Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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


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."


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}} -- ~~~~.


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:In the mood. Veteran at Belgian National Day. Brussels, 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2018 at 09:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helsinki Olympic Stadium Tower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 15:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis rudis) female 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 12:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Seventh Angel BoE-2012-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 06:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Djhé - uploaded by Djhé - nominated by Djhé -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice artistic photo, it has a mood and strength to it that I really like. --cart-Talk 11:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really liking the strong pattern noise, which has been emphasised by the processing. The hand is blurred and the aspect-ratio/crop just isn't working for me. If we're going to put up with the compromises that result from shooting a live act (high noise, weird colours from lighting, narrow DoF, etc) then I'd like to see the live act. Here is just a B&W photo of hands holding a guitar, which one could create with any anonymous model in the studio with much more pleasing results. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but there is always a je-ne-sais-qoui part/mood to a real live concert photo that is hard to duplicate in a studio shot. --cart-Talk 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I did a Google image search from the file description page and nearly every b&w image returned included the artists's head. Without that, there's no identity and no life to this "live performance". Many of the search results also are more dynamic in pose/action, whereas this is a very classic guitar hold with no apparent movement. The landscape format makes me think the head is cropped off, though it is more likely the camera was just held that way. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Mmmh. FWIW, for me it is very apparent that this is a live performance. "[A]ny anonymous model" won't do for this kind of thing, you'll need an actual guitar player for this or it'll look utterly fake. But I see your point regarding the crop – and I think it could possibly help to crop even more on the top and right. Regarding the noise, I wonder how it would look like had it been shot on actual black & white film (something like Delta 3200 pushed a stop or two). I'm still undecided … --El Grafo (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • El Grafo, you're going to tell me now that the models in "Addicted to Love" aren't actual guitar players ;-). Ok, "model" was probably the wrong word, but any modestly able guitar player would do. All I can see here is a white male in a dark t-shirt holding some random guitar. Everything that makes capturing a live performance worthwhile seems to be missing. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It is nearly impossible to get a ski jumper 100% sharp while panning, but this is the best I could get. He would be sharp enough for the Newspapers at lower resolution and even Spiegel Online had a way less sharp panned ski jumper in their articles about the Olympic Games currently running in Korea so maybe this is wow enough to cover the missing sharpness. I'll give it a try. :) --Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me. Yann (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent, IMO. Quite a clear picture of the subject under the circumstances, and I love the motion blur, which really helps me perceive speed and motion in an objectively static image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You will not achieve sharpness using a shutter speed setting of 1/200 sec. (Image is downsized). Charles (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely necessary to use longer shutter speeds to do panning and downsizing is not forbidden. --Granada (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for a panning shot. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I agree that getting it sharp is difficult, it's what's needed for me to vote in support of this.--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness of skier is, to me, more than offset by the success of the panning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ansel Adams and camera.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by J. Malcolm Greany - uploaded by Kaidor with modifications by User:Utzdman55 and Kaidor - nominated by Pine -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Djhé (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support God historical value and quality considering the age.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Uncalibrated f/64. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Claus 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The photographer photographed as he would have photographed his work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus stuartkeithi).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 23:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There is only one other FP of this species - it is a different subspecies - and it shows a different profile of one of the world's most beautiful birds. I'm surprised by your comment as you yourself have two FPs of an identical view Example 1 and Example 2. Never mind your two FPs of the same fuscia species Example 3 and Example 4. I realise also that you find that your sawing machine justifies 3 FPs! Do explain your reasoning please. Charles (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Answer: your comparison with my photo is not entirely up. Those pictures differ from each other. But of the kingfisher we have at least 5, of which 1 is with a fish in the mouth. The sawing machine is also very different from each other. I also commented on that. Once again your photo is perfect, but it looks like the other photos. But that is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll leave others to judge the differences between your images, but I don't think there are arbritrary limits on FPs. You may know, for instance, that there are 34 Featured pictures of Ardea, many of the same species - and herons are not more diverse and attractive than the kingfisher family - though I'm biased as I love kingfishers and they are so much more challenging to photograph than herons! Charles (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that beak ... I had to back away a little bit when I first saw this because I thought it was going to peck out the lens. I wish more of it could have been sharper but, I know, you do what you can with what you've got. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 22:34:31





