Open main menu

Commons:Candidate pentru imagini excelente

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

Dacă consideri că există o fotografie pe Commons suficient de atractivă ca să se afle pe pagina Commons:Imagini excelente, atunci te rugăm include-o în lista de candidate editând această pagină. Dacă există un consens general după 15 zile, imaginea va fi transferată la Commons:Imagini excelente.



Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Caldera de Taburiente - View from Mirador de los Roques 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 05:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Please note, the image is not tilted. Several trees, especially the two in the foreground left, are slant in reality. You can compare them with the trees in the background. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view and terrain, but the foreground being almost completely in shadows doesn't work for me. The trees on the extreme left and right aren't cropped in a satisfying way; the left one has a thick branch going out of frame. – Lucas 06:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Banz Deckenfresko Pfingsten 3070549.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 21:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum' (Niervaren). (d.j.b.). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 16:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Dryopteridaceae.
  •   Info Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum', (Soft shield-fern) Beautifully rolling new leaves of this rare little fern. (Height: 30 cm). A rare form that turned out to be extinct at some point. The leaves are wedge-shaped and vary widely. The famous English fern breeder R. Kaye has managed to find him again.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 我喜欢--BoothSift 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 15:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 14:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • They are the thrusters that guided the lunar module when landing. I tried to add the right text to the images notes, but since the system is down at the moment that didn't work. As soon as it is up again, please substitute the text with {{pl|1=Dysze RCS}}{{en|1=[[:en:Reaction control system|Reaction control system (RCS)]]}}. --Cart (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking care of that before I had a try. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Muy histórico--BoothSift 23:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Luncheon of the Boating Party - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 12:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The tool is broken. I will try again tomorrow. Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Famous painting, good reproduction. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - YES - more paintings! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Me gusta--BoothSift 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I guess the last time I saw this painting in person was 2000, but it looks like a good reproduction to me. I hope you will be able to add the names of the missing people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 22:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
  •   Info Young Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) playing around, Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco2 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Understandably not perfect given the high zoom, but overall more than good enough considering the difficulty of the capture. Another good one from your safari. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 03:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera scutellata 1355021.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 14:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 10:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A gorgeous shell and one of your best shell pictures yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I know that Llez does terrific work but seeing that his shell nominations rarely get critiques I will step forward to throw the first stone ;) Resolution is good, I measured that each view has about 12 MP of the possible 15 MP which is good given that you'd want to use the center area of the lens. My first real issue is the sharpening, as the structures of the shell with the very soft lighting are not easy to distinguish. More sharpening shows detail better and improves depth perception a bit. Have you tried a more directional lighting setup instead of this soft one? Secondly, the contour of the shells is too blurred, which might be caused by how you isolate the background or it's just out of focus in capture. Out of focus would be bad, but later blurring would be quite fixable. I don't want to oppose this out of respect, but for me personally such studio shots have a higher bar of quality because of the controlled environment and I think you could do much better. – Lucas 13:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment Please remember, that this shell has only 2,7 cm in length --Llez (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still, I've worked with the MP-E 60 mm lens—which I suppose you are using—with focus stacking and was able to get better results. If you aren't focus stacking than that might be a limiting factor. – Lucas 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 05:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Painting drawn from Nizami's "Khamsah" - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a real nomination (not a test nom)
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This was on my list. ;) Yann (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The source is very colorful, as I would expect a 16th-century Persian painting to be; is it just me, or does File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg look almost exclusively sky blue when you try to view it? The thumbnail on the file page looks colorful. Anyone understand what's happening? The image in the nomination also appears sky blue on my screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek, please use chrome/safari/edge/opera etc this problem is exclusive to Firefox -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Firefox's latest version seems to suck. I also lost all my URL history and bookmarks in the latest update and don't even seem to be able to save bookmarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks for the advice. It looks wonderful on Chrome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Estornino de El Cabo (Lamprotornis nitens), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 02:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: The bird is multicolored, if that was what you meant. Otherwise, can you add an annotation pointing it out? Thank you --BoothSift 03:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: - Please see my image note. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The red part that you are pointing to? It is present on Charle's picture: File:Cape glossy starling (Lamprotornis nitens).jpg and quite a few other pictures on Google Images. This may indicate that it might be biological--BoothSift 03:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right.   Support. I'll remove the image note now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a noticeable halo/white line around the bird. This should be fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I have two open nominations --BoothSift 03:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I am unwithdrawing this since the other nom was given to Ikan. I will continue this nomination--BoothSift 23:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess that I can take this nom over, if you dont mind Boothsift Poco2 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: No need, the other one is now Ivan's. Since that was the reason why I withdrew in the first place and it has been resolved, I can continue this nomination. --BoothSift 23:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Boothsift, Ikan Kekek, Yann: Just in case I reworked the halo and some CA a bit Poco2 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Glad you took over the nomination yourself Poco. I would have done so myself if I didn't have two running. Very good detail, and the quality is wonderful considering the high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cmao20: I am still the nominator and I don't plan on unwithdrawing. I withdrew before since the Dead Vlei picture was not yet taken over by Ikan, but now it has so this one is allowed. --BoothSift 23:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Does it really matter who nominates the picture as long as someone does? Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really. --BoothSift 23:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-7.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 22:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info Reflexion of the bridge over Lima river in the water, Ponte da Barca, Portugal. It's worth seing the details. Inspired in three engravings of M.C.Escher (1950, 52 and 55). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could really go with this if it were more abstract and only shows the reflection, but the visible non-reflected parts of the bridge with the messy grass don't work for me. Also the long narrow tube on the bridge, cutting the image in half, is distracting. – Lucas 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 13:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Please get rid of the plants, etc. --BoothSift 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I wouldn't support cloning out the plants. They are part of the scene. I do support opposing the nomination because you don't like the way the plants look in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a better way of putting it, then--BoothSift 03:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This might be the sort of image that wins some photo contests, but it's just not striking enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Misty Minnewanka Lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 19:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No idea where you found that template. It might not be counted by the Bot. It is also a bit hazardous since it depends on nothing new happening to the post above it. Please stick to the s, o & n voting templates, not all noms are free to test things on so be respectful to the nominator. --Cart (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) All fixed now, thanks.   --Cart (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Some Portuguese for you if this counts. --BoothSift 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was a bit hesitant at first since I've seen so many similar compositions on Instagram, but it is a nice photo and well executed. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If you come to New Zealand, I'll print this off, ask you to sign it and I'll put it on my wall. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes! --El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, an excellent photo in difficult conditions --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Both tranquil and fascinating! --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be a bit sharper --Llez (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Celmisia semicordata 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 19:10:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me. The composition is better for not being centred. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely aligned ant and a perfect amount of blur of the background for context. – Lucas 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 02:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love the compo and detail, but I suppose it is a white flower and to me it looks rather gray. Looking at the histogram, there are almost no white tones in it, it goes down somewhere around 240. --Cart (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Nice sharp photo. I personally centered the flower. But that is a matter of taste. But the flower should have been a little whiter.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The bug gives it a nice non-chalant late spring mood. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20170917093348 - Caverna do diabo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 14:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I am back! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, with the blown-out area in the bottom left, but it certainly has wow. Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm missing a good perception of depth, the lighting is very flat so it's not pleasing to explore this image. The visible light sources create a feel of artificiality and result in some overexposure per Cmao20. Composition is too symmetrical without any direction. We have some amazing cave FPs and IMHO this is not there. – Lucas 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Are there any Spanish, Japanese, French templates @Eatcha: ? --BoothSift 02:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Boothsift, check the complete list at (Just added the strong oppose and n/N in the list, they are allowed from the next run ) -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Gracias. I see that Portuguese also works, if that wasn't added to the list already. --BoothSift 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: What template are you referring to ? You can add it between the nowiki and it will not be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I meant {{apoio}}--BoothSift 05:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: I won't be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Is there any way to implement it? --BoothSift 06:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: Sure, it can be added to the tuple (support_template) to implement it -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. The light really makes it look flat. --Cart (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sure that's an amazing scene IRL, but I'll have to agree With Lucas & Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Cart and El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't stand out from other pictures of cave/rns. Daniel Case (talk)

