Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates

(Redirected from Commons:FPC)
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • 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 colour/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 historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsEdit

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

PhotographsEdit

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audioEdit

Please nominate sounds at Commons:Featured sound candidates.
Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Simple tutorial for new usersEdit

Tutorial : Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps
STEP 1


STEP 2


STEP 3


STEP 4


STEP 5


STEP 6


STEP 7


STEP 8

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.


Adding a new nominationEdit

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

VotingEdit

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be politeEdit

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Cabo de Buena Esparanza, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 74-80 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 19:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Beelitz Abandoned Building.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:23:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Frauenstein Schloss Frauenstein Ost-Ansicht 15082019 6966.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Schwalbenschwanz (Papilio machaon).jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 13:03:24
 

  •   Info It's a very soft image with too much out of focus. Please compare with nomination below. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Our interpretations of the rules differs. I believe I am entitled to nominate any image for delisting. The community may disagree. And the rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin, Charles has the right to nominate two delists in addition to his normal noms (at the moment only one AFAICS, the other one is withdrawn). It is up to the community to decide if they should be delisted though. I've altered your FPX to a comment. Feel free to revert if you don't agree. --Cart (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See other nom. I retain the view that this is clearly an invalid "delist and replace" spread over three nominations. This isn't what we do on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But what you can do on Commons, Colin, is apologize after have made a mistake in claiming I am not able to nominate delists at the same time as normal nominations. Charles (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, I made a mistake and you have not been inconvenienced beyond pointing out the mistake. Demanding an apology in such circumstances is rather petty, considering you are the one here breaking the clear rules about delisting. An apology will therefore not be forthcoming. We all make mistakes. For example, Charles, when you notified the creator/nominators of these images, you did not link back to the delist nomination, which is required by the rules. There is even a template for doing the talk page notification. Perhaps you could fix that, out of courtesy to them. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not breaking any rules. I posted a message on their talk pages before submitting the delist nomination. You accused me of "illegal" action which is somewhat more than being "inconvenienced". Charles (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep An FP is not only about technical quality, it is just as much (sometimes even more) about composition and ambience in the photo. The compo in this with the soft light and excellent balance is far superior to the current nom's passport photo style. It deserves to be kept beside the new photo, if its nomination succeeds. I don't think it's constructive to treat FPs like VIs and ask for delists as soon as a new photo of a subject is nominated. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep portrait format and background colors differ -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because This nomination is explicitly against the rules and not Commons practice. On Commons, if we take/find a better picture of a subject, we are just happy to nominate the new one. That's what everyone else does, Charles. We don't go around eliminating all the old ones, which have nothing wrong with them. That sort of delist-and-replace belongs on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Schwalbenschwanz, Papilio machaon.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 13:05:37
 

