Open main menu

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 images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PhotographsEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

Contents

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Suricata suricatta - Maroparque 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 05:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:68-104-9007 Kamianets-Podilskyi Fortress RB 18 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 23:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle, City of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Ukraine. Created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The huge lens flare distracts me too much. An angle with raking light and no sun in the picture might work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain I don't wish to vote on this image--BoothSift 05:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:SVG logo.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 21:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

TEST NOMINATION For the FDP template

 
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 21:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Vieux Limoilou, Québec city, Canadá 17.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 18:39:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's just an ordinary street scene, that's all.--Ermell (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. -- KTC (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The night is coming, but it does not add anything to the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. – Lucas 21:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's a good photo, and I like the clouds. And I think mundane scenes can produce great photos; I've supported some. I just find this good rather than great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary IMO--BoothSift 05:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Colonial House in Margarita Island (Interior).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 18:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Venezuela
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice to see a photo from Venezuela, but it does not have anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek and the left/right crop is not good IMHO. – Lucas 20:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I disagree with the opposers. This photo has interesting forms in addition to having an atmosphere and serving as social commentary. And I'm fine with the crops, because the result is a composition that's good to move one's eyes around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I did'n get the link to the social commentary. Millennium bug (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's rundown, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Periodic table cup cakes 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 17:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a test NOM, it checks for redirects