  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace - Disturbing ghosts in both, but the second version is far superior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace The new version is perspectively corrected. --Granada (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace because of corrected projection. However, I like the slightly darker blue in the old version more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting... I never tried to tweak the projection of that one... Good job! - Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment worth mentioning what exactly was corrected IMO. Only the opposite side was. As far as I can see, the left and right were untouched, and neither was the ground. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Although I do like that darker blue sky as well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Claus 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bad Kissingen Maxbrunnen 0417RM0270.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 21:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Europese lariks (Larix decidua) op een rotswand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy# Larix decidua.
  •   Info Stelvio National Park (Italy). European larch (Larix decidua) on a steep rock face. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Odd angle to photograph a tree. I think you've raised the blacks too much, leading to the areas that should be black being just grey. I rarely find it helpful to raise blacks at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really wowed, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin (again). Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Krummhörn, Greetsiel, Hafen -- 2018 -- 1126.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:15:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this photo may have trouble at FPC, but I love this complex composition, and also the contrast between the many lines on the right and the space on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Camera not level; mast cropped; buildings behind boats are distracting. The post and the rope make it very undramatic as all movement possibility is stuck. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin; just too much going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Norderney, Kurplatz, Fahrradständer -- 2018 -- 1023.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It is not necessary to have the whole photograph sharp. A sharp board would be disturbing. The composition is to have only the first rack sharp. --XRay talk 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • More precisely, this blurred board with unreadable text spoils the composition. Eye-catching, this element occupies the main place on the left side of the image, and thus seems to be intentionally there, whereas it's just nothing. Not interesting, not legible, not in focus. Just disturbing, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could see how this might have seemed like it could work, but the background is too distracting. If a way could be found to make it work as just the bike rack, perhaps there is an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now per others. Please crop out the sign. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think about an alternative in square or 4:5 aspect ratio without the sign, but I trouble to do this within the next days. I'm looking for a solution. --XRay talk 07:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I quite like the idea, but I would have stepped to the right and focused on the metal hoops, making that perspective the main thing.--Peulle (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