  •   Info Very little is in focus and the compostion is not great. Please compare with nomination below. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Our interpretations of the rules differs. I believe I am entitled to nominate any image for delisting. I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". The community may disagree. And the rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per my comment on the other/above delist nom, I've changed Colin's FPX to a cmt. Please revert if you don't agree. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK if 2+2 is allowed. However, I retain the view that this is clearly an invalid "delist and replace" spread over three nominations. This isn't what we do on Commons. If Charles wants Commons FP to be a place where photographers take a new photo of something and then go around delisting all the previous "inferior" photos of that subject, then please go change the rules. Currently that is explicitly disallowed. -- Colin (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep An FP is not only about technical quality, it is just as much (sometimes even more) about composition. This photo brings out a three-dimensional aspect, something the other photos lack. Having multiple photos of a subject is not only within the rules, it is also very useful to see different aspects of the same thing. I'm only waiting for a blue hour or head on photo of this beautiful butterfly to add to the series. :-) I don't think it's constructive to treat FPs like VIs and ask for delists as soon as a new photo of a subject is nominated. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep entirely different photo -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because This nomination is explicitly against the rules and not Commons practice. On Commons, if we take/find a better picture of a subject, we are just happy to nominate the new one. That's what everyone else does, Charles. We don't go around eliminating all the old ones, which have nothing wrong with them. That sort of delist-and-replace belongs on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Boothsift exactly. Charles is a regular at WP FP so I think he confuses the separate purposes of the two projects. WP FP has one featured lead photo in an article, generally, so has to delist and replace it when a better one comes along. Whereas on Commons, we are just happy that someone has taken a new and perhaps better image: more images for people to enjoy and use. No need to go around pissing on the old ones. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually had no idea that there could only be one FP of each subject on WP, thanks for the info. So this is just some sort of confusion on Charles' part between the sites. I like Commons' way better, the more the merrier. :-) --Cart (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon gorganus) underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 11:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Papilionidae
  •   Info There are three existing FPs of the underside of this species (and one topside and one mating). I think this FP and this one should both be delisted. This image is FP quality and has the forewing in focus, but is a photo of an elderly butterfly with faded colours and damaged tails. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please feel free to start delist nominations. As one of the preeminent nature photographers on Commons, I think your opinion counts for something. It remains to be seen if the Community agrees, but that's why we have the voting system.--Peulle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. See above. Charles (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Too bad it's f/5.6 or the wingtips would have been sharp, too. Still great. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have FPX'd the other two delists. The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). The D&R of "better photos of the same subject" is a Wikipedia thing, because they generally only have one lead image. Let's not bring that practice here, where images that are fine but considered inferior to a new one are routinely delisted. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". I have listed two images for delisting as suggested by Peulle. The rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As noted elsewhere, I incorrectly assumed the two-nominations applied to both kind rather than independently. The other two remain FPX'd because they are an illegal "delist and replace" albeit spread over three nominations. The rules for delist state "it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This should be quite clear. We have countless nominations where photographers indicate existing FPs of their subject/topic, claim theirs is better or different and worthy of a gold star, and do not go about eliminating all the others. It just isn't done and would require consensus for a rule change to permit it. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Under stars and snows.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 01:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Ummidnp and uploaded by Ummidnp - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. Do you know the whole exposure time? -- -donald- (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see a lot of chromatic aberrations. --Granada (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The whole photo including tables and chairs look very unnatural. It looks like under a shining sun at night --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good, not new idea but not ideal in this case. The furniture and the footprints are very disturbing. With the light I agree with Wolfgang Moroder.--Ermell (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Moroder and Ermell, and I wonder why this image even was promoted to QI with such strong (and probably easy to remove/reduce) CAs. --Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
      Neutral Taking a 3rd look at the image, I see that certainly there is some “wow” effect about this image, which gives a fresh impression of the Annapurna region, and both the CAs and the exposure (overexposed?!) can be improved/repaired. So I change my vote to “neutral” for now, and will vote for this image if some of the issues mentioned here are addressed with success, to make the image look more natural/realistic. --Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the idea, including the table and the chairs, but it is a bit overdone here. It even looks overexposed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Thank everyone for the reviews!--Boothsift 17:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Daubeny's water-lily at BBG (43428).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 17:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Citrus flower 2019-06-13 09-54-06 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Tried to fix it. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --D-Kuru (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:VST image of the spectacular star-forming region Messier 17 (Omega Nebula).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM - OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute, uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. Worth viewing in full size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aasish Shah (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bandits Roost, 59 and a half Mulberry Street.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 15:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African Leopard Near Otavi Waterhole Etosha Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info African leopard awaking from nap. Leopard collection lacks sharp images with face detail. Upload etc. by Axeltschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support There are four FPs of the African leopard on Commons: this, which I wouldn't have voted for as the colour balance seems unnatural and the contrast is too high, this quite different action-shot by Poco, this which is a great photo but a rather unfortunate specimen, and this which is a clear FP but isn't sharp on the face. Therefore I think this photo fills a niche we don't have, per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Agree cmao. I'd delist the one with the off colour balance. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Friesach Dominikanerkirche Johannesaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 05:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ground in the left background appears to have a tilt, but the right foreground looks level, I so I think that the photo doesn't need a tilt correction, but others are welcome to comment regarding this point. --Pine (✉) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Good to have something like that on commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I asked the uploader if he could upload the photo in its full size. But for me it's already FP - kind of an image where you don't pixel peep. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A unique capture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • S for   Support and "Superb"! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Clearly tilted in ccw direction Poco2 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too much in shadow. I don't see what's so special about this photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really do want to know what's going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 20:11:25
 