File:Featured video logo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 15:26:14 (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 reason - Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 15:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Reflection of trees in a pond 16-9, The Groynes, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 09:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Roof detail of Cardboard Cathedral, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 09:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#New_Zealand
  •   Info All by me. I thought I'd try a couple of nominations that are a bit more brave than the ones you saw from me in the last few months. This is Cardboard Cathedral which replaces Christchurch Cathedral, which was significantly damaged in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. It's quite a trivial composition in 4:3 format. I like how the roof's edge copies the edge of the moon's light, I like how you can see the last bit of a sunshine on the roof, and I also like the colors and the sharpness. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice creative composition. Sad what happened to the old Christchurch Cathedral - still more so that its own diocese tried to demolish what's left of it. Cmao20 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it, and it's nice that you were able to get the moon in the picture in that position. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 18:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Millennium bug (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Beautiful Balthali Village.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 06:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Striked support per below. – Lucas 07:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a beautiful view but I have a few issues with it. a) The resolution isn't very high for a 2019 FP landscape; b) I find the plants in the foreground a bit distracting; c) Are these colours really natural? I'm not saying they necessarily aren't, but I've never seen a landscape that looked quite like this. Cmao20 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose idem ̃--Mimihitam (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I have no problems with the composition; as far as I'm concerned, this is a beautiful picture. However, as Cmao20 said, it's small for a 2019 Featured Picture nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Schlumbergera (actm) 13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 05:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done. Noise Reduction Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks. Although, it was almost a bit too much. --Hockei (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really good to me. You could reduce the noise, but it's only a fine luminance grain and it doesn't actually bother me much. Cmao20 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment 'Tilted' background lines are distracting. Charles (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Vertical correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful gossamer petals in perfect light to show their texture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Me gusta--BoothSift 04:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Balaclava as suggested fashion piece for winter 2018-modeld by ModelTanja.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 02:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created/uploaded/nominated by Tobias ToMar Maier - suggested to Tobias ToMar Maier by Ikan Kekek -- Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment For a fashion picture, the crop is too tight. For a portrait, I would like a crop at the bottom. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fine portrait, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It might not work for others, but it is good for me --BoothSift 06:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me this is very well-composed and a great example of fashion portraiture. Cmao20 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Since it's supposed to be a model shot for the knitwear (not the coat) the crop is perfect. Looks like it was taken right out of a knitting catalogue (I should know, I love knitting! :-) ) --Cart (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If I could knit something that looked like that, I'm sure I would too. My attempts at knitting have generally resulted in things that looked nothing like how I wanted them to... Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Wegerich - Scheckenfalter auf Kamille.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 20:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 21:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great picture of the butterfly, once again. I think the category for the flower should be added. The blurred petals in the foreground are unfortunate because they're a bit obtrusive, but they're unavoidable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A pity about the missing EXIF, the image detail is great Poco2 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, the detail on the butterfly is excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. I would have welcomed EXIF data, too (I am curious which camera/lens/aperture/ISO was used) … --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But how did you get this uniform bokeh and an a smilar bokeh in your other nomination? Is it a studio shot? I also miss the EXIF data. --Llez (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Heart Mountain Relocation Center, Heart Mountain, Wyoming. In his barracks home at Block 7 - 21 - NARA - 539206 - Restoration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 20:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Department of the Interior. War Relocation Authority - restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, with additional work by Janke - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This is Bill Hosokawa's home at the Heart Mountain Relocation Center, part of the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment May be a historical photo but it seems to be nothing in focus and a typical family having dinner/lunch Ezarateesteban 20:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think there are some valuable details: The shoddy construction work, for instance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Historically important because it is one of those publicity photos that lies. Sort of "Oh look how well treated the Nisei are in the internment camp, how happy they are having dinner with the camp personel." --Cart (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You won me over with that argument. Support per Cart and Adam's remark about the shoddy construction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Adam and Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Plaza de la Victoria (frente al sud).mnba.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 20:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
  •   Info created by Charles Henri Pellegrini - uploaded by Poutourrou - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 20:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 20:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 21:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The color has been drastically changed from the original. Please explain your "restoration". Besides, I don't think watercolors should be digitally restored, any more than oil paintings; there's only one apiece, generally, and it's in whatever condition it's in. Prints can be different, because they may have been published in mass-circulation periodicals or there may have been an issue of x-number printed. But that's not the case with individual paintings. If I'm wrong about any of this, explain.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wrong color balance. Yann (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann--BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann.--Vulphere 12:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I'll reprocess it another day, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ray Strachey restored.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 20:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Marmora Formation closeup1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 17:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done - recategorized --СССР (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This would have to work for me as an abstract composition of lines and textures; I analyse it almost as if I were looking at an abstract painting that I want to have a good linear arabesque, though the textures help and make it a bit of a bas relief. It's a great idea, but the lines are not interesting enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. It would make a good background image for design purposes though. Cmao20 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Duomo vecchio facciata Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 11:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I love him, he is the sign of the time (besides the antenna, a precious gift from Franklin) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "O tempora, o mores!" --Cart (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.06.-39-Wendisch Rietz--Kanal zwischen Scharmuetzelsee und Grosser Storkower See-Schleuse.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 09:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Also taken from the boat. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A rather ordinary photo of waterway and locks. It also seems a bit dark to me (gray clouds, etc). --Cart (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info New version. WB and brightness. --Hockei (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quite yellow like an old photo from the 1970s. --Granada (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't like the bottom crop. Could you possibly extend it so that we could see the top of the center cloud reflected in the canal? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately not possible. There are boat and feet. --Hockei (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very wowing --BoothSift 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too gray, too yello, too green ... I'm sick of this. So I changed the WB and the brightness for my visual pleasure again and ...
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockei (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 May 2019‎ (UTC)
  • The bot will handle withdrawn nominations from today, please do not edit any withdrawn nominations from today Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockei (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 May 2019‎ (UTC)

File:Baumweißlinge Wittenberge-Rühstädter Elbniederung.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 06:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