  •   Support The alternative without the sign! --XRay talk 07:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Basotxerri, Basile Morin, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your reviews. Here is a cropped version without the sign. --XRay talk 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's better, IMO, but I'd like it more if you also cropped out the rest of the window - in other words, a relatively tight crop of the pole just to the right of the window. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It would make a nice Photo Challenge entry, but there are too many distracting elements for the geometric repeat to be appreciated. Also you are perhaps not at enough of an angle to appreciate the repeat. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. And I still like it. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I think the image isn't good enough for FP. --XRay talk 05:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld Eric Frenzel 850 9872.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 08:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why a banana in a portrait could be funny but here unfortunately it blends in too much with the shapes and colors of his clothes and equipment. Looking at the photo, you first see him, then you notice a smudge on his face, then you realize the smudge is a shadow and finally you realize it comes from something he is holding which turns out to be a banana. The pun gets lost. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think it's funny and worth the time it takes to get the punch line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd go in and edit the image to reduce the shadow in his face, because I think it's disturbing.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree the banana is not very distinctive at small size, but as soon as you figure out what it is, then the gesture associated to the object gets obvious, and you immediately understand what's the intention of the stage. It becomes funny and this way reveals an interesting personality trait on Eric Frenzel. Technically very good picture, large and sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Whether the joke works or not is beside the point; I really don't get wowed enough by this one for it to be FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good sharp photo, but doesn't quite work to FP for me. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-15-58.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 07:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice building, but I'm unconvinced by this picture. I've written a note with a proposed crop and a criticism of the cutoff of the tree at the left margin, but I'm unsure whether I'd support the photo if you took the two steps I suggest. The sharpness of the building is a little soft. The light is growing on me, though, and the vegetation is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA17218 – A Farewell to Saturn, Brightened Version.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 02:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dahlia cultivar (70093s).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 00:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info focus stacked image of a Dahlia cultivar in New York in October 2017. all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice flower, good stacking and I also love dahlias with their velvety oh-so-hard-to-photograph texture, but the light is unappealing and with two partially cut buds, the composition could be better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everything cart said, plus the posterization on the petal tips that happens so often in this kind of picture (And does it really fade from red to magenta like that?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Beachy Head March 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 20:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Contre-jour photo of Beachy Head in in East Sussex, England. The cliff is the highest chalk sea cliff in Britain, rising to 162 metres (531 ft) above sea level. Created, uploaded and nominated -- Arild Vågen (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Well-captured light. --cart-Talk 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm not really wow'ed. The people are distracting too. --A.Savin 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd afraid my eye is led round to the man with legs apart, looking at the camera. It's a shame but I think that near couple spoil the photo. The vapour trail is also a bit unfortunate, but could be cloned out. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jaswant Zafar at Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 18:25:00 (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 -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and probably valued image, but I'd like the person facing the camera for a FP. Also too much empty space. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI probably, but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. A technically very good shot, sharp and well lit, but I would also love it to see the person facing to the camera. --Granada (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose A really good portrait does not have to be someone facing the camera (there are plenty of profiles and half-profiles in Commons:Featured pictures/People), but unfortunately the side of the glasses ends up right over his eye and that is disturbing the photo. Otherwise it is really good and I like the space in the photo since it gives the man a chance to breathe. I'm also intrigued by seeing how the glasses are tucked into the folds of the turban. I haven't seen many people wearing such headdresses and I didn't realize that's how they work with glasses. --cart-Talk 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Breisach - Stephansmünster zur Blauen Stunde.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 07:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the "strange glow" is called smoke and comes typically from chimneys --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Could be. It has a strange straight edge cut out of the right-hand-side, so it looked more like the weird glow one can get sometimes from stitching frames. But perhaps the straight edge is a shadow from the lights and building combined. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It not a shadow. You see the chimney below the "strange glow"? It would not be a problem to retouche the smoke. But I see no necessary to do this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a note to the image about a possible dust spot or something. Charles (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • whatever it was, it`s removed --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Don Puay river bank landscape at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 01:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The girl's face and some of the water buffaloes' faces are rather unsharp, but the view is so picturesque! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It's sort of soft in some places and the composition is a little random ... but you know what? It's got a great evening mood, and I love the perspective, going from just in front of the camera's feet all the way out to the distant features on the horizon. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--LG Nyqvist (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lahminewski Lab (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Going to Laos in a week, but won't leave the capital, and this picture makes me regret it. Delicate light. Only wish the framing was more focused on the subject. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kleinarl Jägersee 20180209.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 14:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tubla sun Juac cun Odles y Stevia Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 11:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The mountain on the upper right may be a bit disproportionately unsharp, but the overall quality is good and I find the composition quite interesting. (I don't like the category - it's not a purely natural scene and I wanted "Mountains" but couldn't figure out how to get that to link to anything.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the tree in the middle of the picture? Charles (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, biscecting the picture nearly in two that way is a nice structural element and look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Like the "lines" in the picture. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, not an interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The swiss pine and the sunburned logs of the barn give a special taste of alpine atmosphere --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but big parts are unsharp. This camera definitely has better performance --A.Savin 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Karlstad Stonebridge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Sweden
