Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

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, videos, 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 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 documents

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."

Photographs

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 audio

Set nominations

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).

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 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 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.

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Theatinerkirche Munich, March 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2018 at 07:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Onça do Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 21:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I've seen jaguars in the Pantanal and they are not that colour. Charles (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree the sharpness is an issue. The technical quality seems fine for a 400mm telephoto. At 6MP it looks completely sharp and would print A4 just fine. Charles, what specifically is wrong with the colour? Do you think the white balance is wrong? Surely the colour will change somewhat depending on ambient light. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, along similar lines as Martin. This reminds me of an illustration from "Where the Wild Things Are", except that it's a real wild thing and a real photo. Also reminds me of paintings by Le Douanier Rousseau. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a picture more than a photo (and those are rare here at FPC) so composition and wow overrules technical pixel-peep-perfection. The overall light in the pic is warm, creating an ambiance, so it's normal that the jaguar gets a hint of that tone too. --Cart (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:AllSaintsChurchFleet GableAfterFile.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 20:23:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951), Sète.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 18:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Western jackdaw (Coloeus monedula spermologus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 16:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info John Gay, in his Beggar's Opera, notes that 'A covetous fellow, like a jackdaw, steals what he was never made to enjoy, for the sake of hiding it'. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for the claws, but especially that face. Nice quote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For some reason I get an old children's song from When the Robbers Came to Cardamom Town in my head when I see this. :) --Cart (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Lack of details of the feathers on the main part of the body. Also quite a banal shot. Bird in a garden. I'm afraid this is the kind of images we might delist in a few years -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. Quite a lot of chroma noise on the bird too. I don't see enough character or behaviour here to offset the negatives. If he was looking straight at me, with evil intent, then that might be something, but here it is just going about its business. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --El Grafo (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Image:Vistas Alcazaba Almería.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 14:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Colorful face painting, 2696947.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 03:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks good in small size, but too grainy in full size IMO --Llez (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeah, and the slight lack of sharpness on the nose - it's pretty minor, but in this image it makes the paint look smudgy.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Please sign to make your vote legit. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why is the nose so blurry? The nostrils are in the same plane as the fingers next to them – but they are so much more blurry that I have to assume the nose was blurred on purpose. The picture looked cool at first and I was about to forgive some graininess that would only be visible when inspected closely anyway. And I like how you can see the photographer's silhouette in her eyes. But I just can't un-see that weird blury nose. --El Grafo (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination This is state of art photography. :(( Yann (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Retrato de una niña, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles: yes, of course, I explicitly asked the father of the girl, who was present, for permission. We were actually in the middle of a Wiki Takes and the girl was photographed by many of us. Poco2 17:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good child portrait, but not much more. --A.Savin 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The WB is too blue. When you do a portrait where the light is not a special feature, you should try to get that right so she gets her right skin tone (as well as the whites of her eyes). --Cart (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Cart, ok, I see, there was some room for improvement, I just uploaded a new version with a "warmer" WB, thanks! --Poco2 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paisaje cerca de la mina de Collahuasi, Chile, 2016-02-10, DD 16-21 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Poco a poco: Which makes this image all the more extraordinary ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - How many degrees is this panorama? It would be good to include that in the file description, too, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan, it is aprox. 200 degrees (the road on left and right side is the same), I added it to the file description, along with the geodata (middle of nowhere) Poco2 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Helleborus orientalis, Zaaddozen zwellen, Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 05:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Helleborus orientalis #Family Ranunculaceae
  •   Info The seed pods of this Helleborus orientalis begin to swell and to ripen. The petals change color to beautiful earth tones and look like parchment. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting. Works better because it's not in sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Barbara Bush at LBJ Presidential Library.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 03:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Lauren Gerson - uploaded by Blazoaustin - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but that isn't working for me; it's a profile so you can't really see her complete facial expression, and there's not much going on that would give me a "wow" feeling. I don't think the technical quality is quite up to FP level either.--Peulle (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a good photo, and if the intent is to memorialize the late Mrs. Bush, I think a) a better image could probably be found and b) we should wait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't think I agree that it's not a good photo, but I do agree that it's not an outstanding one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Canis mesomelas.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 16:58:27
 