File:Domo na estação central de trenes de recife, Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 14:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The CA and slight lack of sharpness means it doesn't reach the high level of ceiling FPs in my book.--Peulle (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But if the CA could be fixed it would be even better. Slight quality issues don't bother me too much because this isn't the kind of image that demands one 'pixel-peep' - the wow comes from the bold, striking composition rather than from the amount of detail at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and lack of wow for me. This doesn't really constitute a bold composition, more like a trivial/boring one, and it's not even exactly centered ... – Lucas 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it...but...--BoothSift 02:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle even if the CA could be fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle.--Vulphere 13:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on the CA being fixed. Having taken one of our other ceiling FPs, I would consider this an FP too for its striking pattern and symmetry (it might be a little off center, but I think that could be corrected as well, or maybe it's just me). Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Egretta sacra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 06:38:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 085.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 06:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ikan may believe that I have lost faith in this nomination, by really I haven't. I misread the discussion(in a rush) and didn't clearly see where it was heading. Therefore, I would like to stay as nominator or conominator. --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous. There can only be one nominator. Would some admin like to put an end to this silliness? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No need, you are the nominator as you wish. I apologize for any difficulties I caused and my actions. --BoothSift 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- BoothSift 06:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great on its own terms, but I find it very similar to this which is already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We already have. Same story than this. Both similar works will be found in the same category next POTY competition. Either a delist and replace or just not this one -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:, @Lucasbosch: and @Ermell: We also have at least 19 FP of the Golden Gate Bridge. At least the two trees are different and please see Cart's comment below. The difference here is vastly greater than those--BoothSift 04:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Explicit comparison here. FP is not about nominating all the good photos that can be featured, but rather to select the finest. This one is not distinctive enough. Same blue sky, same white dune, same brown dune, same kind of dead tree, same time of the day, same angle.   Where's the novelty? I think almost everybody here make the effort to choose significantly original pictures, but of course FPC can also become as boring as watching always the same nominations with very minor variations. In that case many of us will find different playgrounds, because reviewing implies effort and energy, and such redundancies can give the feeling of tiredness -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great, and the other one has a very different form and feel, although the elements of the tree and different colors of sand are in common. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I indeed prefer this one. Thank you for the nom, Boothsift! Poco2 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile, I much prefer the existing FP. – Lucas 09:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Ermell (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This one's a lot cleaner than the other one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We also have this and this and people seemed fine with that. Also sorting the sub-galleries of Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural I have come across many similar "pairs" of views and compos, not to mention different flowers against the same sort of backgrounds (sky, lawn or bokeh vegitation are popular). --Cart (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose at different branch tips easy CAs.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that is fixable if we just ask the author nicely. Poco please? --Cart (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Surely Cart, thank you for stepping in. Fischer.H, the CA is cleaned up. --Poco2 19:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Per above--BoothSift 23:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This was still a very active discussion. Wasn't it a bit discourteous to withdraw with the vote at 7-4 in favor? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Unwithdrawn by me. I'm now the nominator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Fine, but can we conominate? I didn't see that Poco liked this one better and I missed Cart's comment for some reason. I have regained faith in this nomination and too would like to see where it's headed --BoothSift 03:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You seem to nominate and withdraw at the drop of a hat. You withdrew. Go ahead and observe how the nomination develops, but think a little more deeply the next time you nominate and withdraw. How long did the nomination of that bird above last? If you're really not sure what your opinion is, don't act. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Is it possible to have two nominators? --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I had no concurrent nominations. You are freed up to nominate another photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I do not wish to do so. May I regain my nominator privileges? Thank you for the help--BoothSift 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. What privileges? If you'd like to thank people for voting to support, go wild. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I meant I wish to remain the nominator as I was the original one--BoothSift 05:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Too late. Actions have consequences. Ponder that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Yes, but you didn't even give me time to react. Right off the bat, you went "I am now the nominator" as if I no longer existed. I could have just unwithdrew. Anyways since I am reclaiming this nomination, the bird nom would not comply with the guidelines. I have another nom below. If you wish to express your opinions, please notify me first. And no I am not the only one who withdraws and renominates fairly quickly, am I? --BoothSift 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You acted rashly; I did not, and this discussion is already tiresome. I will not reply further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Since this is your photo, I believe that you should be the rightful nominator if you wish. --BoothSift 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Boothsift: You look now for a third nominator? Ikan took over, I wouldn't change that, unless he requires that. I didn't understand the rush to withdraw this nom, and specially mentioning Cart and me as a reason to do so. Both of us have supported this version and I indeed mentioned that I prefer this version than the current FP. We have no delivery date here, be patient and as Ikan suggested, let us watch how the nom develops. I've sometimes let noms run where I thought there is no way that they succeed, but they did, if that was your concern. Poco2 06:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: I didn't blame you, I said that I withdrew without really reading what you wrote. This means that I changed my mind due to reading your comments. --BoothSift 23:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (d.j.b).03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2019 at 05:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yes, that needle does look rather odd--BoothSift 06:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
IMO, don't falsify the view. This is a natural view, not some idealized view of something that doesn't actually exist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful image. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality image but very ordinary shot. Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile – Lucas 17:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile --El Grafo (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The shot seems simple, yes, but it still is impressive in my eyes. --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Mild oppose Background seems a little too random. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Info. In the background you can see the branches of the Pinus mugo. With pine needles of the same Pinus on both sides.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Technisches Rathaus Tübingen von der Brunnenstraße zur blauen Stunde 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Dktue - uploaded by Dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like this building and this is a great camera position as the building curves away from us. Lighting looks good as well. The main problem is the building site in front (with the barricade and excavator) and the lion statue not mounted in place yet (it seems to be stored there temporarily). – Lucas 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain because the quality and composition is IMO good enough for FP, but the subject doesn't appeal to me as I have very little appreciation for modernist architecture. I would thus incline to oppose, but it's a matter of taste and I won't vote down a good picture because of my personal aesthetic opinions. Cmao20 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. I recommend re-shooting at a later date.--Peulle (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this very good as a shot that includes work (or actually evidence of work) in progress. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the "prohibited" voting templates, I've fixed yours. – Lucas 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When all the testing and fixing of the FPCBot is done, we will hopefully be able to use all these templates. When/If that happens, the info will be posted on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain I don't understand architecture and won't pretend I do but my comment is in regards of the composition. I miss some more space at the bottom of the picture in proportion to the sky. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Pukaki, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 09:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Marienaltar Werktagsseite 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Part of Broälven nature reserve north of Brodalen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 08:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info Broälven Nature Reserve is an oddly shaped reserve, consisting of only the long, narrow, meandering stream/creek and about 50 meters of its shore-land. It is an important breeding ground for brown trout. All by me,-- Cart (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose, sorry. It's a too common view to me, no wow. The colors aren't really special either. – Lucas 08:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Lucas. Yann (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas --Dktue (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Seems like a lost cause, but: Please vote on this nom and use the otherwise "forbidden" votes {{weak support}} {{strong support}} {{weak oppose}} {{strong oppose}} mixed with the normal ones. We can put this to use in the ongoing de-bugging and testing that is done to find out the faults in the FPCBot and fixing it. The end result will be checked by a human in any case. Thank you! --Cart (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose in that case. Sorry Cart, I quite like the composition but it just isn't 'wow' enough for FP for me. It was worth the risk though. Cmao20 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per this, BTW I know this vote won't be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC) It's now in the tuple, will be counted from the next run -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 15:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support a little contrary. For me this is a beautiful composition of a natural water stream. This used to be much more common in the past. Now you only see straightened locks.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and Oppose for testing purposes. -- King of ♠ 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Spring is in the small things ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but IMHO the lighting and the colours disturb the mood. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Example image.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 04:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)  

File:Example image.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 04:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.07.06.-30-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Paar bei Eiablage.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 21:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)