not a mating ritual that I've ever heard of.
What do you think they're doing? Just touching each other in a friendly way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No, butterflies don't have friends. I don't know the time of day when the photo was taken, but the water droplets indicate it could be early morning. Butterflies do perch close together overnight. Early morning can be a good time to get a close up before they are warm enough to fly. Some photographers use painted backgrounds for these shots, but I don't know if that was done here or in the more recent FPC nomination. It's not a 'studio-shot' technique I use, but it does produce an appealing background. Charles (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But the crop above is a bit too tight. --Hockei (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary composition, quality and framing. I really like this one. Cmao20 (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp shot and nice water droplets. But could you correct tone (or whatever) to make the colours less dull? and I'd make the reed vertical. Charles (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wow -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 10:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is really good stuff Poco2 23:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Nezara viridula f. torquata MHNT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 23:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Charlesjsharp: As Cmao20 notes, the insect is fairly small. --BoothSift 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The image is interesting for the egg of the fly. It is necessary to notice on the head of the animal a white spot which is an egg of Trichopoda. The larva will parasitize the host and kill him. Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, the egg of the parasitic fly gives value to the image and makes it FPworth imo. --Cayambe (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cayambe --Llez (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Piazza Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli fontana con satiro Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 20:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Spermophilus lateralis, Bryce Canyon National Park, USA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 14:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by KipRobinson - uploaded by KipRobinson - nominated by KipRobinson -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Small and cute.--Vulphere 14:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I so wish I could support this, but I don't think the sharpness on the squirrel is quite good enough, especially seeing it's so small in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Squirrel not in focus --Dktue (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above Charles (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I wish I could support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others--BoothSift 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others and too centered composition. – Lucas 08:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it doesn't look like it's going to overcome this many opposes 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint-Augustin Church Altar 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 08:42:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The altar and dome of Saint-Augustin in Paris, France. Constructed between 1860 and 1868, Saint-Augustin is one of France's most visually distinctive churches, built in an eclectic style inspired by Gothic and Romanesque architecture, and with an interior characterised by cast-iron columns. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm sure David regretted the netting, and that could be the reason or one of the reasons he didn't nominate this photo for FP, but I think it's an FP, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 10:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Banz Deckenfresko Pfingsten 3070549.jpgEdit

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

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

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Dryopteridaceae.
  •   Info Polystichum setiferum 'Cristato Pinnulum', (Soft shield-fern) Beautifully rolling new leaves of this rare little fern. (Height: 30 cm). A rare form that turned out to be extinct at some point. The leaves are wedge-shaped and vary widely. The famous English fern breeder R. Kaye has managed to find him again.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 我喜欢--BoothSift 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 23:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

  •   Comment I full agree. --Hockei (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment They are also providing an excellent diagonal counterpoint to the peak up right. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apollo 11 Lunar Lander - 5927 NASA.jpgEdit

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

  • They are the thrusters that guided the lunar module when landing. I tried to add the right text to the images notes, but since the system is down at the moment that didn't work. As soon as it is up again, please substitute the text with {{pl|1=Dysze RCS}}{{en|1=[[:en:Reaction control system|Reaction control system (RCS)]]}}. --Cart (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, strange... the note is edited, created and saved but the error message pops up anyway. I got three error messages but the notes are there now, see file history. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking care of that before I had a try. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

  • The tool is broken. I will try again tomorrow. Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Famous painting, good reproduction. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - YES - more paintings! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Me gusta--BoothSift 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I guess the last time I saw this painting in person was 2000, but it looks like a good reproduction to me. I hope you will be able to add the names of the missing people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

  Neutral now per below--BoothSift 04:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the composition and size/sharpness of the subject. Charles (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The con arguments are good. I'm no longer sure, so I've struck out my vote and am likely to abstain from voting. I like the photo, but I don't know for sure that it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the branches way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm fine with the luma noise in the background, but the overall softness is a bit disturbing and I'd also blame the TC for that. --Granada (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's the tele converter. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera scutellata 1355021.jpgEdit

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

File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPGEdit

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

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

File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpgEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-7.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info Reflexion of the bridge over Lima river in the water, Ponte da Barca, Portugal. It's worth seing the details. Inspired in three engravings of M.C.Escher (1950, 52 and 55). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could really go with this if it were more abstract and only shows the reflection, but the visible non-reflected parts of the bridge with the messy grass don't work for me. Also the long narrow tube on the bridge, cutting the image in half, is distracting. – Lucas 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 13:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Please get rid of the plants, etc. --BoothSift 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I wouldn't support cloning out the plants. They are part of the scene. I do support opposing the nomination because you don't like the way the plants look in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a better way of putting it, then--BoothSift 03:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This might be the sort of image that wins some photo contests, but it's just not striking enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvesgaspar (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--BoothSift 22:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Misty Minnewanka Lake.jpgEdit

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

  • No idea where you found that template. It might not be counted by the Bot. It is also a bit hazardous since it depends on nothing new happening to the post above it. Please stick to the s, o & n voting templates, not all noms are free to test things on so be respectful to the nominator. --Cart (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) All fixed now, thanks.   --Cart (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Some Portuguese for you if this counts. --BoothSift 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was a bit hesitant at first since I've seen so many similar compositions on Instagram, but it is a nice photo and well executed. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If you come to New Zealand, I'll print this off, ask you to sign it and I'll put it on my wall. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes! --El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, an excellent photo in difficult conditions --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Both tranquil and fascinating! --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be a bit sharper --Llez (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't get it. Charles (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20170917093348 - Caverna do diabo.jpgEdit