  •   Info In my opinion, the quality of this image is not on par with our standards today. Plus, we have another featured picture of the same species and same sex, which is better IMO. (Original nomination) --Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree; this image has compression artefacts as well as a fairly low resolution for 2019 standards, and the bird is only a small part of the photo. I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons, and it has been a long time since it was voted such.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per others. This is a clear case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Indeed this is definitely not FP, the quality and detail are poor. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Clearly not an FP anymore. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Charles (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist .--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Piri Ries Cairo Map.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Piri Ries - uploaded by MichelBakni - nominated by MichelBakni -- MichelBakni (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Supportباسم (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... no, I'm not too wowed. The resolution is not very high and I'm not impressed by the level of detail (although I'm not sure how much of that is from the actual drawing).   Oppose --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but, interesting as this is, it doesn't match up to some recent digitisations in terms of image quality and amount of detail preserved. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It‘s actually Piri Reis. —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shortcomings evident even at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknop van een Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’. 02-08-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 15:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Malvaceae.
  •   Info Flower bud of an Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’ covered with raindrops. A nice double fixed (sterile) hollyhock.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fabulous Seven Pandas (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I might like a bit more room on the bottom and right, depending on what else was there, but the resolution, such that we can see all those little hairs, is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice picture and great quality, but the red dots in the left upper corner are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2013-09-19 14-30-57-collegiale-thann-PA00085696.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 13:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motif, sharp at lower but still high resolution (12.7 megapixels). IMO marginally overexposed, though, as the details at the bottom are slightly too washed-out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree that the brightness is too high (I appreciate some elements of the stonework have been cleaned and are brighter than others). Lacking embedded colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Really gorgeous motif. I'll see if ComputerHotline addresses any of the comments above, as I'd like to be able to support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, per above comments. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Really a gorgeous motif, the composition is OK, but details should be sharper: the image is not as crisp as this motif deserves. Looks like the lens did not resolve details fine enough to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensor. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      You are right, so I delete my vote. Sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Prunus avium duracina - flowers - Sasbach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 06:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:T-centralen metro station december 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Do you mean I could have taken two pictures, one darker than the other, so as to recover the highlights? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bizarre architectural ensemble and maybe a bit dystopic to my taste, but an excellent and well-composed document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
 

