and the votes are both explicit and consensual. The committee would only have to refer to this page to justify their decision. Yes, a "dis-qualification" should come from this lack of "qualification", since the necessary prerequisite for acceptance to the competition is success at FPC. Failure in FPC automatically results in non-qualification, so similarly, it seems logical to consider that the loss of FP status retrospectively causes the withdrawal of this right to qualification. And yes, if this obvious case of cheating or violation of the rules is not considered "disqualified", then in what case is the famous "disqualification" mentioned on the competition page applicable? I also think that a bit of rigor and severity would refine the level of requirement of the contest, and its credibility rate, by clearly highlighting the unacceptable limits, and the stakes of non-compliance.
Once awarded, the QI status cannot be withdrawn, but it is different for the FP label, and it seems to be the same for the POTY finalists too. Otherwise we can open a new section here or at the Village Pump to discuss the opportunity to dispel any ambiguity by modifying the rules page for the next contests to specify that there will be no disqualifications, no matter what, just possible updates. I understand that taking charge of this update does not make the organizers jump for joy, because it is a rather unsavory mission, compared to the management of all the beautiful winning images that are not problematic. And it is also a photo that concerns a previous year. But the committee is independent of the year of the competition, so it is difficult to recall the jury at the time. Also, when we write "This formerly was a featured picture", we understand that the FP status has been withdrawn. Similarly, when we read "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year", we understand that the image is no longer a finalist. This revocation is in my opinion explicit, and synonymous with disqualification. Shouldn't we simply accept an obvious fact that is already reality? Agree to use the appropriate word for an objectively equivalent situation? -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong; I get where you're both coming from. I get that you both feel strongly (and that you're not the only ones). Here's where I'm coming from: I'm less thinking about this specific case and more thinking about a heuristic POTY can use. Here's where I land: POTY only includes FPs promoted in the previous year which are still an FP at the time of the contest. Those delisted beforehand should simply be removed from competition. Once the competition is over, if becomes whether the FP promotion was valid at the time. When it is discovered that an image was promoted because of sockpuppetry, because of a double vote, or that the image was improperly licensed/stolen, FPC doesn't require a new delisting discussion, with multiple possible outcomes, to determine whether it should be delisted. It is simply removed (or, in the case of copyright, just deleted -- no delisting discussion required). In these cases, the FP promotion was simply illegitimate; no consensus on delisting needed. On the other hand, if the quality is no longer up to standard, if manipulations were discovered, if the description was found to be inaccurate, or if any of a host of other reasons come up that we don't consider to automatically render the previous nomination invalid. Instead, we open a delisting discussion to see if there's consensus to remove it. I'm thinking about "was an FP technically an FP at the time of the contest", not "would an FP have been an FP If voters had all the information". Let me be clear: it absolutely should've been delisted, and should've never been promoted. This isn't about retaining some kind of credit for a deceptive image but thinking about what procedure makes sense for POTY such that it can be applied again in the future. I proposed some wording above, but I'm not opposed to something stronger if it's the strength of language that gives folks pause. I just don't want to create a precedent that delisting = retroactive disqualification if a handful of people demand it enough times on the talk page. Other than making claims about formal "disqualification", I think you should say whatever strong language you think is most appropriate on the file page. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is just a question of having a "standard procedure" I think one could easily be elaborated and I already proposed one here.
Basically once the contest has happened :
  • If the picture is delisted because it deceived voters at the time (for example with undeclared photo manipulations) or because it was promoted only because of a sockpuppet, it should be disqualified and lose it's POTY finalist award.
  • In all other delist cases, the award should be kept as it was fairly obtained.
(And if a picture is illegal for any reason like licensing it's already deleted from Wikimedia Commons without any action needed from POTY Committee)
We currently have 18'869 featured pictures and pictures delisted because they deceived voters at the time with undeclared photo manipulations are extremely rare. Such cheating pictures that got POTY finalist award are even more rare and can be counted on the fingers of a single hand.
Deceiving the voters is such a such a crass violation of FPC rules that I don't see how it couldn't trigger a disqualification. Using a sockpuppet is serious cheating. Deceiving voters is serious cheating. If sockpuppeting could trigger a disqualification I don't see why deceiving voters couldn't.