  •   Info created and uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 09:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A photo rich with color and interesting texures. I love the impeccable timing so that the light streaks, from what I assume is a bus, are only reflected in the open part of the river and not in the ice near the shores. -- cart-Talk 09:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Although I'm wondering why the lights aren't crossing the bridge continously from right to left, I do like the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the technical answer is simple; the photographer didn't press the button until the vehicle was above he third bridge foundation. Since the bus/whatever had some speed, it didn't leave a shadow or anything at the point where the exposure began. There are light traces from a car that was behind the bus. I think that timing is rather splendid, since it leaves the birch grove and the ice on the right undisturbed by light streaks. --cart-Talk 15:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the explaination. Anyway, I wish that the lights were passing all over the bridge. But the image is good enough this way! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thats right. The exposure did not start immediately after the bus was on the bridgde. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! But there are some dust spots in the sky that should be removed. :) --Granada (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info OK - Have taken away a couple of small spots and uploaded a new version. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support love the starbursts! --El Grafo (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), isla Lobos, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-25, DD 47.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Exemplar of a juvenile marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) laying on a rock in the coast of Lobos Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support One of those rare occasions when tone-in-tone camouflage colors works for the photo. It looks like some mini-gargoyle posing for a stone carving on Notre-Dame de Paris. (Though I wouldn't mind if that bright, distracting glint or whatever above its tail was removed.) --cart-Talk 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    cart:   Done Poco2 11:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent focus to the animal, it is very detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good colors and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Granada (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice composition. Charles (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kloster Banz vom Staffelberg 270136-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 07:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment a bit too centered? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this light doesn't give me the wow. With so much nature being included, I'd need some more impressive lighting.--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral To be there and see this view in real life is something special. Difficult to give it justice in a picture. If I have been there I had divided the view in 3 rows and 3 colums and put the building in same row but in colum #1 or #3 --LG Nyqvist (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment That depends on how you divide up the picture. The uppermost light in the clouds is the rest of the sunset far left outside the picture. The sky was simply too dark on the right side and in the foreground and on the right side there would be lights of the highway and other roads. But I will certainly find another solution next time.--
  • Ermell (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, no wow for me. IMO the main object is also just a small part of the composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color seems very off, and unsharpness in some areas more than the long exposure can forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 02:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Reagan sitting with people from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in February 1983.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 13:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
  •   Info In the series of images depicting significant historical events, this image is captioned: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83. During the Soviet invasion, the US provided financial and military support to the mujahedin, in a covert operation managed by the CIA. While this support was classified, the moral support was public - as this image shows.
  • Created by a White House photographer (possibly Tim Clary) Michael Evans, as stamped on the contact sheet, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I have done a minor fix: straightened and perspektive correction. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Most of the source links are broken. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: I did a little searching on the net and some digging and found that most of the files have just been moved to the Reagan Library website. I have put the new links on the file's page. One pdf lists all the rolls of film taken by the White House photographers during 1983, complete with contact sheets and everything (frame 32). Pretty cool! So the name of the photographer is no longer a mystery (it's Michael Evans) and you can apparently order larger files from the library if you want. A fun thing is looking at the other photos in this roll plus the one before and after so you get coverage of the whole event. This looks like a good site to visit to sort things out about photos from that era. --cart-Talk 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Historically significant. It seems like a hundred years ago that right-wingers and Evangelicals in the U.S. thought jihadists were righteous "freedom fighters", and of course they were fighting Soviet, rather than American occupation in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose historically significant moment perhaps, and possibly high enough EV for FP on Wikipedia, but for me the EV doesn't carry it far enough. the capture seems rather unremarkable aside from just being in the room. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While hunting for sources for this photos, I've gone over it in by head and now I find that Rhododendrites has expressed my view rather eloquently. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - agree that it has EV and would be a good candidate for en.WP but it doesn't quite meet the FP requirements here. Atsme 📞 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Car radio antenna on Mazda 323 compacted.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 10:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • For me, it adds a depth to the picture having a light side and a dark side, divided by the antenna. Having all of it evenly lit would have been boring and not given the image enough contrast. --cart-Talk 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I do not mind the darkness. I like the idea that is well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support these crystals with their dense texture. A macro lens would have made it gorgeous, but the quality is okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Creative!! Love the definition of the crystals. Atsme 📞 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer a little bit lighter. But a resourceful choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As per others -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Green crab traps with white buoys.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too many blurry bars and other blurry things, uncomfortable to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very arty, looks like the moon trapped. Unusual, intriguing and different. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since I like odd, arty photos I wanted to get mesmerized by this but unfortunately that didn't happen. The lines are too many and too chaotic. The overcast light doesn't help as it makes all surfaces flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54