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep@BevinKacon:@Cmao20:@Daniel Case:Much of the commentary above is inaccurate. In the case of the "original nomination", the image had not been upsampled at that point, and the nomination failed, with one respondent as well as the moderator commenting on the supposedly inadequate size of the image. In the second nomination in Commons, after upsampling, the upscaling was prominently mentioned prior to the voting in the first line of the description, as follows:
"Uploader's notes: the original NASA TIFF image has been modified by increasing linear pixel dimensions by a factor of 1.6 (to bring out fine detail), sharpening and conversion to JPEG format."
Given that, the template would have been largely redundant. Note that the non-upsampled version is now listed separately.
In the case of the Wikipedia vote, there were three votes in favor of the upsampled version (The NMI User, myself, and Bammesk), not just one (the latter voted for both versions), and four votes in favor of the non-upsampled version (again counting Bammesk). The non-upsampled version was promoted to FP short of the required five votes, so due process was not followed in that case. Due process was followed in the Commons vote, with 11 votes in favor and one opposed. What justification can there be to reverse this decision?
As for the supposed "severe" defects in the upsampled version, please demonstrate the difference with screen captures. Regarding the upsampling being "pointless", on the contrary, it was combined with sharpening to make the fine geological detail more easily visible, as I will demonstrate in a subsequent post. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please carefully examine, at full scale, this image: Comparison of mosaics
which contains corresponding sections of the 2 mosaics, if you want to try to understand why I or someone else might have the temerity to upsample and sharpen an image. By way of introduction, the ice-covered surface of Europa is covered with an extraordinary set of fascinating geological features, including the so-called lineae, linear features that form on a variety of scales via a tectonic process. Now, please look at the smallest lineae and other features visible in the images. From my perspective, the ability to see and appreciate the profusion of small lineae is greatly enhanced in the 1.6x upsampled image. These features of course are real, not artifacts. A lot of the lineae that are easily visible from a normal viewing distance at the larger scale are only visible at the smaller scale if you press your nose up to the monitor, and in some cases not even then. Since these geologic features are, from my perspective, and the perspective of others interested in planetary geology, the most interesting aspect of the image, the value gained in making them much more easily visible outweighs any cost incurred in terms of greater chromatic aberration and/or more jagged edges. It is normal for editing processes to have both benefits and costs, and the net result is a benefit in this case in my opinion. Given that the upsampled version got 11 votes and went on to become a POTY finalist while the non-upsampled version only got 6 and was not promoted in Commons, it seems some others agree with me. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep This was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2018, I don't think it would be a great idea to delist this picture. --Boothsift 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. (And shouldn't the "oppose" votes be "keep", so as not to confuse things?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info WolfmanSF and Boothsift per Ikan's comment, could you please use the 'keep' or 'delist' in this nomination. 'Oppose' or 'support' are for normal FCP noms. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry but I don't buy these arguments. Although due process was technically followed in the commons vote, the nominator did not mention in the nomination that the image was upsampled, and nor did the voters appear to be aware of this. Therefore, I do think the criteria for a delist nomination are satisfied, and that it's appropriate to ask us to think again. WolfmanSF, I understand now why you decided to upsample, but to me this is an argument only for keeping the upsampled version on Commons, not for featuring it instead of the original. Ultimately all the detail is there in the original photo, and upsampling could easily be done client-side if anyone wishes to view the lineae in higher resolution. Therefore my vote remains to delist, and ideally to replace with the original. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, which "criteria are satisfied'? Where does it state that a nominator must mention image edits in the nomination, in addition to in the image description? One of the voters (the only negative vote in the 11-1 vote) did mention, and provided a link to, the alternate (original, non-upsampled) version. There is also a rule, "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support", and the upsampled version got 11 votes while the original got 6. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station in August 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I was also pretty sure that a similar picture was already FP... clearly   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for mentioning it, it is still one of my favorite photos but unfortunately not sharp.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King and Daniel, excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info A big thank you to ArildV for helping us discover the beauty of Stockholm's metro system that evening and to Rhododendrites for letting me use his tripod for this shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think I recognize the station.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Glad to see this worked out. I don't think I have any prospective third FPCs from that outing, but it was great to see these places and I'm looking forward to going through through the shots from the rest of the trip. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Frank: How did you manage to have 10 people on the train keep (nearly) still for 4 seconds? -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • They are Swedes, not very lively folks. Up here we learn to conserve energy for the upcoming cold season. --Cart (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'embarquement quai des Orfèvres sur l'île de la Cité, Paris 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow.--Vulphere 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow--Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very colourful but not much to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per A.Savin --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info I think the composition of this image is excellent, in terms of how natural framing is used to highlight the subject. created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for the totality of the composition, irrespective of the effect of pixel-peeping at the dark areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very intimate, you chose the perfect subject for this lighting. -- King of ♠ 01:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The framing makes the church looks like it's blushing from being caught in something it wasn't supposed to do. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
 