There is no other wording than disqualification that would make sense to me (especially if rules allow it) and a cat should be called a cat else things look unclear, confusing and cloudy -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Giles, for the energy you spend to assert your point of view, which I share 100%. I also think that we should call a spade a spade, and that if "disqualified" is the "strong word" to use, then let's stop beating around the bush. I also agree with your suggestion of "standard procedure". In fact in this situation, the question of "was the FP promotion valid at the time" or that of "was an FP technically an FP at the time of the contest" clearly induces a negative answer. The photo is fake! It's just a scam. So what, valid?! Well... no. Technically cheat. And otherwise, in which case the POTY candidates would be "invalid", I really don't see a more trivial example. Exactly the same in the case (potential) of double voting or sockpuppetry. If the FPC is not valid, then neither is the POTY candidate. Since winning the FPC is a prerequisite. There really seems to be a problem of judgment here, or of bias. And what worries me, above all, is that this tolerance for cheating risks constituting a precedent, like "we didn't disqualify the previous fakes, so why prevent the next ones?" That's the "standard" in my opinion, calling things by their name. Or, is it a question of interpretation of the written rules? Or of drafting? Perhaps it is necessary to agree and to specify whether or not a retroactive disqualification is possible or whether the disqualifications are valid only for the current year, or during the competition. To date, it does not seem to exclude retroactive exclusions. Current text is "The committee reserves the right to disqualify or replace candidates in exceptional circumstances, but will not use this ability without careful discussion." Should the wording be changed? I don't think so, but if others have another opinion, we can discuss it. The only thing I am firmly convinced of is that we are facing "exceptional circumstances" now. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with Basile and I can't think of a better example of "exceptional circumstances" justifying a disqualification.
I also don't like the fact that a precedent is about to be created here where cheating and deceiving is about to be officially tolerated -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's the word "disqualified" below a photo on the results page, it will have such power as to deter future misleading nominations at FPC, but if there's a great big note that it was found to be heavily manipulated and subsequently delisted at FPC, that sets a terrifying precedent that encourages cheating?
To repeat my position, I think the POTY committee should absolutely disqualify images if something like this happens before/during the POTY competition. The question here is about retroactive disqualifications, and what I want is to be able to communicate clearly what the threshold is/was for such things. "Undeclared manipulations" are quite variable, and I can imagine a case where an image was promoted without such a declaration but there's no consensus to delist. I can also imagine many ways for past FPs to be delisted that shouldn't disqualify them (several of the images from the first competitions on quality reasons, for example).
I'm likewise concerned about the precedent an extraordinary case would set for these reasons, which is why my thinking is that POTY rules should follow FPC rules. My sense of "disqualification" at FPC is like when sockpuppetry gets an FP promoted or when it turns out the photo is a copyright violation. In such cases, it's not "delisted", the FP star is just removed (or the page deleted). In those cases, we should retroactively disqualify from POTY as it was never a valid FP. However, if a delisting discussion is required, with multiple possible outcomes, then the FP status isn't simply removed; it's replaced with a "delisted" status. In those cases, assuming it takes place sometime after POTY concludes, how is the POTY committee supposed to distinguish between them?
All this said, it's clear a few people feel very strongly about this, and I understand why. Here's what I'd propose: have a way at FPC to distinguish [delisted for reasons that would've prevented it from becoming an FP in the first place, had they been known] (i.e. disqualified) from [delisted for other reasons] (i.e. delisted). This would apply not just to POTY but would involve a modification of the {{Assessments}} template so that the church/aurora composite would display something different from a photo that just isn't good enough anymore. Does that seem reasonable? — Rhododendrites talk |  13:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the message without the disqualification word looks like this : "We found out that we were deceived by this image and it's FP status was revoked but oh well no big deal it can stay in the POTY competition and keep it's well deserved award" which makes no sense to me.
I understand that you agree to disqualify such deceiving images when they get caught before or during the competition but I don't really understand why not do it retroactively as well. Nothing in the rules forbid doing it retroactively and to me this case clearly falls into the "exceptional circumstances" that allow to disqualify the picture even retroactively.
The threshold in which "undeclared manipulations" is not acceptable is already clearly described in the FPC rules : "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates."