  •   Info This is one of my favorite pictures even if you shouldn't like it. I bend over the kayak edge and held the camera very close above the water surface while my wife was trying to keep the kayak in the right position whitout producing waves and disturbing the two of them. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good wow factor and great perspective not seen often for these kind of pictures. Yes, there are the usual pixel blocks/artifacts of this camera I commented on the other nom, but it's not that noticeable here.   Request But, please remove that blue blurred area on the left side. – Lucas 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support FP for me--BoothSift 22:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good story :) I agree with Lucas that removing the blue spot on the left would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I said "wow" out loud. You take amazing pictures of dragonflies! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Vulphere 15:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I've cropped a bit on the right and left in order to get rid of the blueness on the left side. --Hockei (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 18:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info A test by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a TEST IMAGE, for debugging FPCBot please do not add or remove any votes to this test nom. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will be adding some fake votes, please do not take it seriously -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   NeutralDignissim cras tincidunt   Opposelobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan sit. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Mattis nunc sed blandit libero. Mauris rhoncus aenean vel elit  Oppose scelerisque mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque.  Oppose Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa.Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination as it's just a test to check the 2n - 1d in the bot DO NOT REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST, OR ARCHIVE IT -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.06.-29-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Saphirauge-Paar und Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 08:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Sorry, but I often wonder where people take their wisdom to suspect something. There are neither jpg artefacts nor I saved the jpg picture multiple times. I produce my pictures from the raw file. That the DOF is too shallow in your eyes also is not understandable. I used F13. What aperture would you use for more DOF and still get this picture sharp enough? --Hockei (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are certain artifacts/smudgniness and blocks of pixels in your image that seem to be inherent with your camera even after correct processing. Regarding the DoF I'm not saying you could have done any better, sometimes the conditions (positioning of the animals) are unfortunate. I hope this clears it up. – Lucas 10:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see what Lucas means, I used to own a Panasonic camera that made similar blocks of pixels even if processed correctly. It doesn't bother me too much for this picture, which is otherwise a very good and tricky capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm wowed. Really good composition and quite interesting, what with the mating on one side and the molting on the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You can make the photo even more useful by pointing out the position of the mating couple and the molting male dragonfly in your file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 19:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Of course the resolution is great as with all your photos, but there are architecture shots the same size that don't have quite so much visible noise.  Support because I like the subject, but I still would prefer it if the sky had less noise and also if the CA mentioned by King of Hearts were fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose shadows interfering with the structure and the immediate surroundings are too much for me. The residential buildings in the background also don't help, maybe a different angle to hide them would have been better. – Lucas 07:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Cmao20: @King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek:@Lucasbosch: Thanks for the review. Fixed CA, dust spots, vignetting and sky-noise. Can't get rid of the houses and shadows, next time I'll use a drone, promise.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better! Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's now a weird brown border around the top of the building. Perhaps an artefact of the CA reduction? -- King of ♠ 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What happend with the left outline of the gable? There is a broad brown border in the sky along the edges (see note). Possibly caused by postprocessing, as it lacks in the previous version. --Llez (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, due to the brown borders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      Info Apparently, yes. I took several photos in the place and the sky appears more or less like this on the western part. I suppose it is related to near saturation in the blue channel (not to colour temperature) in the presence of those clouds. Please notice how the colours look more natural on the right part of this other photo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, why isn't Daniel's comment below proof that the color of the sky is off? As he points out, the sky's reflection in the water is blue, not aqua. Can you explain that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Daniel, your argument doesn't make sense to me. A blue apple being reflected in a weird surface making it look red there doesn't fix the color of the real apple, right? – Lucas 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Is the sky in this image red like an apple? Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Daniel, no, this was just an example to show why I don't believe in your argument with the colors. – Lucas 19:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 08:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was surprised to be drawn into this photo. The lazy afternoon everyday scene with that stunning background makes it all somewhat surreal. The vanishing point lines are very nice with the bike accentuating it all. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The mountains and the clouds are beautiful, but the poles and the wires ruin the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree with Cart about the composition, but the sharpness could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have applied a tiny bit of Smart Sharpness to the photo, please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well, Thank you--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks very busy. The poles and the motorcycle are disturbing. The eye is witching from one point to the other. --XRay talk 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scenery is very nice due to the mountains, but the quality isn't quite QI level, sorry. --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, other photographer in EXIF data? Bijay, how do you explain that? --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This one as I am not sure if I want to support or oppose it--BoothSift 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay and A.Savin – Lucas 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Boothsift:,@Lucasbosch:, @XRay:,@A.Savin:, Please have a look review once again. Actually at that time i don't have my own dslr so i borrowed that camera from my friend. And i forgot to change the Exif Detail of this photograph. Here's (112073005685) the serial number of the camera that I used earlier which is similar to the serial number (112073005685) of this photograph. File:Tukche, Nepal-WLV-1449.jpg --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Something like that was my guess too. Note that I opposed not because of the EXIF data, but because of the missing sharpness. --A.Savin 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    The reason for my vote is the composition, not the EXIF data. Sorry. --XRay talk 10:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay and A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose Cart has it right about the juxtaposition here between the mundane and the sublime. However the sharpeness one wants in an FP just isn't there. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin.--Vulphere 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).pngEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 23:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
  •   Info created by unknown- uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Hi. The identification of this photo is incomplete, so I cannot judge the photo yet. From, the link that is given in the file description: "These records are manuscript watercolor views along the northwest boundary between the Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts. The sketches were created by James W. Alden who accompanied the survey party that, during the 1860's and in compliance with the Treaty of 1846, was responsible for recording characteristics of the northwestern boundary of the United States." This information is also provided there: "Specific Media Type: Paper". So "Author" is not "Unknown or not provided" but James W. Alden, and the medium must be specified as "Watercolor on paper". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can you examine the NARA template properties and set the appropriate parameter to remove the "Please do not overwrite this file" warning -- this is a restoration file, rather than an original. Also the "This file was provided to" licence text isn't correct for this file either, since this file is a derivative. What makes you think the original backing paper was neutral grey, and the painting from 1850s on pure Xerox white copy paper? Look at the white swirling cloud on the right and the leftmost edge of it. In the original, the artist has given the cloud a bright white "silver lining" but in your restoration it is a cold blue tint. I think it is one thing to repair damage but quite another to change the colours of an artwork, without any reference. It will have yellowed/aged over the years, but is unlikely to have been a modern white. Also I don't understand why the border has got slim black/transparent triangles -- it's as though you rotated the whole image after cropping. But the original border/background paper is huge so the background can be cut square. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support now, thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully, I agree with Colin, but I would go back to the original and see whether a more subtle restoration is possible that's a little more true to the original. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Very good now, thanks.   Support clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Redone, only removed dust spots Ezarateesteban 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment - That seems to look better, and you should ping those who voted. And you fixed the problems I laid out above. But what's with this notice in Metadata? "Copyright (C) reserved" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The metadata and the copyright is copied from the original that was uploaded as PD so it isn't an issue IMHO
@Cmao20: @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: Ezarateesteban 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't it an issue for the metadata to contradict the copyright status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright (C) reserved" Who reserved that copyright? It may added by the camera. Furthermore the artwork is made is made between 1857-1862 so is in PD in USA. There is nothing to doubt about copyright Ezarateesteban 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OK.   Support, but that notice should be deleted, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 19:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Well he should have just went along with it, not try to own the image or whatever he did. --BoothSift 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing against your compassion for the photographer, but in my opinion we should only judge the photograph itself and not the story behind it. – Lucas 06:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Destroyed a photographer's life"? You must be joking. Actually he certainly made a huge amount of money selling this to whoever wanted it. This whole story was just a very successful marketing scam. Why do you think PETA claimed a copyright on it? For the animal's welfare? Ha! Ha! Ha! Regards, Yann (talk)
  •   Support I'd love to see the monkey to hold the copyright though. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin Falbisoner and per nom 2015