File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't like the crops on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - good click from such a narrow place.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Aasish Shah (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Although cropping (cut off on the right) is a bit issue here, but overall looks good to me. IMO, sometimes photography is difficult from such a narrow place. I think, we can keep it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Benmore with surrounding hills, New Zealand 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sublime beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР:   New version uploaded. I checked though the former version on my usual screen and still cannot share the severity of CA traces here Poco2 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose it's good, but existing FP-s with same subject are much better. --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cars, the cars, why the cars? --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think this is a fine composition, including the cars, but Colin's point about processing gives me pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per above. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Die Schöllenen Schlucht mit Teufelsbrücke im schweizerischen Kanton Uri.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that the perfect architectural standards should not necessarily apply to a landscape photo. And the composition has improved with the edit. I just don't think it is among our finest, with these flaws: we are not short of landscape FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Colin:, @Peulle:, @Boothsift:, @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images, but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least one of the stitched frames is unsharp, and some minor stitching error, see notes --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose blurry frame(s) spoils it. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin and Kind of Hearts -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Opinel N°10 Carbon w bread on wood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 22:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info French Opinel pocket/folding knife with bread; showing the typical stains of a carbon steel blade – created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the strong reflection on the blade is distracting, and the composition with the bread is not very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your opinion. A technically perfect photo of these objects without blade reflection exists with File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg, but it lacks wow. The light-shadow distribution here is deliberately chosen to highlight the blade, the correct word is therefore not "distracting" but attracting the eye of the viewer. It is intended to be as "distracting" as the sheets in this image. In fact, this photo thoroughfully composed with larger dark parts in the top left and lighter parts in bottom right, with the smaller lighter spot on the bread crust bottom left and the darker spot top right for balance. The locking mechanism of the knive was placed in the middle of the diagonal of the latter two – a diagonal that puts the highlighted blade on the overall darker side of said diagonale and the darker part of the knive (the handle) in the overall lighter "half" of the picture. Even the shape of the bread was intentional to "reverse repeat" the blade point and curve. I hope this helped you to understand the idea of the image and why I chose it from many others of a series; also this was a short introduction to basic and classic principles of composition of Natures Mortes. There's some more like a dark "L" contrasting with a lighter "L" (as I would call it), feel free to ask if you want to know more. To make it more easy for you I made an annotated image here referring to my comments, which also may help you in the future when it comes to judging photos regarding composition. Regards, Chianti (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You would have much better chance with exposure like File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg. I suggest you try again with a clean table, and different compositions with the bread. Personally I would like to see the whole bread. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose According to Opinel's website this is an outdoor knife, suitable "to work difficult materials, trim branches". It would seem more appropriate, for cutting bread indoors, to use their bread knife which has serrations. While I appreciate your explanation of the care taken over the composition of the photo, ultimately the opinion of whether the photo works is in the eye of the beholder, and if Yann finds the reflection distracting, then you can't just argue that away. For non-obvious photographs, it is better to explain your work up-front than have to potentially defend it after being opposed/misunderstood. Still, one can't please everyone. I think the long thin aspect-ratio of the framing is peculiar and not ideal, both in terms of composition but also utility. It seems more the photo has been cropped around a knife-shaped rectangle rather than the objects arranged within a more conventional frame. The perpendicular arrangement of the blade to the viewer is not dynamic. The knife is resting propped against the bread as though someone where taking a photograph of it, rather than its normal resting position of flat-side-up. The overall effect is a bit contrived.
The photo of the person cutting bread on Opinel's breadknife webpage is imo a better image of what is after all a tool that is designed to be used. If one is determined to make a still-life involving bread and a knife, then some more elements would help, such as additional slices, and perhaps the food that is to be placed on top. We do tend to prefer some educational utility for the image, rather than still-life art for its own sake (though it has a place). So you'd get more support if it was more clearly educational. For example, food photography of delicious bread and toppings making me hungry for it, or hand-tool photography showing the proper knife being actively used to cut bread. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have several of these myself, I carry at least one with me all the time, and I use them indoor and outdoor. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, it works well for me, and I appreciate the skill involved. For a more clear FP, however, I'd prefer to see a shot that's a little bit more dynamic - for example, as Colin suggests, a photo showing the knife being used to cut bread. This is a good still-life and overall I think deserves a feature, but it's not the kind of images that grabs you straight away. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I was going to support, as this is way better than the other photo in terms of color and contrast, i.e. it makes you want to have a slice of the bread, until I read Colin's oppose, and I just can't unthink it, so to speak. The more you look at it after reading, the more you'd want to see a serrated knife in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Colin--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Fri 16 Aug → Wed 21 Aug
Sat 17 Aug → Thu 22 Aug
Sun 18 Aug → Fri 23 Aug
Mon 19 Aug → Sat 24 Aug
Tue 20 Aug → Sun 25 Aug
Wed 21 Aug → Mon 26 Aug

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)Edit

Mon 12 Aug → Wed 21 Aug
Tue 13 Aug → Thu 22 Aug
Wed 14 Aug → Fri 23 Aug
Thu 15 Aug → Sat 24 Aug
Fri 16 Aug → Sun 25 Aug
Sat 17 Aug → Mon 26 Aug
Sun 18 Aug → Tue 27 Aug
Mon 19 Aug → Wed 28 Aug
Tue 20 Aug → Thu 29 Aug
Wed 21 Aug → Fri 30 Aug

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2019.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.