For the church picture the case falls in the worst possible case : "Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.". The image was falsly presented as being a single shot when in reality the sky was fake.
FP procedures are what they are right now. Deceiving images can only lose their FP status after going through the delist formal process right now. But I don't see why this should have an impact on disqualifying the picture from POTY contest. POTY rules clearly already give discretionnary power to the POTY committee to disqualify pictures even retroactively. All it needs is a POTY committee consensus to do so. So I don't think changing FP delist procedures is necessary as in the end, even if it would be the case, that would change nothing to the fact that it is in POTY comittee sole hands to disqualify a picture from POTY.
If you want a guideline list of threshold conditions for a picture to be disqualified by the POTY committee here is a suggestion :
1) The image needs to have been promoted to FP status by deceiving voters (for example with undeclared manipulations) or by sockpuppetery. This means that there will never be disqualification on the ground that a picture no longer meets the standards of quality of today.
2) The image needs to be delisted before being submitted for decision by POTY Committee. This step will already include an analysis as to if the undeclared manipulations are small and acceptable or if they are that important that they deceive the overall look of the image. If the image doesn't get delisted it's that the community thinks that the undeclared manipulations are acceptable. If the image gets delisted (on the ground of undeclared manipulations) it means there is a community consensus that the image is deceiving.
3) The POTY committee takes a decision. Here again there will be an analysis of wether the undeclared manipulations are acceptable or not since the POTY committee has a discretionnary power on this matter. If an image barely passed in the vote to be delisted it might be that the consensus exists by the community but is not as strong as something close to unanimity. We could imagine that such scenario would be a gray area were POTY committee could decide to keep an image eventhough it had undeclared manipulations because the POTY committee thinks for example that the undeclared manipulations are small and insignificant. But if an image is delisted with votes close to unanimity (for example 80%) then the consensus is quite strong and that probably means there's good reasons for the POTY committee to also disqualify it from the POTY competition -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree It makes sense, yes. Thank you.
Now there's something very clear within the votes above, section "Latest layout proposals for file page", an obvious consensus for the option #4 displaying the text "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19." With 6 supports and no oppose, this part of the discussion is probably constituting an easy start after 1 month. Because the rules don't say that a POTY finalist can be only half disqualified, or half valid, or half POTY finalist. It is either valid or not valid, either finalist or non-finalist. Disqualified or not. For FP candidatures, there's a distinction between "this picture is a featured picture" (which means currently) and "this picture was a featured picture" (which means not anymore). But at POTY, since it's an annual contest, all the candidates display the message "was a finalist" (in 2022, or 2021... or 2010, etc.) Thus, the distinction should lie in the nuance between "is a valid POTY finalist of 2022 in 2024" or "is a finalist of 2022 revoked in 2024". Disqualified or not, that is the question.
Since the discovery of the montage, the file page has undergone a lot of modifications (until yesterday) by different users, but it's important to remember that at the time of the competition (and of the FP nomination) the description was just "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the Víkurkirkja church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night." If we all agree with the banner "This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2022 but was disqualified after being delisted on 2024-10-19" (with a link to the FP delist nomination), we should logically agree that the POTY award is also revoked on the main page (POTY 2022) because this page of votes gathering 440 supports is just inadmissible as part of the contest. How many +1 would have this image garnered for the church only with an ordinary sky? Which rank in the competition would have this finalist reached without the fake background? We don't know because the FP nomination would have possibly failed with enough reviewers voting "{{O}} nothing special" or "too ordinary". This is how things happen usually. Unless the candidate is really awesome, it fails. It could have been a minor modification, leaning to "kept FP status" but it was not, and it was "delisted". Now also, this is a real case. Not a guess of a possible case. We can imagine a lot of diverse situations which all would lead to diverse discussions and various consensus. But this one happened in reality. I have no idea how to deal with the potential "delist and replace" FPs, but 1) fortunately it never happened, 2) certainly we will be able to find fair solutions together. Now we just try to find a fair solution for this delisted FP specifically. It would be quite incredible to have the word "disqualified" on the file page, but "not disqualified" officially.