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm just not wowed by this regardless of who took it. People are handing cameras to animals or strapping them on them just to see what happens; there are whole TV shows based on the concept. All you get are tilted snapshots that are amusing for a short while. It's a sideshow fad. --Cart (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is pretty much a good picture. Sometimes humans don't manage to get so nice shots. The eyes are in focus, it is not blurry, the facial expression is awesome. The DoF is a bit narrow, but considering the distance, certainly a corrected version would get a chance as FP if it was nominated by a regular photographer. This picture is of good quality, it is a striking portrait, the monkey looks curious, smiling and surprised, that's what makes it great IMO. Because it is a selfie, it means the animal is 100% natural in its environment, not distracted by humans, just captivated by its "game". And that is special -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of good quality photos that doesn't wow me and this is one of them. Btw, it's debated weather the facial expressions of monkeys and apes show the same emotions as those of humans. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Really ? Awesome, that might be one of them :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and judging just the image I would say: insufficient DoF --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I've changed my view on this image over the years. I think what PETA did and what Wikimania did with the image was disgraceful and disrespectful, but PETA lawsuit aside, I don't buy the claim it destroyed his career. It looks like the photographer (like most) didn't have a particularly great career to begin with and is bitter that taking a viral photo didn't change things for the better. He claims he's "lost £10,000" but that's speculation about what he might have earned, not money he actually had and lost. If the 30 minutes of monkeying-around with his camera hadn't produced the "money selfie" he'd have been the same broke photographer he says he is now. The claim to fame is that it is entirely a "monkey selfie" whereas David's claim to ownership is that he engineered the situation. His story now is that he was attempting to photograph the apes as they groomed and played with him, but discovered they would play with the camera if he sat next to it, holding the tripod. If instead of being a "selfie", David had pressed the button as an ape gazed at her reflection in the glass, it wouldn't have been a "selfie" and not have gone viral. The whole magic of the photo is the "what's the chance of that?" and "what a clever ape!" reactions. Being a professional photographer is about consistently satisfying the client with great photos and being relied upon to do so next time, not one single photo created by a chance encounter in 30 mins. A look at David's website suggests this photo is the only thing that separates him from any other wildlife photographer who runs workshops to make a living. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure. In any case I don't want commons to turn into a platform that pinches material from creators who don't consent or share their work voluntarily under a cc license. That's the main reasoning behind my opposing vote. The image actually might even warrant an FP status. It's striking, popular, well known & well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with not pinching material, but the raison d'être for this image is that the ape is the "creator" and it was a wild chance encounter rather than a trained animal. If David had creative input into the work, then it isn't a "monkey selfie", and no different to any other (of many) photos of these apes grinning. But if the ape is the creator then they don't get copyright. Neither do US Gov employees, whether they consent voluntarily or not. I don't think David can have it both ways. I think it quite rational to oppose for the reasons you give. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a striking image yes, but not the work of the owner of the camera. Otherwise you can claim to be the artist when someone just borrows your material, after publishing their shots in newspapers. Is that "your work" ? No. You just bought the camera, and expect to become millionnaire because someone talented pushed the button. In this case, the talented subject is a monkey, and legally there's no ownership for this species (fortunately or unfortunately, but in any case the owner of the camera would not be the artist). So, for now, this picture is like the work of someone who took a shot of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum and claims to be the owner of the work. We just say "This painting is in the public domain", that's not "yours", it belongs to Da Vinci. But you engage lawyers and absolutely want to sell your photo of the Mona Lisa. Well, sorry that's your problem, there are laws. And now if you can't pay the attorneys, you're a bit responsible too. Maybe you can expect recognition for your work (go visiting the macaques in Indonesia), but only the fair part, not the extra part (means not this lucky selfie). That is public domain. Your story and the camera belong to you, you were not forced to publish anything, now the picture belongs to everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comparison with photographing a PD artwork is valid. Copyright law is what it is, there is no logic to it, and the law is pretty settled in the US at least. The thing is, if David had set his camera up with an intervalometer to take a pic every few seconds, or had rigged a trigger trap to detect an ape walking by, or had remotely triggered the shutter when the ape pulled a funny face, he'd have full copyright of the image, but it would not have gone viral: it wouldn't be a "selfie". That's the claim he's chosen to make, and if you take him at his word that the ape took the photo, then he loses rights to the image. If instead, he engineered the photo, then his claim is a fraud, and he'd still not be entitled to his £10,000. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What is not valid is to claim the ownership of something free, or the artwork belonging to someone else. Not really a strange law in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. All the backstory issues aside, the photo honestly doesn't wow me at all. It seems gimmicky and doesn't appeal to me, it's interesting as a novelty but the novelty wears off very quickly. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A snapshot by a monkey. Funny for one look but not a FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Berthold Werner, sorry. --A.Savin 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Berthold.--Ermell (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An animal shot a featured picture candidate? --Neptuul (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not if a monkey handle the drone :) --Neptuul (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A human opposing a monkey picture candidate? --Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A human opposing human nomination--Neptuul (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose novelty shot just not that good and agree Martin. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support  Neutral per Martin -- Piotr Bart (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This image can f*ck up this nom but I will try it, you can hold me responsible even block me for a day for any mishap. IMO, the codes are fine -   --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, as long as we know that it is a test of the Bot tasks/functions, it is ok.   --Cart (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose C-M (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support no less than I did four years ago. Between actually not being that bad and its historic interest, I see an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support After reading the discussions, I decided that it no longer fits my criteria for a FP, therefore I   Oppose this now. Lo siento--BoothSift 00:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Eatcha, does the FPCBot even recognize the {{unsupport}} templates used above? – Lucas 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, nope. It only recognizes the templates in the tuple . Do you want me to add it ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eatcha, I see no reason why the bot shoudn't recognize and calculate with all possible templates used by people. – Lucas 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I think the {{unsupport}} is a too problematic template to add to the tuple since I doubt the Bot will be able to pair it with the right {{support}} vote without a major code re-write. It is hardly ever used and it is better that users are very clear in their votes. There will always pop up strange templates that someone found somewhere, a human will have to check those. --Cart (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A very radical photo, totally saved by the presence of her hand and the way both she and the background sparkle. This photo is also kinder to her pores and there is less CA. Btw, are you sure the copyright for this is ok? --Cart (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Unconventional style and very featureable because of it. It carries a personality. – Lucas 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ——Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support To give a little critique, the background in the hand area is a bit disturbing. But good enough, I think. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't know what to make of this photo? I am not opposing, but I'm a bit unsure what to think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Some technical issues, but I like the composition. --XRay talk 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting composition, but it does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with half head? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per 7 Pandas and Wolfgang Poco2 15:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow , nohing extra... -- Karelj (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 Atamari (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite unusual portrait but it is talking to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 23:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they voted twice--Boothsift (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, mistake. Thanks for removing the vote.--Ermell (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin, the background is a bit disturbing Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but overall pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I agree with the idea of cropping the darker right out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin, the background.... -- Karelj (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 16:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Nevertheless, if you know the year of composition, add it to the file description. If not, I think it's sufficiently explanatory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: There exist no documents about the paintings but only attributions (second half of the 15th century). I found out that it depicts the apostel Saint James the lesser. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, then the description you've given is sufficient. Thanks, Wolfgang. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I hope it's acceptable to oppose just because I find him ugly. – Lucas 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, yes, because that goes to "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you’d support it, I should say the world is coming to its end. He might be ugly, but to me he is cosy and this fresco imho is ways, ages, miles more beautiful than this junk (pardon me!) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Easy! He said he found the man depicted ugly, not that he found your photograph ugly for any other reason. In my humble opinion, it would be best if you backed off and tried not to make this personal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment In fact, I din't mean the photos but the objects --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So describing the things I photograph as junk is fair game, but any timid comment against the unquestionable beauty of anything in front of your lens is sacrilege, of course ... Nur die Ruhe, whatever I write it's only one vote of many and not worth this amount of bickering. – Lucas 10:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: and @Moroder: I just wanted to point out that calling the objects in each other's photos ugly is not an insult to the each other but to the creator/designer, even if they don't see this. --BoothSift 02:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A fine image of an important motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 06:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I know. But I only had the 70-200mm lens mounted. In position 70mm. And I was on top of a ship, that was moving towards the subjects. Sorry! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You could at least crop out the rest of that house on the right, though that doesn't address the problems with the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice juxtaposition of the three towers and I don't mind the crop; the cut elements are too small in frame. – Lucas 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tower-church-church works well. But surely the tower has a name too that could be added to the description. Crop is fine, cropping out the house on the right would give the church (and final house) too little space and unbalance the image. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!--BoothSift 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I dissent. The crops left and right disturb me too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support something to the right might be a bit more balanced.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although the light is not optimal --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support knowing the location with the vantage point on the water I find it (mainly in the context of Wikipedia) a bit misleading to not include at least a bit of the water. Still a nice picture. C-M (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish the sky was better, but the angle is great all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful cloudy sky. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)