  •   Info Head is not in focus (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist . Barely passed in 2007. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Focus is on the rear end, head somewhat oversharpened. Contrast could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree. Considering the resolution, lighting and general detail, this is surely no longer one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Good shot, but way below FP quality today. --El Grafo (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Purple fringing to a degree unacceptable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA22349 – Gullies of Matara Crater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 02:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Peak-in-kuh-e-genu-mountain-range-iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 21:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dromedar on Queshm island in southern Iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 20:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the above opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (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:Hypomeces squamosus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Straßburg Pöckstein 1 Schlosspark Monopteros 11102016 4827.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:HarryTruman.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Superfície não orientável - Bordo trifólio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 19:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's quite bizarre to see this kind speech ^ in an open and collaborative community that has educational as its principals.
Charles I renamed the file as the Professor responsible for museum requested. It's a renomination, it's quite clearing that's a renomination, as we have access to history, but as I had to change the name of the file, put a /2 on it was wrong, and I didn't find documentation to how to proceed.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies if my response sounded harsh. Without judging the actual quality of the image, I am going to formally   Oppose this nomination since 1) the image has previously (and fairly recently) failed to reach featured status, 2) there seems to have been no change to the image since then, 3) the nominator has not specified any reason for the renomination. Please accept my submission that without good reason, failed nominations should not be renominated. --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment AFAICS, simply changing the name of a file is not sufficient grounds for a renomination, the image itself needs to be improved or changed in some significant way. That is not the case here, it is exactly the same image. I will not vote since I consider this nomination invalid. The community reached a decision about this image a year ago and that still stands. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • While it is disappointing to fail through lack of support, vs clear oppose votes, the result is the same. Many people dislike opposing, and so when they fail to turn up and support, it still counts as a failure. For renoms, in addition to improving an image, or cases where a previous nomination got complicated or disrupted (such as too many alternatives proposed), I would support a renom in it was felt that there had been long enough duration (years) between noms that the community attitude towards a type of image may have changed. Doing it again merely to get another spin at the roulette wheel is not fair IMO. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I reopen the vote, as a volunteer created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion, and by one vote didn't pass by false allegations, not because the lack of quality.
And them, well we have a new unwelcoming environment to discuss about this image again.
This kind of environment move away votes, contributions, more than low quality, a lot volunteers deviate harsh speech, but I think that you know that.
Again your are prioritising your political views than the evaluation of image...
.
Just one point, this seems to be a wiki community, and the one of the beauty of wiki is the possibility to change - as we have the possibility to remove a FP badge, rediscuss one image is not harmful, harmful is this what you are creating.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
RTA, the only volunteer who "created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion" was you. I don't know which "false allegations" you refer to, but sounds a bit like saying lies, which isn't very friendly. One supporter's only contributions to FPC in 2017 were to support your nominations. Another hadn't contributed to FPC for four months and would not vote again for another eight months. Both Brazilian. So some pretty clear canvassing going on there. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
q.e.d. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Charles (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per all discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vieux-Québec 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 16:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is a subjetive factor, I find interesting the 50s building facade and aspect --The Photographer 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:River Cuckmere April 2018 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 09:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United Kingdom
  •   Info Pastoral English landscape with the river Cuckmere. East Sussex, England. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely landscape. The image might seem fairly ordinary, but it captures a certain mood. There's just something about it that makes me want to sit down by that stream and relax.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, it is a peaceful moment but I still miss something here, a more pano view could help, there is definitely too much grass in the foreground and also a bit too much sky IMHO Poco2 12:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Missing nothing for me. It's beautiful and reminds me of really good 19th-century English landscapes by people like Constable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support but see note: a tighter crop might be even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Turneresque. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But a bit more "panorama-crop" would be even better --Llez (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Punjabi Man from Gulabewala, Sri Muktsar Sahib.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough space on the right (in front of the man), and we can't see the eyes. Also a bit dark. Yann (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann and it lacks some sharpness, --Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I keep thinking "Uh ... sir ... the camera's over here". Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann, too dark and the eyes are hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. As a viewer, I'm frustrated not to be able to see his eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Darshan Singh, Village Akbarpur Afghana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. But the perspective could be slightly corrected -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Please add the personality right disclaimer, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 14:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Heavy purple CA around his head, please fix that. --Code (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait, interesting personality --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is nice, but I wonder if the shadows can be lifted, especially on the face? Charles (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This shouldn't be this good, but it is. I like that the bench conveys a slight symmetry, one pleasingly offset by the background, yet united with it in rectilinearity. The neutral tones accentuate the humility suggested by his seated posture and white clothing. An excellent environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Techelsberg Sankt Martin Winterwald 31012015 750.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Still oppose for me; it's nice, but just not very ... "niiiice".--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I preferred the original version with the different trees and the shades of tones -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current version is better but I still miss more image on the top Poco2 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Thanks Martin! --Cart (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anything really interesting in this and the tree bottom right (see note) doesn't help. Charles (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Sharpest part seems to have been cropped out, but overall it makes a nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful composition, and the crop resulted in a big improvement. I frankly don't care about the degree of sharpness of the trees in a photo that's so based on the rhythm of the eyes moving around the picture frame that that abstract element is much more important than the details on the individual trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no wow for me, per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately even very small things can disturb a photo. Might be hard to clone these out though. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice blue hour shot. --Code (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. The yellow flag looking like a ghost is more disturbing than the garbage bins, but both attract the eyes immediately after the ship. They're located in front, just in the middle. Also I wonder if this saturated blue is not overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, the subject is though FP-worthy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to take the image from the front Poco2 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Once you see those, you can't unsee them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 03:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info : No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight! 😉 It is a 1.9 millimetre long shell of a tiny sea snail.
    Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Impressive for a photo of such a small shell. How did you even see this to collect it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info For such small shells I take a handful of sand at the beach and then I search under a binocular microscope sand grain for sand grain for several hours. --Llez (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is not there, but the similarity with the "object" is amazing and very funny. Nice find -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Basile, this one is far below the quality you usually present here. Clearly it is more challeging to get there for tiny objects but I believe that there is room for improvement, sorry Poco2 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree that the quality of the shell photos I usually present here is better. But I please you to note, that such tiny objects can not be photographed with a normal camera. All my photos of tiny shells, see for example the Caecidae or Rissoidae photos, are made with a binocular microscope, which does never reach (and is also not comparable with) the quality of pictures of a good "normal" camera. --Llez (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, I strike through my vote as I've no experience in this kind of photography, and therefore I don't really feel qualified to judge the result Poco2 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've that lens (and in that cat there are a few QIs of mine) but so far I just used it outdoors, which is really hard. I'll try to take some studio images of tiny objects with my 5DS R, I didn't try that yet. Poco2 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info For the shell photos I normally use a 60mm Tamron Macro objective, which is comparable to the Canon lens mentioned above. This objective is useful for objects (e.g. shells) down to 6 mm (of course I made this photo with the 60mm Macro). All objects, which are smaller can't be photographed picture-filling any more, for you can't go closer to the object. This means, the smaller the object, the smaller is the object on the photo and the more empty space you have (and the more quality loss you have). Therefore I use for objects smaller than 6 mm not a normal camera with macro lens but an UCMOS 14000KPA camera (4096 x 3288 px) in combination with a microscope or a binocular mircoscope respectively, which allows picture filling photos of objects from 6 mm down to 10 μm (!), an object size, which is impossible to photograph with a normal macro lens. All my photos of shells, of which the size is below 7 mm, are made with the UCMOS 14000KPA. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I've added two categories : Pareidolias and Condoms. If not in the description, what makes this picture special should be mentioned somewhere on the file page, I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Llez's response to Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Guéthary - Port -BT- 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 21:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Three buffaloes heads above water in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 15:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, these water buffaloes got their name from this particular behavior. They're often cooling themselves in the water (or in the mud), when the weather is hot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very strong oppose These working animals have ropes inserted through their noses and we should not be celebrating this abusive (though traditional) practice. Charles (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, that's a point. It seems that I'm too urban to see this. Charles, did you notice that you've put 'support' in your oppose? --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For now this vote is more a green support than a strong oppose   but to answer your comment, Charles, these domestic buffaloes are not enclosed and then free to graze and move where they want. I think such practices are more respectful than to park them in a small enclosure like in other areas in the world. But these are not wild animals, contrary to what it seems ! And concerning the rope in their noses, Wikipedia says "Bulls, especially, are powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals which, if uncontrolled, can kill or severely injure a human handler". Also I don't encourage any practice just taking this picture, I was passing by this river bank, and met these animals starring at me like big sharks, that made me shoot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes an innocently-taken image can reveal animal cruelty. Could I suggest you have a look at these online comments on what's behind this photo: one; two