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I am back! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, with the blown-out area in the bottom left, but it certainly has wow. Cmao20 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm missing a good perception of depth, the lighting is very flat so it's not pleasing to explore this image. The visible light sources create a feel of artificiality and result in some overexposure per Cmao20. Composition is too symmetrical without any direction. We have some amazing cave FPs and IMHO this is not there. – Lucas 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Are there any Spanish, Japanese, French templates @Eatcha: ? --BoothSift 02:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Boothsift, check the complete list at https://pastebin.com/raw/KuWcxtjd (Just added the strong oppose and n/N in the list, they are allowed from the next run ) -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Gracias. I see that Portuguese also works, if that wasn't added to the list already. --BoothSift 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: What template are you referring to ? You can add it between the nowiki and it will not be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I meant {{apoio}}--BoothSift 05:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: I won't be counted by the bot -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Is there any way to implement it? --BoothSift 06:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: Sure, it can be added to the tuple (support_template) to implement it -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. The light really makes it look flat. --Cart (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sure that's an amazing scene IRL, but I'll have to agree With Lucas & Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Cart and El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't stand out from other pictures of cave/rns. Daniel Case (talk)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The CA and slight lack of sharpness means it doesn't reach the high level of ceiling FPs in my book.--Peulle (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But if the CA could be fixed it would be even better. Slight quality issues don't bother me too much because this isn't the kind of image that demands one 'pixel-peep' - the wow comes from the bold, striking composition rather than from the amount of detail at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and lack of wow for me. This doesn't really constitute a bold composition, more like a trivial/boring one, and it's not even exactly centered ... – Lucas 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it...but...--BoothSift 02:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle even if the CA could be fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle.--Vulphere 13:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on the CA being fixed. Having taken one of our other ceiling FPs, I would consider this an FP too for its striking pattern and symmetry (it might be a little off center, but I think that could be corrected as well, or maybe it's just me). Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Arion for the nomination, i uploaded another version with the chromatic aberration fixed Cart, Vulphere, --Wilfredor (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Ikan may believe that I have lost faith in this nomination, by really I haven't. I misread the discussion(in a rush) and didn't clearly see where it was heading. Therefore, I would like to stay as nominator or conominator. --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous. There can only be one nominator. Would some admin like to put an end to this silliness? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No need, you are the nominator as you wish. I apologize for any difficulties I caused and my actions. --BoothSift 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- BoothSift 06:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great on its own terms, but I find it very similar to this which is already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We already have. Same story than this. Both similar works will be found in the same category next POTY competition. Either a delist and replace or just not this one -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:, @Lucasbosch: and @Ermell: We also have at least 19 FP of the Golden Gate Bridge. At least the two trees are different and please see Cart's comment below. The difference here is vastly greater than those--BoothSift 04:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Explicit comparison here. FP is not about nominating all the good photos that can be featured, but rather to select the finest. This one is not distinctive enough. Same blue sky, same white dune, same brown dune, same kind of dead tree, same time of the day, same angle.   Where's the novelty? I think almost everybody here make the effort to choose significantly original pictures, but of course FPC can also become as boring as watching always the same nominations with very minor variations. In that case many of us will find different playgrounds, because reviewing implies effort and energy, and such redundancies can give the feeling of tiredness -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I remain on Basile's side here. We may have 19 FPs of the Golden Gate Bridge, but to be honest I wouldn't have voted for significant numbers of those either. If we're going to feature pictures of very similar subjects, I would personally only vote yes if there's a significantly different composition, angle or perspective on offer. I know that these aren't the same tree, but to me they're almost identical in composition and colour and so I don't see the need for both to be FP. I won't oppose though because I actually prefer this one to the other one, but I do agree that only one should be featured IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great, and the other one has a very different form and feel, although the elements of the tree and different colors of sand are in common. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I indeed prefer this one. Thank you for the nom, Boothsift! Poco2 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile, I much prefer the existing FP. – Lucas 09:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Ermell (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This one's a lot cleaner than the other one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We also have this and this and people seemed fine with that. Also sorting the sub-galleries of Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural I have come across many similar "pairs" of views and compos, not to mention different flowers against the same sort of backgrounds (sky, lawn or bokeh vegitation are popular). --Cart (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose at different branch tips easy CAs.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that is fixable if we just ask the author nicely. Poco please? --Cart (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Surely Cart, thank you for stepping in. Fischer.H, the CA is cleaned up. --Poco2 19:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