Sectional maps

  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question I'm a little confused here. Is the proposal here that we delist one sectional map and replace it with one sectional map plus two one-file maps? --cart-Talk 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • W.carter, that's why the new set is better. --Paris 16 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're proposing to delist a single file in favor of a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You aren't showing an old set, only a single currently featured file that you want replaced with a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The old set is above.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek:, @Daniel Case: and anyone else interested. The whole sets are displayed above. The twenty images that each of the sets consists of are just displayed in a grid of thumbs instead of one after the other, so they make up what looks like one single "picture" in the nomination. Depending on which square you click on in the "picture", you will be directed to a different file. If you open the editing window, you can see the name of each file listed. This nom is about replacing the 20 files of the original set with a new set of 20 files + two new files: one file that is all of the set images put together in a single file and one file that is a simplified version of that "merged" file with just the streets and major features and not all the little houses drawn. --cart-Talk 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see. Thanks for explaining. The proposed substitution is better, even without considering the two additional files.   Delist and replace . Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --cart-Talk 09:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank W.carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace I'm in favour, having examined the maps in some detail. I love maps. I noticed a bit of a colour stain left of Rue d'Antin and below R. de Bourgogne - they should see to that. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above signature is apparently Daniel's. --cart-Talk 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Claus 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info @Claus Obana: Please sign your vote to make it legit. --cart-Talk 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, W.carter.--Claus 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:2016 Kwiat grzybieni białych 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 11:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it is better than File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpg it is not as good as File:Adarga (Nymphaea alba), Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.jpg, which has a more interesting angle than "point camera down at flower and press button". All flowers are pretty, so I think it requires some composition cleverness and excellent technique to get FP. Here the flowers are bright sunlit so detail is lost. The surrounding leaves, which aren't very photogenic here, are sharp and a bit distracting. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Though I do almost feel like I can smell the flower looking at the image in closeup. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I sort of like all the different kinds of bugs you can see when zoomed all the way in. It was enough to hold my interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Julian. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrary to Colin, I think that "point and click" photos can sometimes work, but then the conditions need to perfect. You need better light than this to get the structure of the flower, the surroundings and background needs to be good; here the leaves have seen better days and there are intrusive shadows (stems, stalks?) crossing the top of the photo. Unlike Daniel, I don't imagine smelling the flower here only the stagnant water. --cart-Talk 12:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Locatie, Sauerland Duitsland. Eikenblad met rijp.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 06:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Young vendor in a grocery store in Don Som.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 04:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice photo but dull light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a good documentary photo and I like the fact that you can see an adult watching over him in the background, but like Ikan said, the light is dull and also I'm not a fan of top-down angle when photographing children. Taking the photo at his level would have been better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above comments are fair. From the distance I was to take this picture (and this is a crop), it was difficult to place my camera lower to respect the perspectives of the building. I think the dull light is more visible on the top and on the right of the image. Thus, I try the alternative version below taken from a lower and closer viewpoint. Despite the new 16:9 format, this image is larger in size (24,2 MPix vs 19,3 Mpix). The adult behind has disappeared but the boy is smiling -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like that the whole shop is on display (that's encyclopedic), a version with a smiler would be better. . --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)