Look at this 3rd place displaying the text "This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2022." The image enjoys the prestige of an "award". If the 4th place is not disqualified after having lost its FP status, then we understand that it also keeps its POTY "award". Why an award for a fake image which deceived us clearly? Yet the rules stated a possibility of "disqualification". So it is not an unfair decision. It is simply a foreseeable consequence according to the terms of the competition. But we must be explicit and know what we are talking about. Hence the interest in naming things. In 2024, either the image retains the prestige of its 4th place award, or this status is updated. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New features to add to POTY 2024

[edit]

Many features have been requested to be added to POTY 2024. Here is a quick recap of them as well as new suggestions that I added. Pinging Ingenuity since he's the one that wrote the code. These are just requests/wishes but it doesn't necessary mean that they will be fulfilled :

  • Edit the script so that the first person to vote doesn't get the file added to it's Watchlist. I had to manually remove dozens of pages from my watchlist because of that in POTY 2023. One easy way to do so would be to have the person who clicks on initialize round 1/round 2 button to be the one to create a blank page. This way only one user would automatically have all the pages in watchlist. This was the solution previously used before the new script.
  • Make a special page where a user can see all of its votes with the files displayed (because only looking at the contributions you can't see the file directly displayed)
  • Edit the voting page so that the file that is being voted for can be seen. Compare POTY 2023 voting page example with POTY 2022 voting page example. The explanation text was also nice to have.
  • Automatically create the "All images" voting gallery for round 1. This was done manually this year.
  • Automatically add the POTY assessment to each finalist and winner file once you click on the last POTY admin button. This was done manually this year.
  • Users that go on the Help page and click the green "Click here to ask a question" button are redirected to a page where they can ask their question but where they can't read other users questions before posting it. This results in many persons asking the same question because they were not able to see if someone had already asked that. So adding a direct link to this page might be a good idea.
  • Automatically create a json file for each month of the year and have voting pages for each files promoted to FP status during that month. This was available previous years and some people expressed their interest for it coming back.
  • Add a "View votes button" on voting pages. I already wrote down the code to implement this that can easily be copy pasted. This is what the result looks like.
  • Add a fifth button to the POTY admin interface that ends first round but without automatically starting second round. Round 2 voting page needs to be created (when clicking on "End round 2" new button) but without the possibility to vote before clicking the button "start round 2". This will allow to have a bit of time to check if everything went well with the script when selecting the finalists for round 2. This is especially important as an issue happened this year.
  • The poty admin script needs to be edited so that when a picture is recategorized, the "category" value of all json files are automatically edited. So for example if an image from another category gets moved to the Arthropods json, not only will the Arthropods json category value need to be edited but also the All data json. If creating new jsons for each months, they will need to be edited as well. This is very important in order to avoid this issue that happened in 2023.
  • Not only give information about uploader and nominator below each file but also about the author since the uploader is not always the author.
  • Edit the script so that it ignores the "This is a photo of listed building number 1066500" that many pictures had in the description because of templates such as {{Listed building England}}. Many pictures had that appearing here for example.

Please free to comment to add more features if you have other ideas. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Watchlist: I guess it depends on the preferences whether the page is watched – and one can (but doesn’t have to) set different preferences for page creation and editing existing pages. The API allows overriding the preferences, though it doesn’t have a setting “do as if the page already existed” (but this can be worked around by the script reading the preferences and manually setting the appropriate action). On the other hand, pre-creating the pages is also possible, in which case the appropriate watchlist action is quite clearly not watch regardless of the preferences (one may want to watch all images they voted for, but the person administering the voting won’t want to watch absolutely all images).
  • Ask a question: I think using DiscussionTools would be a good solution. Compare current experience with DiscussionTools experience (the custom CSS needs to be adapted).
Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy my thoughts from the section #Problems 2024 above.
  • 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 talkcontrib. 14:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingenuity, as 2025 is slowly coming, I have a few questions to you :
  • Are you willing/available to help with POTY 2024?
  • Did everything run smoothly when clicking on the four admin buttons during POTY 2023? Do you think someone with no javascript skills would be able to do it for POTY 2024 in case you would not be available?
  • If you're available to help with POTY 2024, what improvements do you plan to implement in the POTY 2024 script? (You of course don't need to implement all of them, especially if you don't have time or don't think all are necessary)
Thanks in advance for your answers and wishing you nice winter holidays -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year&oldid=978446931"