  • This was still a very active discussion. Wasn't it a bit discourteous to withdraw with the vote at 7-4 in favor? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Unwithdrawn by me. I'm now the nominator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Fine, but can we conominate? I didn't see that Poco liked this one better and I missed Cart's comment for some reason. I have regained faith in this nomination and too would like to see where it's headed --BoothSift 03:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You seem to nominate and withdraw at the drop of a hat. You withdrew. Go ahead and observe how the nomination develops, but think a little more deeply the next time you nominate and withdraw. How long did the nomination of that bird above last? If you're really not sure what your opinion is, don't act. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Is it possible to have two nominators? --BoothSift 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I had no concurrent nominations. You are freed up to nominate another photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I do not wish to do so. May I regain my nominator privileges? Thank you for the help--BoothSift 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. What privileges? If you'd like to thank people for voting to support, go wild. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I meant I wish to remain the nominator as I was the original one--BoothSift 05:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Too late. Actions have consequences. Ponder that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Yes, but you didn't even give me time to react. Right off the bat, you went "I am now the nominator" as if I no longer existed. I could have just unwithdrew. Anyways since I am reclaiming this nomination, the bird nom would not comply with the guidelines. I have another nom below. If you wish to express your opinions, please notify me first. And no I am not the only one who withdraws and renominates fairly quickly, am I? --BoothSift 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You acted rashly; I did not, and this discussion is already tiresome. I will not reply further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Since this is your photo, I believe that you should be the rightful nominator if you wish. --BoothSift 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Boothsift: You look now for a third nominator? Ikan took over, I wouldn't change that, unless he requires that. I didn't understand the rush to withdraw this nom, and specially mentioning Cart and me as a reason to do so. Both of us have supported this version and I indeed mentioned that I prefer this version than the current FP. We have no delivery date here, be patient and as Ikan suggested, let us watch how the nom develops. I've sometimes let noms run where I thought there is no way that they succeed, but they did, if that was your concern. Poco2 06:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: I didn't blame you, I said that I withdrew without really reading what you wrote. This means that I changed my mind due to reading your comments. --BoothSift 23:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Boothsift, I didn't get it as a blame, no feelings hurt hete, everything all tight Poco2 09:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Dktue - uploaded by Dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dktue (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like this building and this is a great camera position as the building curves away from us. Lighting looks good as well. The main problem is the building site in front (with the barricade and excavator) and the lion statue not mounted in place yet (it seems to be stored there temporarily). – Lucas 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain because the quality and composition is IMO good enough for FP, but the subject doesn't appeal to me as I have very little appreciation for modernist architecture. I would thus incline to oppose, but it's a matter of taste and I won't vote down a good picture because of my personal aesthetic opinions. Cmao20 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. I recommend re-shooting at a later date.--Peulle (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this very good as a shot that includes work (or actually evidence of work) in progress. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the "prohibited" voting templates, I've fixed yours. – Lucas 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When all the testing and fixing of the FPCBot is done, we will hopefully be able to use all these templates. When/If that happens, the info will be posted on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain I don't understand architecture and won't pretend I do but my comment is in regards of the composition. I miss some more space at the bottom of the picture in proportion to the sky. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose light on left, stuff in foreground. halo around building. Charles (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  •   Comment Sorry, but I often wonder where people take their wisdom to suspect something. There are neither jpg artefacts nor I saved the jpg picture multiple times. I produce my pictures from the raw file. That the DOF is too shallow in your eyes also is not understandable. I used F13. What aperture would you use for more DOF and still get this picture sharp enough? --Hockei (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are certain artifacts/smudgniness and blocks of pixels in your image that seem to be inherent with your camera even after correct processing. Regarding the DoF I'm not saying you could have done any better, sometimes the conditions (positioning of the animals) are unfortunate. I hope this clears it up. – Lucas 10:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see what Lucas means, I used to own a Panasonic camera that made similar blocks of pixels even if processed correctly. It doesn't bother me too much for this picture, which is otherwise a very good and tricky capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm wowed. Really good composition and quite interesting, what with the mating on one side and the molting on the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You can make the photo even more useful by pointing out the position of the mating couple and the molting male dragonfly in your file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fascinating --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good shot, but not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support nice capture Hockei. Would it work better with the post tilted to the vertical? Charles (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It would cut the abdomen (or to close to this) of the female. On the other hand it would not be the reality. --Hockei (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpgEdit

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

  • Of course the resolution is great as with all your photos, but there are architecture shots the same size that don't have quite so much visible noise.  Support because I like the subject, but I still would prefer it if the sky had less noise and also if the CA mentioned by King of Hearts were fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Should have noticed the brown borders. Withdrawing my support until that's fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose shadows interfering with the structure and the immediate surroundings are too much for me. The residential buildings in the background also don't help, maybe a different angle to hide them would have been better. – Lucas 07:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Cmao20: @King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek:@Lucasbosch: Thanks for the review. Fixed CA, dust spots, vignetting and sky-noise. Can't get rid of the houses and shadows, next time I'll use a drone, promise.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better! Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's now a weird brown border around the top of the building. Perhaps an artefact of the CA reduction? -- King of ♠ 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What happend with the left outline of the gable? There is a broad brown border in the sky along the edges (see note). Possibly caused by postprocessing, as it lacks in the previous version. --Llez (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, due to the brown borders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Cmao20: @King of Hearts:@Llez:@Ikan Kekek:@Daniel Case: Thanks for your patience, I hope it will do now --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The brown border is gone, but there's still an obvious dark dust spot to the right of the temple that can be seen at full size on my 13-inch laptop without enlargement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done I hope it's the last. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now, thank you for all the improvements! --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't understand what's happening with the bot, but I support now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpgEdit

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      Info Apparently, yes. I took several photos in the place and the sky appears more or less like this on the western part. I suppose it is related to near saturation in the blue channel (not to colour temperature) in the presence of those clouds. Please notice how the colours look more natural on the right part of this other photo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, why isn't Daniel's comment below proof that the color of the sky is off? As he points out, the sky's reflection in the water is blue, not aqua. Can you explain that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Ikan, scientifically speaking it is actually possible for the reflection of the sky to be a noticeably different colour to the sky itself. The idea that water is a perfect mirror is not actually true, and bodies of water don't appear blue only because they're reflecting the colour of the sky; instead water itself is intrinsically slightly blue. And therefore it should be expected that a light blue/aquamarine sky should be given a deeper blue tinge in its reflection. I don't think there's anything especially implausible about the difference in blue colours between the sky and its reflection here. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you Cmao20, you are quite right. We know, for example, that lower wavelengths (reds) are absorbed in the upper layers making reflections bluer. Other conditions have direct effects on the color of the water (and thus on the reflected sky) such as depth and the presence of organic matter. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The water from my tap doesn't look blue to me. I take note of this explanation, though. That great a difference in the colors of the sky and the reflection is hard for me to accept, but I wasn't there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Daniel, your argument doesn't make sense to me. A blue apple being reflected in a weird surface making it look red there doesn't fix the color of the real apple, right? – Lucas 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Is the sky in this image red like an apple? Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Daniel, no, this was just an example to show why I don't believe in your argument with the colors. – Lucas 19:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Wed 22 May → Mon 27 May
Thu 23 May → Tue 28 May
Fri 24 May → Wed 29 May
Sat 25 May → Thu 30 May
Sun 26 May → Fri 31 May
Mon 27 May → Sat 01 Jun

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

Sat 18 May → Mon 27 May
Sun 19 May → Tue 28 May
Mon 20 May → Wed 29 May
Tue 21 May → Thu 30 May
Wed 22 May → Fri 31 May
Thu 23 May → Sat 01 Jun
Fri 24 May → Sun 02 Jun
Sat 25 May → Mon 03 Jun
Sun 26 May → Tue 04 Jun
Mon 27 May → Wed 05 Jun

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

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

Closing a delisting requestEdit

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

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the 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/May 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.