  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is better. He has that cheeky "this is mine, deal with it" smile and look. In this photo, he is in charge and he is not some "poor timid" child you look down upon. --cart-Talk 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart, although I think a little more cropping in on the sides would help. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like above version, but shallow DOF, so to show store isnt good, its more like portrait by store. We still need some social shots, so i support.--Mile (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shop is the real star here and its cropped out. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree the shop is the real star of the first version. But this alternative displays another content -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Montuenga, Montuenga de Soria, Soria, España, 2017-05-23, DD 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 21:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Remains of the casle of Montuenga, a fortification of the 11th century located in Montuenga de Soria, Province of Soria, Spain. All by me, 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - the power transmission line is a bit distracting, but very impressive otherwise. --СССР (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very clean lines, but I would crop the right side further in - probably just a bit to the right of the pylon, but I think you could obviate complaints about it by cropping to its left, and that'll still look good and IMO better than the current crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: I played around with the crop but I came to the conclusion that it's ok like this. Cropping the right side would break the golden ratio and the castle would be almost centered. Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't look almost centered (not that I think there's any inherent problem with that) because of the slope on the left. I will remain   Neutral, I think, because there's a certain austere character to the photo as it is, but I haven't changed my mind that a good crop would improve the composition quite substantially. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Any chance to clone out the power lines & pylon? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, this evening will definitely clone that out and think about the crop --Poco2 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    @СССР, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner:   Done I've cloned out the power post and lines. --Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose vibrance, staruation is above my taste. --Mile (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is that the original blue? Looks too saturated. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    BeckenhamBear: Original is hard to say, but that's the standard blue in all such images. I come from that region and it doesn't look unreal to me, but as it is the second voice in that direction I've reduced the saturation a bit --Poco2 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I only asked. I have seen such blue before. I will lend my support for this image with "accurate" colour rendition. I don't mind the image being tweaked to portray real colours as seen knowing full well that film chemistry or the camera software can tell lies. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:View through the shattered glass of a door in the SNCB B22490 type-K3 carriage, looking at a yellow H. Weyhausen KG backhoe loader in As, Belgium (DSCF3088-hdr).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 14:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I like how the door frame (black rubber and metal edge) "naturally" frames the broken window view, I would much rather keep it that way so I will hold off on cropping unless the consensus is that it's required for FP. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support very interesting imo. I'd also crop the black frame --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose for now. It's a new and fresh, interesting motif but the image is dark and dull, the post-processing could be better with some more light and contrast since it is an artistic photo rather than a documentary one. --cart-Talk 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I increased the exposure (as well as a few other adjustment on the sharpness and white balance), is it bright enough? --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Now it is crackin'! Pardon the pun... ;) --cart-Talk 12:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - This motif, which actually occurred in life, produces a very good abstract composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, but I may support the cropped version without that black frame. Sorry I don't see the use of these partial borders. I just don't see what they bring to the image, what's the extra value of this half frame. We can't guess the material, it looks more like a disturbing element on both sides. Maybe if it was integral all around, at the limit, well, but cut like that, it kills the texture and ruins the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The black side bars are OK by me, they add to the abstract quality, and give some balance. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:MosMetro Krasnopresnenskaya asv2018-01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 14:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sat 17 Feb → Thu 22 Feb
Sun 18 Feb → Fri 23 Feb
Mon 19 Feb → Sat 24 Feb
Tue 20 Feb → Sun 25 Feb
Wed 21 Feb → Mon 26 Feb
Thu 22 Feb → Tue 27 Feb

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

Tue 13 Feb → Thu 22 Feb
Wed 14 Feb → Fri 23 Feb
Thu 15 Feb → Sat 24 Feb
Fri 16 Feb → Sun 25 Feb
Sat 17 Feb → Mon 26 Feb
Sun 18 Feb → Tue 27 Feb
Mon 19 Feb → Wed 28 Feb
Tue 20 Feb → Thu 01 Mar
Wed 21 Feb → Fri 02 Mar
Thu 22 Feb → Sat 03 Mar

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, because need a human user to do it). 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]] ===
    === [[: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/February 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/February 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.