  • Charles, are you ok? You vote with the wrong symbol, you confuse wiki-link code with external link code and you don't sign your comment. I have fixed the links for you though. Hope you are taking care of yourself, --Cart (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm just committed to animal welfare and I hope we all are. When I'm cross, I make more mistakes! Sorry. Charles (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while. The Wiki-project needs good photos of everything. Remaining neutral when judging good photos or good text in articles can sometimes be very hard when the content goes against our own feelings on the subject. Good photos are supposed to extract emotions from us and make us think. --Cart (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You are right, but this well-composed image was taken in good faith just to be an interesting shot, which it is. A close-up of the ropes piercing the animals' heads would be very acceptable if the caption described what was being depicted. To give another example, it would not be acceptable (in my view) to nominate a pretty picture of very young children sewing colourful carpets without mentioning the abusive practice of child labour. Charles (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well then, the solution would be to add neutral information about this part of the photo, since it is possible to extract closeups from this photo (one of the reasons why FPs are in hi-res). Let's see if I can fix that so that all parties will be satisfied. My edit can of course be removed or tweaked. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree to mention this nose rope in the description. I also added a link to the Bubalus bubalis, which is the main subject. However, I don't think this picture is the right place to debate about the nose ring, the Wikipedia article is much more appropriate to the discussion (in favor or against), and a link to the page might be enough, I think. Then I changed the description accordingly to the vision I have about this image. Thanks for the contributions -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's ok, but in the new edit you instead inserted a personal comment and veiwpoint ("At this bank, starring at the camera like three sharks, or like three attentive observers, they're rather funny to look at, as if they were expecting something from their group photograph.") That should be removed since it doesn't belong in a neutral image description, please do so. Let the viewer form their own oppinion about the photo. Like if this photo was to be used in an article about nose ropes, that's not the sort of comment you'd want accompanying the picture. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I took the liberty to write it's funny because I'm not the only one to find so, reading the others. And concerning your idea about nose ropes, reading the Wikipedia page, there is not (yet) people against -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because there are at least two people finding something funny, does not mean it is so for everyone. I for one don't find this funny at all. But it's a good picture. Image descriptions should be neutral, that's how encyclopedic material works. If you don't like to have other people's values in an image text, you should not impose your values either. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)~
  • No problem, I'm fine with the description now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, it would be best to add the new descriptions in French, too, when you have the chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, slowly, slowly... First get a consensus on the text in English, then translate -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I saw once one water buffalo gone berserk... and out of control. In this case, better not to stay close... The rope in the nose is a necessary security feature for every one. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Camaleão - Polychrus marmoratus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Caerphilly Castle south.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2018 at 21:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
  •   Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, but I would crop a little off the bottom (keeping all the reflection) and get rid off the remaining grass bottom right. Charles (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for QI, but not that good light, harsh shadows, sorry --A.Savin 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like the harsh shadows... they help accentuate the function/character of a fortress --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the light either, it almost looks overexposed.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Further, I'm wondering if a long exposure could have created a better reflection of the building. Or a shot on a less windy day. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support Basotxerri has a point, but until we get that picture I'm OK with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A possible FP-composition, but the light does not impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Powerlines at the crossroads.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Powerlines always give me a sort of "badlands" vibe, so I shot this crossing while the grass was still dry after winter and the deciduous trees still bare. (soundtrack) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The lower left corner is kind of distorted and blurry, but that's not what this picture is about. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for me a simple and balanced line game.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:KAS-Wiederaufbau-Bild-4-4.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2018 at 09:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media#Poster_&_advertisement


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sun 15 Apr → Fri 20 Apr
Mon 16 Apr → Sat 21 Apr
Tue 17 Apr → Sun 22 Apr
Wed 18 Apr → Mon 23 Apr
Thu 19 Apr → Tue 24 Apr
Fri 20 Apr → Wed 25 Apr

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

Wed 11 Apr → Fri 20 Apr
Thu 12 Apr → Sat 21 Apr
Fri 13 Apr → Sun 22 Apr
Sat 14 Apr → Mon 23 Apr
Sun 15 Apr → Tue 24 Apr
Mon 16 Apr → Wed 25 Apr
Tue 17 Apr → Thu 26 Apr
Wed 18 Apr → Fri 27 Apr
Thu 19 Apr → Sat 28 Apr
Fri 20 Apr → Sun 29 Apr

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 (except to add categories on the file page). 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.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  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/April 2018), 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/April 2018.
  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 purpose 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/April 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.